- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2815 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2815 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2815 OF 2006 Laxmi Narayan Taparia and ors. ...Petitioners vs. M/s.Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.R.Salvi for the petitioners Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 30,2008 : AUGUST 30,2008 : AUGUST 30,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. The first respondent is duly served with the notice. None appears for the first Respondent. 2. The petitioners have filed this petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th November 2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. By the said order, a Revision Application preferred by the petitioners under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) has been dismissed. The petitioners are arraigned as first and third accused in a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence under section 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A revision application was filed by the petitioners for challenging the order issuing process. On - 2 - 8th June 2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order which reads thus : . "Perused. Heard. The application is filed for accused No.1 and 3. But the name of Accused No.1 Laxmi Taparia is not mentioned in this applications, nor she has signed. The application is filed against the order of issuing process. Therefore, the appearance and signature of both the accused persons are must. The M.A.09/06 was considered is the interest of justice which was filed by accused No.3 by herself and by Advocate for accused No.1. This application cannot be considered without the name, signature and appearance of accused No.1 Laxmi Taparia and the appearance of Accused No.3 Girijadevi Taparia. . Hence, the application will be considered after compliance the same. 3. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing criminal Writ Petition No.1423 of 2006. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this court by order dated 9th August 2006. This court observed that it will be open for the petitioners to comply with the formality referred to by the Additional Sessions Judge in order dated 8th June 2006. This court also recorded that the petitioners can file Vakalatnama duly signed by the first petitioner and attested by the - 3 - concerned authority. Time of six weeks was granted by this court to make compliance. 4. Thereafter, the Advocate for the petitioners filed a Vakalatnama duly signed by the first petitioner along with a certificate of a Notary Public at California stating therein that the first petitioner appeared before him and signed power of attorney (Vakalatnama). The said certificate bears the thumb impression of the first petitioner which has been attested by the Notary Public. 5. By the impugned order, the revision application has been dismissed on the ground that the seal and signature of the concerned authority (Notary Public) on the Vakalatnama was not visible and it cannot be read. The learned Judge found fault with the certificate issued by the Notary Public at California. An objection was raised to the said Vakalatnama by the Advocate appearing for the first respondent only on the ground that the Vakalatnama of the first petitioner was not proper. The learned Judge dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced for my perusal a xerox copy of the Vakalatnama signed by the first petitioner as well as the certificate annexed thereto issued by the Notary Public at California. - 4 - 7. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Order. To put it mildly, the approach of the learned Judge appears to be very strange. The Vakalatnama purportedly signed by the first petitioner which also bears the signature of the Advocate for the first petitioner recording his acceptance was filed on record. The Vakalatnama bears the seal of a Notary Public at California and there is a certificate attached thereto stating that the Vakalatnama was signed in his presence by the first petitioner. It must be noted here that this court framed rules under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act,1961. Rule 2 (1) of the said rules provides that no Advocate shall act in any court unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a Vakalatnama in the form annexed to the rules and signed by the such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under power of attorney to make such appointment. Form of Vakalatnama has been prescribed by the said rules. As stated in the rule, the Vakalatnama has to be signed by the litigant or his recognised agent or by a person duly authorised by him under the power of attorney. The Vakalatnama shall bear the signature of the concerned Advocate accepting his appointment. The Vakalatnama must bear the office/residential address of the Advocate. 8. In fact, there is no requirement prescribed by the rules that a Vakalatnama signed in a foreign country should be - 5 - attested. When the Vakalatnama signed by a litigant which is duly signed for acceptance by the Advocate is filed on record, normally it is not open for the court to doubt the correctness of the vakalatnama unless any party to the litigation wants to contend that the Vakalatnama does not bear the signature of the concerned litigant. When an Advocate files Vakalatnama, obviously he does so with responsibility. It is very unfortunate that after the Vakalatnama signed by the first Petitioner bearing signature of his Advocate was filed on record, the Advocate was required to satisfy the Court that the Vakalatnama was proper. Once, the Vakalatnama signed by the first petitioner was filed by her Advocate on record, in fact no further enquiry was called for by the learned Judge. Surprisingly, an argument was advanced by the first Respondent that the Vakalatnama along with the authority filed on behalf of the first petitioner was not proper and the seal and signature of the Notary Public was not visible. There is no doubt raised by the first Respondent about the genuiness of the signature of the first petitioner on Vakalatnama. In my view, the entire exercise done by the learned Judge was totally uncalled for. The result is that the proceeding of the revision application filed in the year 2006 has been unnecessarily delayed. 9. There is one more aspect of the matter. The whole controversy was regarding the Vakalatnama signed by the first - 6 - petitioner. Even the second petitioner was the revision applicant. Assuming that there was some objection as regards the Vakalatnama of the first petitioner, the revision application could not have been dismissed and the other revision applicant ought to have been allowed to proceed with the revision application. 10. Hence, the petition must succeed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Criminal revision application no.152 of 2006 is restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge. The Revision Application shall be disposed of expeditiously. 11. A copy of the impugned order dated 4th November 2006 and a copy of this Judgment shall be forwarded to the Registrar General of this court. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE