The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an advocate cannot be held criminally liable solely for failing to verify the authenticity of a power of attorney provided by a litigant for filing a case. The Court emphasized that, under normal circumstances, an advocate is not required to independently verify the genuineness of such documents, as their role is primarily to represent their client based on the information and paperwork provided.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while discharging an advocate from criminal charges related to cheating, forgery, and other offences. The ruling reinforces the principle that legal professionals cannot be burdened with criminal liability merely for relying on documents furnished by their clients in good faith.
"When a litigant claiming to be a power of attorney holder of others, approaches a member of the Bar and shows him the original power of attorney and engages him to file a case, the Advocate is not expected to get the genuineness of the power of attorney verified."
The appellant, a practicing advocate, approached the Supreme Court of India seeking discharge from a criminal trial involving multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case pertained to charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), 474 (possession of forged documents), 166 (public servant disobeying law), 167 (public servant preparing incorrect documents), 193 (false evidence), 196 (false certificate), 199 (false statement in a judicial proceeding), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 203 (giving false information), 255 (counterfeiting government stamps), 260, 261, 262, and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The allegations against the appellant stemmed from the filing of a Tenancy Case on behalf of another accused, allegedly based on a fabricated power of attorney. However, the Supreme Court, upon reviewing the facts, observed that the vakalatnama (authorization for legal representation) had been signed by the power of attorney holder, while the petition itself had also been signed and verified by the same individual. This led the Court to critically examine whether the advocate could be held liable for merely relying on the power of attorney provided by the litigant.
"Taking the assertions in the charge-sheet as correct, we find that no case was made out to proceed against the appellant and to frame charge against him," the Court observed discharging the appellant. However, the Court clarified that it has not dealt with the allegations against the other accused.
info@adhwaitha.com
