JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R vide Misc. Criminal Application No.762 of 2019 by which the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case has been rejected and against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed in R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R by which the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, has been framed against the petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bagty @ Deepak Kumar Bagti. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being a practicing Advocate in a fraudulent manner intentionally drafted the recitals of the sale deeds bearing no. 3745 and 3739 and deliberately omitted to incorporate the conditions laid down by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella -Kharsawan that the transfer of the land was for the sole purpose of setting up an industry and such condition was imposed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 49 (2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 but the petitioner was instrumental in mentioning in the two sale deeds that “The sellers have delivered possession of the schedule below property to the purchaser and from this day the purchaser will possess and enjoy the same as absolute owner in all possible ways with power to dispose of the same by way of sale, gift, mortgage or any other way whatsoever in manner he/it likes” meaning thereby such recitals of the said two sale deeds gave impression that no condition was imposed at the time of according permission and it is further alleged that this conduct of the petitioner shows his meeting of mind with the co-accused persons of the case who borrowed huge amount of money as loan from a Nationalized Bank by misusing the subsequent deeds of sale executed by the purchasers of the said two sale deeds drafted by the petitioner. It is then alleged that there is also allegation that non-mentioning of the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner while according permission for sale in the said two sale deeds, by the petitioner paved the way for fraudulent drafting of subsequent sale deeds by Deed Writer namely Sri. It is then alleged that there is also allegation that non-mentioning of the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner while according permission for sale in the said two sale deeds, by the petitioner paved the way for fraudulent drafting of subsequent sale deeds by Deed Writer namely Sri. S.K. Mahto and registration of the same being sale deed nos.393 and 3963 by which the co-accused persons sold out the same land as mentioned in the earlier two sale deeds- the recitals of which were drafted by the petitioner; to other co-accused persons though such sale was not permissible in view of the provision of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he had drafted the sale deeds on the instruction of the executant of the sale deeds. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before execution of the sale deeds; permission in terms of Section 49 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan vide T.A. Misc. Case No.12/2008-09 in respect of the sale deed no.3739 of the year 2008 of the office of District Sub-Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan and vide T.A. Misc. Case No.10 of 2008-09 in respect of the sale deed no.3745 of the year 2008 also of the office of District Sub-Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan and the case number of the respective permission case has been mentioned in the first page of each of the said two sale deeds, a copy of each of the first page of the said two sale deeds have been annexed as Annexure-7 and 6 respectively of this criminal revision petition. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order sheets of the respective permission cases, passed by the Deputy Commissioner that is T.A. Misc. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order sheets of the respective permission cases, passed by the Deputy Commissioner that is T.A. Misc. No.10 of 2008-09 as well as 12 of 2008-09, the Deputy Commissioner has mentioned that the draft of the sale deed which was drafted by the petitioner was seen by him and on being satisfied, he accorded the permission and the same drafts of sale deeds, taking into consideration of which, upon going through the contents of the same, permission was accorded by Deputy Commissioner, have been executed by the seller of the sale deeds, with which the petitioner is associated in capacity of being an advocate were presented for registration in the Office of the District Sub-Registrar. It is then submitted by Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no mandatory prescribed format for recital of the sale deed and the same is decided as per the convenience and agreement of the executant thereof with the purchaser hence, mere non-mentioning of the condition of the sale in the respective sale deeds, imposed by the Deputy Commissioner though undisputedly reference of the permission case numbers has been mentioned in both the sale deeds, will not amount to suppression of facts as Section 49 (3) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 envisages imposition of such conditions thus the executant of the subsequent sale deeds, who purchased the concerned land by the said sale deeds which were drafted by the petitioner or anybody acting upon such sale deeds are not entitled to show ignorance about such conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of Section 49 (3) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. It is further submitted that though this facts were agitated before the learned trial court but the learned trial court without application of mind and apparent error on the record by being under the impression that the petitioner intentionally drafted the said two sale deeds in a fraudulent manner, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged from the case and has illegally framed charges against the petitioner with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for execution of sale deed in violation of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 bearing no.393 and 3963 with which the petitioner was no way associated and the same having been admittedly drafted by Sri S.K. Mahto, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned trial court in connection with R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R vide Misc. Criminal Application No.762 of 2019 by which the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case has been rejected and the order dated 09.08.2019 passed in R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner be set aside and the petitioner be discharge from the case. 5. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that since charge has already been framed hence, the trial be permitted to be taken to its logical end. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principal of law that an Advocate acts as per the instruction of his client. As has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court India in the case of CBI, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 (paragraph -31) 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 penal offences along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. 7. 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 penal offences along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. 7. The two sale deeds which were drafted by the petitioner in capacity of an Advocate was undisputedly, gone through by the Competent Authority for according permission for execution of such sale deeds in terms of Section 49 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 being the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan and after application of his mind, he has accorded permission for execution of the sale deeds and there is no allegation that any departure was made from the draft sale deeds which were placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Seriakella-Kharsawan in connection with T.A. Misc. Case Nos.10 of 2008-09 and 12 of 2008-09 respectively, at the time of the actual presentation for registration before the office of District Sub-Registrar. Further the said two sale deeds drafted by the petitioner were not used for mortgage rather the subsequent sale deeds executed by the purchasers of the sale deed which are drafted by the petitioner were used fraudulently for the purpose of mortgage with the bank. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is insufficient to frame charge for any of offence against the petitioner in this case on the basis of the allegations made against him and the learned trial court erroneously rejected the prayer for discharge without properly appreciating the allegations made against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi vide Misc. Criminal Application No.762 of 2019 arising out of R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R so far as it relates to the present petitioner, is indefensible and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and consequently, the order dated 09.08.2019 passed in R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R is also set aside and the petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bagty @ Deepak Kumar Bagti is discharged in connection with R.C. 06 (S)/2015-EOW-R. 8. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed.