Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 909
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Anand Singh Son Of Dayal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4405 Of 2025
Decided On : 20-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - NDPS - Right to Property
Act Referred
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT : S.5, S.7
POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT : S.1(a)
REGISTRATION ACT : S.38, S.38(1)(b)
RAJASTHAN PRISONERS RULES : R.202, R.526
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.102, S.83
Headnote
(B) Statutory Framework for Registration - Section 38 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that a person in jail under civil or criminal process is exempt from personal appearance at the registration office. The registering officer shall either go to the jail or issue a commission for examination of such person. (Para 11)
(C) Prison Rules - Rule 202 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 2022 provides facilities for under-trial prisoners including delegation of power of attorney. Rule 526 of the Rules of 2022 permits every convicted prisoner, at the discretion of the Superintendent, to sign and attest a power of attorney concerning his or her properties. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Anand Singh, a pre-convict prisoner lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur in connection with Sessions Case No.54/2020 under NDPS Act, filed an application seeking directions to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur to allow him to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Dilip Singh and get it attested and registered within the jail premises. The Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I rejected the application on the ground that there is a possibility that the petitioner might have purchased the property from proceeds of crime. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the order of the Special Judge was based on mere imagination and hypothesis. No evidence was produced by the respondent to show that the property was purchased from proceeds of crime. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur to attest the General Power of Attorney and get it registered. (Paras 7, 18)
Issues: Whether a pre-convict/under trial prisoner has the right to execute a General Power of Attorney from jail to sell his property? Whether the Sessions Court was justified in refusing permission on the ground of possibility that the property might have been purchased from proceeds of crime?
Ratio Decidendi: A pre-convict/under trial prisoner retains all civil rights including the right to alienate his property under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, subject to statutory restrictions. Mere incarceration does not result in 'civil death'. The Registration Act, 1908 and Rajasthan Prison Rules, 2022 provide a mechanism for execution and registration of documents within jail premises. The court cannot refuse permission on a hypothetical ground without any evidence. (Paras 8, 9, 11, 12, 17) Result : Petition allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Anutosh Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Singh Poonia, SPP, Mr. Manevendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.06.2025, passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, seeking directions to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur to allow the petitioner to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Dilip Singh and also get the said General Power of Attorney attested and registered within the jail premises.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been arrested in a criminal case and he is facing trial in Sessions Case No.54/2020 before the Court of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur, Metropolitan-I he is not in a position to execute the General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Dilip Singh, unless the same is registered by the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Jaipur and attested by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur in the jail premises itself. Counsel submits that the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is critical, hence, certain part of a jointly owned property, as described in the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, is required to be sold. However, the Court below has declined to issue the direction, as sought for in the petitioner's application, on a hypothetical & imaginary ground that there is a possibility that the petitioner might have purchased the property mentioned in the General Power of Attorney from the proceeds of crime.
3. Counsel further submits that neither any evidence was collected by the Investigating Agency, at the time of submission of charge-sheet nor any such evidence has been led during the course of trial, to show that the said property has been purchased by the petitioner from the proceeds of crime. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the direction sought for, by the petitioner, may be issued.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial has reached its fag end and there are chances that the petitioner might have purchased the property, as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney, from the proceeds of the crime, therefore, the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
6. Considering the argument put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it appears that the petitioner is the co-owner of the property, as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney and looking to the fact that the petitioner is a pre-convict prisoner, lodged in the Central Jail, Jaipur in connection with the Sessions Case No.54/2020, he is not in a position to execute the General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Dilip Singh, with respect to jointly owned property, as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney and therefore, he is not in a position to sell the same to satisfy the needs of his family members, who are suffering from financial crisis.
7. No proof has been produced on the record by the respondents to show that the aforesaid property, as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney, has been purchased by the petitioner from the proceeds of crime. Unless and until such evidence is made available on record of the Trial Court, it cannot be presumed simply on the basis of one's imagination that the aforesaid property has been purchased by the petitioner from the proceeds of crime.
8. A person, against whom an FIR is lodged, has the fundamental right to take care of his property or alienate the same by way of sale, in case, necessity so arises. He cannot
