Judgment Heard Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.S. Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. I have also heard Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, learned Advocate for the complainant/intervenor. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 3. The applicant along with four other accused has been charge-sheeted for offence punishable u/ss. 306, 420, 468 and 471 r/ws. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The applicant is admittedly a Petition Writer (popularly known as "attorney" in villages) and is working at Achalpur. The name of the deceased was Suresh Bondre. It is the case of the prosecution that Suresh Bondre had an agricultural land which the accused no.1 Pramod got sold in the name of his wife Vandana for a much lesser price than the market value of the land. Deceased Suresh Bondre, therefore, felt cheated by Pramod, who was the erstwhile partner of the deceased. Suresh Bondre, therefore, committed suicide and left a suicide note. In the said suicide note, he had made certain allegations against the accused no.1-Pramod which indicate that he felt cheated by Pramod. The land, in fact, was not a barren land but it was a fertile land. It is stated in the suicide note the value received by the deceased, was not in accordance with the market value. The accused No.2 in the said case is one Vijay -accused no.3 was Vandana, wife of accused no.1 Pramod. Sale-deed was executed in favour of Mrs. Vandana. I am told that she has now been discharged by the trial Court. Accused no.4 Kishor is one of the employees of accused no.1-Pramod and he is a witness to the execution of the document in question. Accused no.5 is the present applicant. 5. It is alleged by the prosecution that due to the act on the part of accused no.1 which was in furtherance of common intention of all the accused, deceased Suresh Bondre had committed suicide. Therefore, Sec. 306 r/w. 34 IPC has been made applicable as far as cheating and forgery is concerned. It is alleged that a forged document was executed and the deceased was cheated. 6. Without going into the merits of the charge, what is necessary to be examined in the present Application is the role of the applicant. The applicant was admittedly a Petition Writer and he has admittedly scribed the sale deed in question. It is alleged that a forged document was executed and the deceased was cheated. 6. Without going into the merits of the charge, what is necessary to be examined in the present Application is the role of the applicant. The applicant was admittedly a Petition Writer and he has admittedly scribed the sale deed in question. It is alleged that he had shared intention of the prime accused-Pramod. However, there is no material at all of any nature on record to indicate that he had shared the intention, if any, of the prime accused Pramod. 7. The learned trial Court has rejected the Application filed by the applicant for grant of discharge. The learned trial Court considered the allegation that the consideration of the property was not at all paid to the deceased and that the said fact will have to be determined during the course of the trial. The learned trial Court also took the view that the role of the applicant will have to be determined during the course of trial and not at a pre-trial stage. 8. The learned trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the Petition Writer was not supposed, by any law or practice, to see that the consideration was paid to the vendor of the property, of which the document was scribed by the Petition Writer. It is not the case of the prosecution nor there is any rule to show that it was the duty of the Petition Writer/Scribe to see that proper consideration is paid to the vendor. The applicant/accused no.5 (now numbered as accused no.4) was simply Scribe of the document and he had no other role to play in the whole episode. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has adopted a short-cut method and has not really considered the submissions made before it. The order of learned trial Court dated 3.1.2011 therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, learned Advocate for the original complainant has taken me through the statements of two witnesses, namely, Pramod Khanderai and Kondiba Jawalkar. The statements of these two witnesses only indicate that the applicant was Scribe of the document in question. There is nothing in their statements to indicate that the applicant was part of either the conspiracy or he shared the intention of other accused. The statements of these two witnesses only indicate that the applicant was Scribe of the document in question. There is nothing in their statements to indicate that the applicant was part of either the conspiracy or he shared the intention of other accused. In the circumstances, the order of learned trial Judge will have to be set aside and the applicant will have to be discharged of all charges levelled against him in the chargesheet bearing Sessions Trial No.2/2006. Hence, I pass the following order.:- Criminal Revision Application No.110/2011 is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 3.1.2011 (below Exh. 68) is set aside. The applicant is discharged of all of the charges levelled against him in Sessions Trial No.2/2006. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Revision Application is disposed off accordingly.