CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.32597 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 10, 2009 O.P.Mittal .....Petitioner VERSUS State (U.T.Chandigarh) ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr. J. S. Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ashima Mor, APP, for U.T., Chandigarh. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, a tenant in SCF No.8, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh has approached this court to seek pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No.4 dated 22.7.2009 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Vigilance, Chandigarh. This FIR has been registered on a complaint by owner of the SCF, namely, Tara Singh, who is an NRI and staying in U.K. He had submitted this complaint from U.K. when Home Secretary/CVO CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.32597 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }: ordered the case to be registered and matter be enquired into. The complaint is regarding illegal sale of SCF No.8, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh on the name of the petitioner. The complainant would allege that this sale has been done behind his back by land mafia and on connivance of Advocates with the Estate Officers on the basis of an attorney, which did not contain any authorization for the attorney to sell the SCF. As per the FIR, the complainant had contacted one Mr.J.B.Singh, Advocate Uxbridge Road, Hayes, Middlesex for arranging transfer of SCF on his name. On his asking, the complainant had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Harnek Singh, who happens to be working as a Munshi with an Advocate. The complainant has mentioned that earlier he had given an attorney in the name of his brother Jaswant Singh and apprehending his dubious mind, he had got it canclled on 9.3.2006. As per the allegations, the said brother had also colluded with the petitioner to execute a compromise deed/agreement dated 28.2.2006 for sale of this SCF at Rs.25.00 lacs, though attorney on his name did not have any authorization for him to sell the property. Not only, an agreement/compromise was reached, but a suit was even filed by the petitioner in connivance with the brother and attorney of the petitioner, which was later dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the complainant has learnt about the illegal sale of this SCF by his attorney Harnek Singh in the name of the petitioner in collusion with his Advocate, whom he engaged through Advocate in U.K. Though this attorney also did not contain any clause or authorization for the attorney to sell this property, but the Advocates were able to manage CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.32597 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }: NOC from the Estate Office, which, as per the allegations, would reveal their connivance as well. The perusal of the record placed before me would also indicate that the attorney which was furnished to the Estate Office for obtaining the NOC contained a clear recital that attorney did not have any power to sell this property. Still, the NOC was issued which would only show that there was indeed a connivance on the part of the staff of the Estate Office. Such a thing cannot easily be managed. Obviously, it could be managed by someone, who was ultimately to benefit from this. Apparent benefit is to the petitioner. The petitioner had engaged a counsel in this regard. Either his influence or that of the counsel or the counsel representing the complainant seems to be at play. What has been managed is not something which can easily be done. The entire episode would be a cause of serious concern. One would feel sad and ashamed to notice that the Advocates forgetting the call of their profession are seen to have joined hand in defrauding a party whom they represent or have committed such act to favour a party. The petitioner apparently does not seem to have been made fool by entering into this sale as was being projected by the learned senior counsel representing him. It was submitted before me that the petitioner would have been fool to incur a liability of lacs of rupees on the basis of an attorney, which would not have given him a valid title. It is either a case of petitioner having been made fool or of he being an equal participant in this crime of which he has really benefited. The sale in his favour is at a price which is unrealistic and that perhaps is the reason that the registered sale deed was CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.32597 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 4 }: impounded. The investigating agency would need to find out whether the petitioner has any role to play in this fraud or he is the innocent fool as is being projected. The petitioner, who had the assistance of a counsel, normally could not have been fooled in the manner it is being projected. His counsel could have easily had an access to the record of the Estate Office and was bound to notice that the attorney, on the basis of which NOC was applied, did not contain a clause authorising the attorney to sell this property. It is not only a first attempt on the part of the petitioner. It would be too much of a coincidence to notice that the petitioner had entered into an agreement or compromise of sale of this property with an earlier attorney holder specifically knowing that the power of attorney had no authorization for the said brother attorney to sell the property. Little counselling on the part of the petitioner would have made him wise to make enquiry whether the new attorney has an authorization for the attorney to sell this property or not. A bit of caution would have been enough for him to understand that a person, who had not given authorization to sell the property to his own brother, may not have done so when he has given an attorney to a stranger. Prima facie, thus, the petitioner does not appear to have been innocently deceived. There will be need to investigate this case properly and such investigation cannot be soft paddled and case is of such a nature where custodial interrogation would be needed. The case appears to be having some larger ramification where properties of NRI are being grabbed in unfair and illegal manner. The counsel would join hands in such like frauds would be a matter of regret but certainly would be a cause for this court to CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.32597 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 5 }: ensure that even they are also brought to justice in case they have exceeded their role as a professional and have connived in the commission of any fraud or offence. In the passing, it may need a mention that a role of a counsel in our system of justice is unique. About a special position of an Advocate, it is observed counsel has a tripartite relationship; one with the public, another with the Court and third with his client. This is a unique feature. Other professionals or callings may include one or two of these relationships but no other has the triple duty. Counsel's duty to the public is unique. In that he has to accept all works from all clients in Courts in which he holds himself out as practicing, however, unattractive the case of the client. (for reference, see Chengan Souri Nayakam Vs. A.N.Menon, AIR 1968 Kerala 213). It is, thus, seen that the counsel who appears before the Court not only owes duty to his client but he has a duty towards public and more importantly towards the Court. This is a unique position of an Advocate under our system of justice. Can we then expect an Advocate to behave in manner to join hands with parties to commit fraud. If he does so, then should not he face the rigors of law with some added concern compared to an individual, who otherwise is a litigant before the Court?. If counsel decides to join hands to commit crime that would be rather sad day for administration of justice. Accordingly, while dismissing the petition, I would impress upon the investigating agency to thoroughly investigate the entire case and to bring all the persons involved in this case to justice even if they happen to be a counsel of any prominence. Any want or lack of duty on the part of investigating CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.32597 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 6 }: agency would not hesitate the courts to interfere and to ensure action against all those who are found to be involved in such like crime. Inadvertently, if any view is found expressed, then it would be construed for the purpose of this order and not on the merits of the case. Dismissed. December 10, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE