1 Cri. W.P. 396 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.396 Of 2011 Tejus s/o Rameshchandra Pithadiya ... Petitioner. Versus M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. New Delhi. Through its signatory authority Mr Kiran Raosaheb Dhakne Aurangabad. ... Respondent. -------- Shri. U.R. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri. A.J. Patel, Advocate, for respondent. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28th JUNE 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1) Heard learned counsel. In ongoing proceedings, the financer produced power of attorney in original and also Photostat copy thereof. Learned Judge on perusal of the original, returned the same and marked exhibit to the Photostat copy, keeping the objection of the applicant / accused intact. Thereafter, an application below Exhibit 42 in SCC 2834 of 2010 2 Cri. W.P. 396 of 2011 was moved. The learned Judge, on evaluation of the legal position particularly in terms of Section 85 of the Evidence Act which contains a presumption of a document purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public carrying such authority in terms of Section 85, allowed to exhibit it. The learned Judge in paragraph 5 has observed that, giving exhibit number to a document is meant only for the purpose of identifying a particular document and also to preserve that document for requisite period as per the rules pertaining to maintenance and destroying the records. Merely a document is marked as exhibit it does not necessarily mean that all its contents have been duly proved. 2) In the operative part of the order dated 16-12-2010 the learned Judge has directed the complainant to produce original power of attorney on the next date and also kept the issue in respect of admissibility of the Power of attorney at a final view of the Court. On evaluating the order I do not find any error in it. 3) The grievance of the learned counsel for the accused / applicant is that original power of attorney is not yet produced. If it is correct, the learned Judge, seized with the matter, shall 3 Cri. W.P. 396 of 2011 pass appropriate orders including de-exhibiting the photostat copy of the power of attorney as the orders are not adhered to in its letter and spirit. The applicant also objects to the production of the Power of Attorney saying that there is no resolution from the Board of Directors empowering the holder to depose in the matter. Reliance is placed to a reported judgment of the Full Bench in the matter of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody, 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886. However it has different parameters as has been held by their Lordship of the Full Bench of this Court. The detailed contextual facts need not be reproduced. The Full Bench was considering import of Order 13 Rules, 3,4,6 of the Code of Civil Procedure to admissibility of evidence. The writ petition lacks merits, dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl