In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has discharged advocate Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel from criminal proceedings, stating that an advocate cannot be held liable for verifying the authenticity of a power of attorney unless there exists reasonable doubt about its genuineness. The apex court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the Gujarat High Court, thereby exonerating Patel of all charges.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by Anilkumar Popatbhai Satodiya, the first informant, alleging fraud in connection with Tenancy Case No. 57/2001. The case revolved around the fraudulent use of a power of attorney and impersonation of a deceased landowner, Somiben Maganbhai. Several individuals, including Rameshbhai Maganbhai (accused no.1) and Chinubhai Haribhai Gajera, were accused of fabricating documents and forging signatures to claim ownership of land illegally.
The charge sheet filed against Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel alleged that:
He was engaged by accused no.1, Rameshbhai Maganbhai, who acted as a power of attorney holder to file the tenancy case.
He knowingly proceeded with a fabricated power of attorney.
He was complicit in the impersonation of Somiben Maganbhai, despite her being deceased, by allowing someone else to testify in her name.
Based on these allegations, Patel was booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), 467 (Forgery of Valuable Security), 468 (Forgery for Purpose of Cheating), 471 (Using Forged Document as Genuine), 474, 166, 167, 193 (False Evidence), 196, 199, 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence), 203, 255, 260, 261, 262, and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy).
Court Proceedings and Judgment
Patel had applied for discharge before the trial court, which was rejected. His petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, seeking quashing of charges, was also dismissed by the Gujarat High Court. Subsequently, Patel approached the Supreme Court through Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7878/2019).
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and examined the charge sheet, tenancy case records, and depositions.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
The Court made several critical observations that ultimately led to Patel’s discharge:
“When a litigant claiming to be a power of attorney holder of others, approaches a member of the Bar and shows him the original power of attorney and engages him to file a case, the Advocate is not expected to get the genuineness of the power of attorney verified, unless he has a reasonable doubt about its genuineness.”
The court emphasized that Patel had merely acted as an advocate, representing a client who presented a power of attorney as a valid document. There was no evidence to show that Patel had any knowledge or involvement in the alleged forgery.
“The appellant has not purported to file the tenancy case bearing signatures of Somiben Maganbhai, who was allegedly dead. The signature on the tenancy application and below the verification clause was of the power of attorney holder.”
The deposition records showed that Patel neither endorsed nor verified the thumb impression of the allegedly deceased Somiben Maganbhai. Instead, another individual, P.R. Patel, had attested those signatures.
Final Decision
Concluding that there was no prima facie case against Patel, the Supreme Court ruled:
“Taking the assertions in the charge sheet as correct, we find that no case was made out to proceed against the appellant and to frame charges against him.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the charges against Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court (dated August 31, 2017) and Gujarat High Court (dated June 13, 2019).
The Court clarified that this decision applied only to Patel and did not comment on the guilt of other accused persons, including Rameshbhai Maganbhai and accused no.5.
Representation in Court
For the Appellant (Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel): Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, assisted by Advocates Ashutosh Ghade, Adithya Koshy Roy, Siddhi Gupta, and Naveen Goel.
For the Respondent (State of Gujarat): Advocate Rajat Nair, along with AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Devyani Bhatt, and Ojaswa Pathak.
