The Delhi High Court has held that no one can be represented by a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, in criminal proceedings.
The single-judge bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar noted that the presence of third parties in criminal cases would defeat the very purpose of the criminal justice system.
"If, in criminal cases, until and unless, a person aggrieved, suffers from some disability, recognized by law, a stranger or some other person, is allowed, to fight the proxy war, then the very purpose of criminal justice system"
The Petitioner herein has been named absconder by the Trial Court and was facing criminal proceedings under an F.I.R. and charge sheet filed under Section 82/83 of the CrPC.
He has now challenged the Order and the proceedings and sought quashing of the same through his S.P.A. holder. The affidavit for the Petition was also filed by the S.P.A. holder. The Court to decided on the maintainability of the Petition filed via S.P.A. holder.
It was contended by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused that he has not been named in the FIR and there was no admissible evidence against the him and he has only been made an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was a travel agent doing the business of travel agency or was doing any business ancillary to travel agency.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that there were allegations against the petitioner/accused and it cannot be said that the case is of no evidence. It was further submitted that this was not the first time that the petitioner has been declared absconder.
It was also vehemently argued by the Ld. APP that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable as the same has been filed through S.P.A. holder and are liable to be dismissed.
Accepting the contention and holding that the present petitions aren't maintainable, the Court cited Amit Ahuja Vs. Gian Parkash Bhambri, 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586,T.C. Mathai and another Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1385.
"15. Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act cannot override the specific provision of a statute which requires that a particular act should be done by a party in person. When the Code requires the appearance of an accused in a court it is no compliance with it if a power of attorney holder appears for him. It is a different thing that a party can be permitted to appear through counsel. Chapter XVI of the Code empowers the Magistrate to issue summons or warrant for the appearance of the accused. Section 205 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to dispense with “the personal attendance of accused, and permit him to appear by his pleader” if he sees reasons to do so. Section 273 of the Code speaks of the powers of the court to record evidence in the presence of the pleader of the accused, in cases when personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with. But in no case can the appearance of the accused be made through a power of attorney holder. So the contention of the appellant based on the instrument of power of attorney is of no avail in this case.”
The petitions were accrodingly dismissed.
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
