Har Prasad Vs. State of U.P.

.....as including all incidental powers necessary for carrying out its object effectively. - further held although the power of attorney must authorize the agent' to do necessary acts, this authority must appear not in special power of attorney but a general power of attorney the interpretation of the expression "general power attorney" must be made on general principles of law an not in the light of any provision contained in order 3 rule _ itself, because all that order 3 rule 2 requires is that whatever be the power of attorney, that power of attorney must confer the necessary power upon the agent. - the most important factor in interpreting a power of attorney is the purpose for which it is executed, which must appeal primarily from the terms of the power of attorney itself an it is only if there is an unresolved problem left by t language of the document, there is a need to consider t manner in which the words used could be related to the facts and circumstances of the case. - on facts, held, from the conduct of the plaintiff, it is manifest that even if it is assumed that express power has not been granted under ex.p.l, the plaintiff has ratified the action of the attorney in terminating the tenancy of the defendant, filing of suit for his ejectment from the property and pursuing the suit at every stage till the date of decree. - (1) power of attorney act, 1882 (act no.55/1982) - (2) indian contract act, 1872 - section 182 - the words "agent" and "principal" - section 188 - "agent's authority" - "ratification" - discussed. (paras 10,11,12,16,17,20,22,23) regular first appeal is dismissed. heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned aga.1. learned counsel for the applicant contended that general role of firing has been assigned to all the accused persons.2. he next contended that the injured in his statement recorded under section 161 cr.p.c. has clearly stated that the gun shot fired at him by the applicant, missed the aim. he in his statement has not attributed the fire arm wound received by him to the applicant.3. he next contended that the co accused moti, ram karan and tulsi have been enlarged on bail by the court of sessions. he lastly contended that that the applicant is in jail since 3.10.2009.4. the prayer for bail has been opposed by learned aga on the ground that the applicant has a long criminal history of 28 cases.5. learned counsel for the applicant in reply submitted that in all the 28 other cases in which he is involved, either he has been acquitted or enlarged on bail.6. keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. let the applicant har prasad involved in case crime no. 334 of 2009 under sections 307,324,504,506 i.p.c., p.s. barsana, district mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(i)the applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) the applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii)the applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. (iv)the applicant shall report to the cjm concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behavior. in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.