Judgment:
ORDER
M. Jeyapaul, J.
1. The revision is directed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the second and third accused who are the Directors of the first accused company seeking permission to represent their cases through their representative invoking the provision under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The fact remains that the company, the first accused alongwith these two petitioners has been prosecuted Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These petitioners arrayed as second and third accused filed petition under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to represent not only the company but also the Managing Director and Director of the company through a representative appointed by them.
3. The trial court having thoroughly adverted to the provisions of Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure, returned a well considered decision that a company under the provisions of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can make a request to the Court to permit the company to represent its case through its representative appointed by it and not the Managing Director or Director of the company.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner citing three decisions rendered by various High Courts would submit that under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, even the Managing Director or Director of the company can very well invoke Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They can very well appoint a representative to represent their case before the trial court, he contends.
5. A bare reading of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would disclose that a Company incorporated or other body corporate or a Society registered which fall under the definition of corporation as per Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can alone appoint a representative to represent them for the purpose of enquiry or trial. Neither the Managing Director nor the Director or Member of the Society can have the privilege of invoking the provision under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a representative to represent him for the purpose of enquiry or trial.
6. The decision in Food Inspector Cuttack Municipality, Cuttack v. BP Oil Mills Limited : 1995 Cri. L.J 3043 was cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to canvas the point that the Managing Director or Director of the company who has not been arrayed in their individual capacity can also appoint a representative and seek for recognition of the same under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court.
7. That was a case where the company represented by its Managing Director was arrayed as second accused. The second accused filed a petition under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission for the second accused to represent its case through its representative one Murali Lal. The said prayer was accepted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class. The Orissa High Court in the aforesaid ratio has held that acceptance of the prayer of Murali Lal, the representative appointed by the company, the second accused in that case to represent the company in terms of Second 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not at all contrary to law and is well maintainable. In effect, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class was not interfered by the High court of Orissa.
8. The aforesaid ratio was not laid in the background of the appointment of any representative by the Managing Director or Director of the company who has been arrayed separately as accused alongwith company in a criminal case. In the instant case, the Learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly upheld the plea of the company that it should be permitted to represent its case through its representative appointed by it. In view of above, the aforesaid ratio does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Coming to the last decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is found that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dasari House of Publications Private Limited v. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. and Anr. : 2002 Cri.L.J. 4751 has held that in a cheque case launched against a company represented by its Chairman, the personal appearance of such Chairman of the company can always be dispensed with. That was not a case where the Managing Director or Director of the company arrayed separately as accused sought for the concession provided under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was only the company represented by its Chairman in that case has sought for excuse of the personal appearance under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the aforesaid ratio also does not come to the rescue of the petitioners herein.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, rejecting outright the plea of the petitioners that they being Managing Director and Director of the company also can invoke the provisions of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pray for appointment of representative for themselves in order to represent them before the trial court during the course of trial, the Revision Petition fails and therefore it stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.