SUDHAKAR BABU Vs. DUVVURU NAGESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these two petitions arise out of the orders passed in Crl.MPs. filed in CC No.129 of 2003, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Criminal Petition No.836 of 2004 is filed to quash the order in Crl.MP No.5126 of 2003 impounding the passport of the petitioner, Criminal Petition No.837 of 2004 is filed to quash the order in Crl.MPNo.5127 of 2003 directing a non-bailable warrant being issued to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of these petitions, contending that these petitions filed by the General Power of Attorney of the petitioner are not maintainable as there is no provision in Cr.PC authorizing a General Power of Attorney of an accused to present proceedings on behalf of his principal and so presenting petitions through his power of attorney agent by the petitioner is improper and so these petitions are liable to be dismissed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since there is no prohibition either in the Cr.PC or in the Rules framed by this Court for presentation of criminal proceedings in this Court, through a power of attorney, petitioner, by invoking the rule Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se, can present proceedings through his power of attorney. He placed strong reliance on Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and another, AIR 1978 SC 1019 and M/s. Bhaskar Industries Limited v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 530 (SC) = AIR 2001 SC 3625, in support of his contention.