Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRM M-10337 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-10337 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 02, 2013
Ravdeep Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. D. Hasija, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 23 of 2012, dated 09.11.2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that power of attorney in favour of the petitioner could not be revoked. In support of his CRM M-10337 of 2013 (O&M) 2 contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in Harbans Singh vs. Shanti Devi, 1977 RLR 487. Learned counsel contended that since the petitioner is only a power of attorney, nothing is required to be recovered from him.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Firstly, the judgment cited as well as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that power of attorney could not be revoked, cannot be accepted. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel relates to the attorney executed by seller appointing the husband of purchaser as GPA so as to fulfill all subsequent formalities. Moreover the attorney in that case was acting as agent of purchaser who in fact happened to be his wife. The power of attorney stood acted upon in so far as the attorney had deposited dues to the government in furtherance to execute the sale deed by the attorney. Thus, applying principle of Section 202 of the Contract Act, the GPA was held to be irrevocable.
Power of attorney executed in the name of the petitioner was revocable, rather the fact of the matter is that the said Power of Attorney had already been cancelled on 14.02.2011 before execution of alleged agreement. After the cancellation of the power of attorney, the petitioner had no right to execute the sale deed with regard to the same very property.
Second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no action has been sought against the seller and so being the case petitioner cannot be proceeded against. This contention of the learned CRM M-10337 of 2013 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. Since the power of attorney had already been withdrawn and had been got cancelled in accordance with law and the petitioner was aware of this fact since the seller / owner was not at fault as there was no occasion for the petitioner to execute the sale deed after cancellation of power of attorney.
Otherwise also, this is second bail application. Earlier this Court had dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner. When the court was at the fag end of dictating the order, at that stage learned counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the anticipatory bail application. The second application is frivolous and sheer wastage of the time of the Court. No liberty was granted to the petitioner that he can file a fresh bail application on the same cause of action. Furthermore, this Court has already dealt with this case in detail in the case of co-accused in Vikas Garg vs. State of Punjab, 2013(1) RCR (Crl.) 552.
In view of the above, present petition being frivolous and an abuse of the process of the Court, is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh within a period of one month from today. If the aforesaid cost is not paid, the same shall be recovered as the arrears of land revenue. After effecting the recovery, intimation shall be sent to this Court by the concerned authority.
April 02, 2013 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge