Shri Pramod Jain vs State of Uttarakhand and Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 03.01.2011, passed by provisional court (Addl. Sessions Judge / First Fast Track Court, Nainital), in Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2010, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 21.11.2009, passed by the trial court (Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani), on the application of the corporation (accused No. 1) u/s 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against (i) M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd, through its Managing Director Sri Pramod Jain, (ii) G.P. Agarwal, Company Secretary, and (iii) J.K. Agarwal, General Manager of accused No. 1 M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd., relating to offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After proceeding u/s 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure., the trial court summoned all the three accused to face trial in respect of offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Said summoning order was also challenged, but the same was affirmed by the higher courts. Thereafter, an application was moved u/s 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of accused No. 1 stating that since the accused No. 2 G.P. Agarwal, Company Secretary and accused No. 3 J.K. Agarwal, General Manager are already parties, as such, the accused No. 1 should be allowed to be represented through representative of the company. The trial court disposed of said application vide order dated 21.11.2009, with the observation that since Sri Pramod Jain was the Managing Director of the Company, and has been summoned in said capacity, charge would be framed as against him for M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd. (accused No. 1). It is further observed by the trial court that any other representative may appear on behalf of accused No. 1 for the purposes of contesting the case. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the provisional court. The provisional court, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order 03.01.2011, observed that the trial court has already allowed the accused company to appoint representative, as such, the order passed by the trial court suffers from no illegality.

In the present petition it is pleaded on behalf of the Petitioner Sri Pramod Jain that the impugned order was passed by the provisional court without hearing the present Petitioner.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that provisional court has considered the grounds of revision and discussed the reasons for upholding the order passed by the trial court. It is settled principle that a revision can not be dismissed in default of the party.

Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides procedure when a corporation or a registered society is an accused. It provides that where a corporation is an accused, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of enquiry or trial. In the present case, in the complaint itself accused No. 1 (a corporation) has already been imp leaded through its Managing Director Pramod Jain (present Petitioner). Sub-section (5) of Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure suggests that Managing Director of the corporation can nominate a person as representative of the corporation for the purpose of enquiry and trial, and whole reading of the Section indicates that the Managing Director is not required to be present on each and every date and his nominee may represent him on behalf of the company. However, that does not mean that for framing of charge or pleading guilty or for the purpose of recording of statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the person through whom the company is prosecuted, is exempted from appearance. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the provisional court, and the order passed by the trial court, whereby it is made clear that the Managing Director Sri Pramod Jain through whom the company is prosecuted shall appear to reply the charge, but a representative can be nominated to represent the company on day to day proceedings.

For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no force in this petition. Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed, and interim order dated 14.03.2011, passed by this Court, stands hereby vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 464 of 2011 also stands disposed of).