Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. by PW-2-M.G.Dattathreya, younger brother of the deceased complainant-M.G.Shantha Kumar, challenging the order dated 8.6.2012 made on I.A.No.10 in S.C.No.705/2008 on the file of the Fast Tract Court-V, Bangalore City. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner’s elder brother Shantha Kumar against Nagendra Reddy and another for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the IPC. On production of Cyber Forensic Analysis Report during trial by the expert witness, the petitioner came to know that Sri. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, Sudhama Nagar, Bangalore, and Sri.B.V.Ravi, Advocate, Sampangiramanagar, Bangalore, have abetted the commission of offence by the proposed respondents/accused and they are liable to be punished under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court to add the above-said Advocates as accused in the Sessions Case, but the learned Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application though a prima-facie case is made out against the proposed accused for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC. 3. Learned HCGP submits that there is no whisper about the alleged abetment of commission of crime by the proposed accused in the complaint or in the statement of witnesses viz. PWs.1 to 34. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and there is no merit in the revision petition. 4. Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 facing trial, submits that as the Sessions Case is pending since 2008, this Court, by an order dated 8.3.2012 made in Crl.P No. 1187/2012 has directed the trial Court to dispose of the case within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But, the petitioner, with an intention to harass the respondents/accused, has adopted a method for protracting the proceedings and there is no merit in the revision petition. 5. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, “Whether the impugned order calls for interference by this Court?” 6. My answer to the above point is in the negative, for the following reasons. 5. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, “Whether the impugned order calls for interference by this Court?” 6. My answer to the above point is in the negative, for the following reasons. The petitioner being the younger brother of the deceased complainant and a witness (PW-2) filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to add the advocates as accused Nos.3 and 4. The proposed advocate accused No.4-B.V.Ravi has drafted the Sale Deed (Ex.P.16). It is the case of the petitioner that Prasanna Kumar-proposed accused No.3 and B V Ravi-Proposed accused No.4 are colleagues and there is evidence on record that Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, also drafted the sale deed. Therefore, it is contended that both the accused are responsible for drafting the Sale Deed at Ex.P.16 and they knew that accused would delete a paragraph below 1(a) at page No.5 of the sale deed pertaining to payment of sale consideration of Rs.63 crores by Demand Draft and thus to defraud the vendor by showing lower sale consideration as Rs.7/- crores as against Rs.80/- crores. Merely because Sri Prasanna Kumar and Sri B V Ravi were in the same Office and that Sri Prasanna Kumar has drafted an agreement with reference to the same property a few months prior to Ex.P-16, for a sale consideration Rs.80 crores, is not sufficient to rope them in the case. Sale deed at Ex.P-6 does not show that Sri Prasanna Kumar has drafted the sale deed. Therefore, the applicant’s request to add Sri Prasanna Kumar as an accused is without any merit. Furthermore, solely because sale deed at Ex.P-16 was drafted by Sri B V Ravi, it is not sufficient to rope him in the criminal case. An agreement of sale or sale deed are drafted by Advocates, as instructed by their clients. Further, there is no material placed on record to show that the proposed Advocates were present while deleting the paragraph below 1(a) at page-5 of the sale deed-Ex.P16. There is no prima facie case made out by the petitioner to implead the Advocates as co-accused. Furthermore, during trial, none of the 34 witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed as to the alleged abetment of the crime by the proposed accused. There is no prima facie case made out by the petitioner to implead the Advocates as co-accused. Furthermore, during trial, none of the 34 witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed as to the alleged abetment of the crime by the proposed accused. It is not out of place to mention that if there were to be any evidence connecting the proposed accused, it is the duty of the Court to take steps to include the offenders to face trial. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of material placed on record, has rightly reached the conclusion that there was no prima facie case made out against the proposed accused and the impugned order not call for interference. 7. In the result, I pass the following order: Revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. 8. As the four months’ time granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.1187/2012, for disposal of S.C.705/2008, has already expired, and the stage of the Session Case is for recording statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court is directed to dispose of S.C.No.705/2008 on or before 28.2.2013, in accordance with law.