petitioner herein is that she was the licensed document writer and scribe and that she had prepared the document without conducting an inquiry with regard to the title of the property. In the final report, the purchaser has been cited as CW3. From his statement, it is obvious that his interaction was with the 1st accused and he had no occasion to request the petitioner to enquire into the title of the 1st accused. When the person who wanted the document to be executed approaches the document writer and produces documents and does not require an inquiry into the title, it would be far-fetched to expect the document writer to conduct a roving enquiry and to obtain records prior to drafting the document. Situation would have been different if the prosecution had a case that CW3 had inquired with the petitioner and she gave false information that the title of the assignor was clear and that there are no encumbrances. In that view of the matter, there is no question of the offence under Section 420 and 406 being attracted against the petitioner. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had forged any document or that she had used any document as genuine with intent to cheat. All that she had done is prepare an assignment deed at the instance of the 1st accused on the strength of the available documents which were handed over. In that view of the matter, the offenses under Sections 465, 466, 468 and 471 also will not be attracted.
