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