A power of attorney holder cannot be held criminally liable for the principal's prior fraudulent acts solely by virtue of the agency, as the agent is not responsible for acts occurring before the creation of the agency or acts outside the scope of their authority.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside the FIR being CR No.11193003201041 of 2020 registered with Amreli City Police Station, Amreli for offences punishable under Sections 193, 177, 260, 465, 467, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 484, 420, 120B and Section 470 of the Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

3. The petitioner states that he is not named in the FIR nor there are any allegations leveled against him to array him as an accused. The petitioner states that he is holding a power of attorney dated 28/06/2011 given to him by accused no.1 Valibhai Sulemanbhai Metar and states that the said power of attorney was notarized on 19/07/2011 and on the basis of power entrusted to him by accused Valibhai Sulemanbhai Metar, he is representing the cases pending before the revenue authority. He states that only role of the petitioner is to engage the lawyer and submit necessary replies on behalf of accused no.1 under his instruction. The petitioner has only represented accused no.1 in five cases before the revenue authority noted in the FIR. He states that he was not power of attorney holder at the time when allegedly forged documents were submitted before the Collector in the year 2007-2008.

4. Mr. Narendra K. Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, present petitioner as power of attorney holder of Valibhai Metar, the claimant of the land mentioned in the FIR is representing him before the Courts. The FIR contends that alleged forged documents were in possession of accused no.1 Valibhai which were seized by the police from the accused and sent to FSL for examination on 25/01/2020.

5. Mr. Amin, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner was summoned to remain present on 02/01/2020 by special investigation team headed by the Superintendent of Police, Amreli and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and on the same day, accused no.1 was also present before the police, from whom the Investigating Officer seized all the original documents with reference to the application made to the Collector Office in the year 2007-2008. Mr. Amin, learned advocate states that no regular process and procedure was adopted for the seizure.

6. Mr. Amin, learned advocate further submitted that though the FIR is registered after examination of the documents, the complainant has not mentioned the name of the petitioner in the FIR. The Superintendent of Police has mentioned nothing against the present petitioner in his report dated 29/05/2020 to the Collector requesting for registration of the FIR. Mr. Amin, learned advocate submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner to rope him in the matter and to array him as an accused.

7. Mr. Amin, learned advocate stated that the petitioner as a power of attorney holder has all the rights to appear before the competent court of law to agitate the case on behalf of accused Valibhai Metar and that itself would not suggest any criminality.

8. Mr. Amin, learned advocate referred to the following decisions in support of the case of the petitioner.

1. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. vs. M. chinniyan & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 609

2. Sheila sebstian vs. R. Jawaharaj and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 2434

3. Kishan singh vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors. reported AIR 2010 SC 3624

4. Md. Ibra