IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11965 of 2008 SUNITA GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 5.2.2009 An affidavit has been filed by Mr.Amaresh Kumar Singh, Advocate, in which it is stated that the vakalatnama with respect to respondent nos. 6, 8 and 9 to 22 was handed over to him by Sri Khurshid Alam, husband of respondent no.6, along with Md.Jahangir, respondent no.13 and, accordingly, he filed the same. Subsequently, the entire file along with no objection on Vakalatnama was received on 24.9.2008 by Sadiq Ahmad, brother of husband of respondent no.6, as per the instruction on phone by husband of respondent no.6 for which the receipt has also been annexed. In the present Affidavit there is an affidavit annexed as Annexure-1 of Md. Jahangir in which he has affirmed that respondent no.16 Thakur Murmu had signed the vakalatnama in his presence and further there is denial of the statement of Thakur Murmu that he had not signed the Vakalatnama nor had authorized any one to swear affidavit on his behalf. From the aforesaid Affidavit it is evident that so far as the learned counsel Sri Amaresh 2 Kumar Singh is concerned, he is not at all to be blamed in the matter. So far as the allegation made by Respondent no. 16 Thakur Murmu is concerned, since the same has been denied by Md.Jahangir and a positive assertion has been made by him on affidavit that the vakalatnama has been signed by Thakur Murmu in his presence, this Court finds it appropriate not to proceed any further with respect to the said matter. The matter is, accordingly, dropped so far as this Court is concerned. However, it is made clear that it would be open to Thakur Murmu to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent criminal court with respect to the said matter, if he so desires. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/