The Supreme Court of India has clarified that an advocate cannot be held criminally liable for failing to verify the authenticity of a power of attorney (PoA) provided by a litigant to file a case. The ruling was delivered in the case of Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around an advocate who had been accused of filing a tenancy case based on an allegedly fabricated power of attorney. The appellant, an advocate, was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), 467, 468, 471, 474, and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy).

The allegations suggested that the advocate, in collusion with the main accused, used a fraudulent power of attorney to file Tenancy Case No. 57/2001. Further, it was claimed that impersonation took place, as one of the original landowners, Somiben Maganbhai, had already passed away, yet her name was included in the case.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Reviews Centre's Unified Pension Scheme to Address Judicial Officers' Pension Concerns

The Supreme Court, after examining the charge sheet and related documents, observed:

"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, unless he has a reasonable doubt about its authenticity."

The Court further noted that the tenancy application and verification clause were signed by the power of attorney holder, not the advocate. Additionally, the depositions recorded in the tenancy case bore signatures and thumb impressions of the litigants but were attested by another person, not the appellant.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant and discharged him from the criminal case. It stated:

"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."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Verdict: Power of Attorney with Agreement to Sell Cannot Confer Ownership

The Court overturned the decisions of both the Trial Court and the Gujarat High Court, which had previously rejected the advocate’s discharge application. However, it clarified that the ruling was limited to the advocate's case and did not extend to the other accused persons in the matter.

• Advocates are not expected to verify the genuineness of a power of attorney unless they have reasonable grounds to doubt its authenticity.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that an advocate’s duty is to represent their client, and they cannot be held accountable for the fraudulent actions of their clients unless they are directly involved.
• This ruling provides clarity on the role and responsibility of legal practitioners in cases where fraudulent documents are presented by litigants.

Case : Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel vs The State of Gujarat