JUDGMENT
A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioner-Bighneswar Patra is an accused in Pattamundai P.S. Case No. 107 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 718 of 2000 registered under Sections 341/323/295, IPC and Section 3 of the SC and ST. (P.A.) Act, 1989 which was subsequently renumbered as S.T. No. 44/712 of 2003 after commitment. For non-appearance of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara passed an order dated 20.12.2003 issuing NBW against the petitioner fixing the case to 13.1.2004 for his production. Thereafter on 27.7.2004 Shri G. Mohanty, Advocate filed a Vakalatnama in the aforesaid case executed by the petitioner and on 4.8.2004 Shri Mohanty filed a petition under Section 205, Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the Court below. Oh 6.8.2004 Shri G. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioner, filed an application for grant of certified copy of the orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004 passed by the Court below which was numbered as CA No. 809 of 2004. But by order dated 7.8.2004 the said application was rejected on the ground that under Rule 254 of the GRCO (Criminal) Vol.-I only a party to a criminal proceeding may obtain certified copies of the records of the case or proceeding whereas the application for certified copies of the said orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004 was not filed by the party to the criminal proceeding.
2. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara rejecting the application for obtaining certified copies of the said orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004 the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.
3. On a reading of the xerox copy of the application in CA No. 809 of 2004 we find that by the said application Shri G. Mohanty had applied for certified copy of the orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004. Shri G. Mohanty was the Advocate for the accused in ST No. 44/712 of 2003. The question which arises for the decision in this case is whether the Advocate in whose favour a Vakalatnama has been executed by an accused can file an application for certified copy of an order in a proceeding in which the accused is a party.
4. In Ramdeo Tilokchand Agrawal v. Lalu Natha, AIR 1937 Nagpur 65 it has been held that Vakalatnama is a power of attorney. Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 is quoted hereinbelow :
“The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power, and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof.
This section applies to powers-of-attorney created . by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force,”
It is clear from the language of the aforesaid Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 that the donee of a power-of-attorney may execute any instrument or thing in his own name and signature by the authority of the donor of the power and that instrument and/or thing so executed and done shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name and with the signature of the donor thereof. Hence, a power of attorney holder, such as, an Advocate in whose favour a Vakalatnama is executed authorizing him to apply for certified copy of an order can apply for the certified copy of an order under Rule 254 of the GRCO (Criminal) Vol.-1 because an application filed by such power of attorney holder would, in fact, be an application filed by the party himself who executed the power of attorney. This position of law has been recognized in Rule 262 of the GRCO (Criminal) Vol. I in which it is provided that if an application is not filed by a party or his pleader, the application shall state the object for which a copy is required. This provision only goes to show that the pleader can file an application for certified copy of the order under Rule 254 . on behalf of the party if such power is given by the party to make such an application on his behalf.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004 and direct that the certified copies of the orders dated 20.12.2003 and 4.8.2004 passed by the Court below in S.T. No. 44/712 of 2003 will be furnished to Shri G. Mohanty, who has filed Vakalatnama executed by the accused in that case. This direction will be complied with within fifteen days from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.
M.M. Das, J.
6. I agree.