JUDGMENT : The petitioner, after his failed attempt before the court below, has approached this Court against the order dated 06.02.2018 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.63 of 2018 by which his discharge-petition has been dismissed. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that an act of omission, if not proved intentional, would not constitute an offence under sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 3. Briefly stated, on a written complaint from the Punjab National Bank a First Information Report vide R.C. 06(S)/2014-EOW-R was registered on 02.05.2014 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and cognizance for the aforesaid offences was taken by the learned Magistrate. At this stage, the petitioner and other co-accused persons have filed their discharge-petition under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, who is the Panel Advocate for the Punjab National Bank, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur, contends that in course of rendering professional advice if the advice rendered by him has been found not correct, it would not incur criminal liability. 4. The learned court has found that the petitioner and the another Panel Advocate namely, Kailash Kumar Agarwal were required to give their opinion on the property sought to be tendered as security by the loanee for availing loan, on the basis of the sale-deed, mutation correction slips, rent receipts etc. There is an allegation against the accused persons that in collusion with the Bank Manager the loanee moved an application for loan in which the Panel Advocates were required to give their opinion. What would constitute the offence of cheating has been explained by the Supreme Court in “Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.” reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , thus; 32. What would constitute the offence of cheating has been explained by the Supreme Court in “Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.” reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , thus; 32. “The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.” 5. In “Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 561 , the Supreme Court on the ingredients of the criminal breach of trust has observed thus; 16. “According to Section 405 IPC, the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. “10. … The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.” 6. The witnesses examined during the investigation have made allegations against the accused persons including the petitioner. One of the allegations against the petitioner is that he has rendered a favourable opinion in-spite of the fact that the sale-deed, mutation correction slips and rent receipts were forged and fabricated. The witnesses examined during the investigation have made allegations against the accused persons including the petitioner. One of the allegations against the petitioner is that he has rendered a favourable opinion in-spite of the fact that the sale-deed, mutation correction slips and rent receipts were forged and fabricated. It is well accepted that at this stage, that is, at the stage of framing of charge, all that the court is required to find out is whether a prima-facie case has been made out for framing charge against the accused person. A roving enquiry into the veracity of the prosecution evidence/pre-trial evidence is not permissible. The trial Judge having considered the materials brought on record has come to a definite finding that there is sufficient material on record for framing charge for the offence as alleged, against the petitioner. Stand taken by the petitioner that mistake which has crept in the legal opinion rendered by him was not intentional is a defence put forth by the accused- petitioner which he is required to establish, prima-facie, during the trial by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and producing defence witness, if any. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, finding no merit in this petition, Cr. Revision No.423 of 2018 is dismissed.