ORDER : This revision is preferred by the petitioner-A.13 challenging the order of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam in Crl. M.P. No. 764 of 2005 in C.C. No. 15 of 2004 dated 31.12.2009, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him of all the charges levelled against him. 2. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, the lands belonging to A.6 to A.12 and A.14 were acquired for Visakhapatnam Port Trust in an extent of 15 acres in Sy. No. 1/2 of Kancharapalem and an extent of Ac. 18.39 cents in Sy. No. 3/1, 3/2 and 4 of Kancharapalem belongs to A.6 and A.14. Though the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1972, the process of acquisition was prolonged for over a period of 25 years and ultimately after the final verdict of the Supreme Court of India, the Land Acquisition Officer-A.2 initiated negotiations with the concerned officials of Port Trust and the claimants and arrived at compensation at Rs. 800/- per sq.yd. in Sy. No. 1/2 of Kancharapalem village and Rs. 900/- per sq.yd. in respect of other lands. It is alleged that before arriving at the said rate, the petitioner who is appearing as advocate on behalf of some of the claimants therein obtained a market value certificate from the Sub-Registrar's Office by giving a declaration that the market value of the land was Rs. 1,800/- per sq.yd. saying that the said certificate was required for valuation of the lands for Court fee purpose, but however, A.6, A.13 and the land owners-A.7 to A.12 used the certificate to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per sq.yd. during the negotiations on 4.10.1995. The further allegation against the petitioner is that on 2.12.1996 he had issued a legal notice to the Special Tahasildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam in December, 1996 to pay compensation amount to his clients within one week in compliance of the orders of this Court or else proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act would be initiated. The further allegation against the petitioner is that on 2.12.1996 he had issued a legal notice to the Special Tahasildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam in December, 1996 to pay compensation amount to his clients within one week in compliance of the orders of this Court or else proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act would be initiated. Thus it is alleged that the petitioner by producing the market value certificate from Sub-Registrar's office showing the market value at higher rate allowed A.6 and A.14 to obtain undue pecuniary advantage and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 120-B IPC r/w Sections 416, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material available on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no whisper against the petitioner to show that he had conspired with other accused at any point of time except issuing notice on behalf of his clients and submitting the valuation certificate. It is further contended that to constitute an office under criminal conspiracy, there must be guilty of overt act on the part of the petitioner but in the entire charge sheet, there is no whisper against the petitioner that he had conspired with the other accused in any way for the purpose of committing the substantial offences. It is contended that in the absence of any prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner had conspired with the other accused, the petitioner cannot be charged under Section 120-B IPC or under the other substantial offences as alleged. It is also contended that the Sub-Registrar, who issued the valuation certificate to the petitioner was not found fault in the proceedings initiated by A.C.B. 5. After perusal of the entire record and after hearing the rival contentions, the allegations made against the petitioner are as follows : "(i). On 2.12.1996, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the then Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam, informing him on behalf of the petitioner's clients, that they would be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings including the proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, if the compensation was not paid to his clients within one week in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. (ii) With a view to passing a consent award under Section 11(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, when the meeting of the Negotiations Committee was convened by A2 (the District Collector), the petitioner participated in the negotiations along with his client (A6), which is in violation of Rule 10(xii) of A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992. (iii) On 30th September, 1995, the petitioner obtained the so-called market value certificate from the Special Registrar's Office by giving a declaration that the market value of the land was 1,800 per square yard, and that the certificate was required for valuation of the land for the purpose of Court fee. During the negotiations on 4.10.1995, A2 decided a rate of Rs. 800/- per sq.yard on the basis of certificate obtained by the petitioner at Rs. 1800/- per square yard. This resulted in payment of excess compensation." 6. The said three allegations reveal that the petitioner herein issued a notice on behalf of some of the accused, who are his clients and participated in the negotiations by producing a market value certificate. As far as the production of market value certificate is concerned, it is argued and also accepted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that in the State of A.P., when there is a claim for compensation under Land Acquisition proceedings, the parties-claimants are allowed to produce valuation certificate on the basis of self-assessment for determining the fair market value. It is also not the case of the prosecution that that the certificate produced by the petitioner on behalf of his clients is either forged or manipulated. As far as issuance of notice to officials demanding payment of compensation is concerned, the said notice was issued upon the instructions of his clients and furthermore the petitioner has got every right to issue such a notice to the authorities concerned to establish the rights of his clients. Regarding the other allegation that the petitioner has participated in the negotiations, even though the same was prohibited, this Court is of the view the authorities having allowed the petitioner to participate in the negotiations, now cannot turn around and question the same subsequently. Further it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner participated in the negotiations through any illegal manner. Further it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner participated in the negotiations through any illegal manner. The rule position in connection with participation of a third party in the negotiations is as follows : "Rule 10(xii): Although the Negotiations Committee will hear the ryots, and other parties interested in the lands, it will however discourage middle-men or advocates in the negotiations to ensure that the interest of the Pattedars are protected and compensation payable goes only to concerned Pattedars/interested persons." 7. A perusal of the above rule, the rulemaking authority felt it desirable to discourage the participation of middlemen or advocates. Hence, this Court is of the view that mere participation of an advocate in the negotiations would not amount to commission of any offence. 8. As far as the allegation of production of market value certificate by the petitioner is concerned, on perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner produced a market value certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam showing the property value at Rs. 800/- per square yard, which is based on the declaration of the petitioner. From the material gathered by the prosecution, it is evident that the certificate was obtained on 30th September, 1995. From the statement of Sri G.V. Rajendra Prasad, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Achutapuram, Visakhapatnam District, who was examined as LW-, the Joint Collector inspected the land under acquisition on 11.09.1995 and also on 18.09.1995, along with the Land Acquisition Officer, and the field staff. After the said inspection, the Jt. Collector, had recorded a detailed note under his own handwriting at note pages 146 to 148 of the file. From the notings, it is explicit that the Joint Collector has recorded the basic value of the land as on the date of draft notification as Rs. 1800/- per square yard. The petitioner has simply reflected the figure fixed by the Joint Collector, without adding anything of his own. 9. It is a matter of record, that, earlier A1 to A3 in the above crime filed Criminal Revision case Nos. 534, 605, 606/2010 respectively on the file of this Hon'ble Court, questioning the three orders dated : 31.12.2009 passed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in Cr. M.P. No. 540/2005, 830/2005 and 132/2009 in CC. 9. It is a matter of record, that, earlier A1 to A3 in the above crime filed Criminal Revision case Nos. 534, 605, 606/2010 respectively on the file of this Hon'ble Court, questioning the three orders dated : 31.12.2009 passed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in Cr. M.P. No. 540/2005, 830/2005 and 132/2009 in CC. No. 15/2004, by which petitions filed by A1 to A3 under Section 230 Cr.P.C., were dismissed refusing to discharge them. Para-14 of the common order, through which all the three revision cases were allowed, learned single Judge of this Hon'ble Court observed as follows: "Para-14:..... During the negotiations, the land holders, as per allegations in the charge sheet itself, demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard. The said claim was on the basis of basic registration value certificate obtained by A-13 from the Registrar's Office. No doubt, basic registration value is meant to be adopted for the purpose of registration of documents and also for the purpose of determining value of property in civil court for collection of court fees thereon. But, for P.V. Statement prepared by the previous Joint Collector at the rate of Rs. 350/- and Rs. 233-35 ps per sq. yard, there must be statutory or legal basis. The then Joint Collector (witness No. 26 of the charge sheet) was not the Land Acquisition Officer. When questioned by this court as to under what authority and power, such PV statements are prepared and approve behind the scene before passing award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI stated that though there are no rules or regulations or statutory guidelines under the L.A. Act empowering a Joint Collector to prepare a PV statement behind the back of Land Acquisition Officer in practice, such exercise of preparing PV statement is made by the Revenue Department. It is not as if an award was passed under Section 11 of the L.A. Act by the Land Acquisition Officer incorporation details contained in PV statement. Preparation of PV statement is not “be all and end all” of the land acquisition proceedings. The prosecution simply relied upon PV statement as a pious and a final document which cannot be meddled with. Preparation of PV statement is not “be all and end all” of the land acquisition proceedings. The prosecution simply relied upon PV statement as a pious and a final document which cannot be meddled with. At best, it can be taken as a basic minimum value or which negotiations for fixation of compensation can be started from the Government side" 10. Further it is evident on record that the principal contention of the investigating agency is that initially the Joint Collector fixed the basic market value of the lands under acquisition @ Rs. 350/- per square yard. The farmers of the property claimed Rs. 2,000/- per square yard. The petitioner on behalf of his clients produced a certificate showing the value of the property at Rs. 1800/- per square yard. Ultimately, compensation was awarded at Rs. 800/- per square yard. 11. Strictly speaking, if Rs. 350/- is to be taken as basic value, then compensation @ Rs. 800/- is neither gross nor exorbitant, provided one is to take into account, the solatium at 30% additional market value at 12%, interest on all the three components, i.e., the market value, solatium and additional market value at 9% for the first year, and 15% for the rest of the years. When once a consent award is passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, the land owners will lose the right of reference under Section 18 of the Act. If all these above factors are taken into account, fixing the compensation @ Rs. 800/- per square yard, even by taking Rs. 350/- per sq. yard as the basic value, is not exorbitant. On the other hand, the award was not passed based on the valuation certificate produced by the petitioner. 12. Further, as per the Sub-Registrar, who was examined as LW-41, the Registrar LW42, and the Junior Assistant in Sub-Registrar's Office as LW43, the certificate produced by the petitioner is genuine. In the light of the above circumstances, the production of valuation certificate by the petitioner does not amount to violation of any law, nor does it attract any penal consequences. 13. Hence, this Court is of the view that mere participation of the petitioner in the negotiations as an advocate on behalf of his clients for determination of market value, by no stretch of imagination attract an offence to be charged. 13. Hence, this Court is of the view that mere participation of the petitioner in the negotiations as an advocate on behalf of his clients for determination of market value, by no stretch of imagination attract an offence to be charged. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao the Apex Court while dealing with the acts of an advocate, who was charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 109 IPC, laid down the proposition as follows: "26) Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators. 27) However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an "unremitting loyalty" to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer's responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. It is further made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution. Such tangible materials are lacking in the case of the respondent herein." 14. In the present case also, this Court is of the view that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has conspired with anyone of the officials or actively participated to cause wrongful loss to any authorities concerned except establishing the legal rights of his clients. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the charges. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court. The petitioner is hereby discharged from the charges framed. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.