( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order passed in Crl. MP no. 3055 of 1997 in CC No. 655 of 1995 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, secunderabad.

( 2 ) THE accused had filed an application under Section 205 (2) Cr. PC read with Section 305 Cr. PC and Rule 37 of criminal Rules of Practice for cancellation of the order in Criminal MP No. 554 of 1996 dated 7-2-1996. By the order dated 7-2-1996, one Mr. P. S. R. Swamy, Deputy Manager, in m/s. MMTC Limited, of Secunderabad office was appointed as representative of accused Nos. 1 to 3. That was sought to be cancelled in this application on the ground that on the day of the appointment i. e. , 7-2-1996 there was no authorisation in favour of Mr. P. S. R. Swamy by the Managing director or any person having management of the affairs of the Corporation. Further, mr. P. S. R. Swamy cannot be appointed under Section 205 (2) Cr. PC and also rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice. Under section 205 (2) Cr. PC, the accused can be represented by Special Vakalath by an advocate. Admittedly, Mr. P. S. R. Swamy is not an Advocate. Therefore, there is no application of Section 205 (2) Cr. PC. Again, under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice, one accused can represent another accused. Mr. P. S. R. Swamy is only an Officer i. e. , deputy Manager of the 1st respondent- company, of their Branch at Secunderabad. Therefore, Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of practice also is not attracted.

( 3 ) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that only recourse has to be taken under Section 305 cr. PC. Under Section 305 (5) Cr. PC only a managing Director or a person having the management of the affairs of the Corporation can authorise any person. In the instant case, first of all, there was no authorisation on the day Mr. P. S. R Swamy was appointed as the representative. Subsequently, when this application was filed along with counter on 9-9-1997 the authorisation was filed. It was signed by a Director. The requirement of the Law is that Mr. P. S. R. Swamy should be authorised by the Managing Director. The Director who signed the authorisation, did not in so many words mention that he is having the management of the affairs of the Corporation. Therefore, even that authorisation is defective. Therefore, it was prayed that the order dated 7-2-1996 be set-aside.

( 4 ) THIS argument did not find favour with the learned Magistrate. He dismissed the same. Hence, the Revision.

( 5 ) MR. Bhageeratha Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order under revision is not correct. His argument is in line with the contentions raised before the lower court.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that under section 305 (5) Cr. PC, it is not necessary to file written permission. The requirement under sub-section (5) of Section 305 Cr. PC, is one of the modes of representation. The representation need not necessarily be in writing. Further, the authorisation dated 9-9-1997 was signed by a Director. Under the Company Law, all the Directors are having control over the management of the affairs of the Corporation. Therefore, there is no necessity to mention that he is authorised or he is having control over the management of the affairs of the Corporation. Therefore, the later authorisation cures the defect, if any.

( 7 ) I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents. First of all, there cannot be any oral representation to authorise a person to represent the parties. The only mode is by way of a written representation duly authorised by the Managing Director or a person having control over the management of the affairs of the Corporation. Such a representation was not there on 7-2-1996 when the order was passed authorising Mr. P. S. R. Swamy to represent the respondents. The authorisation dated 9-9-1997 also does not conform to the requirements of the Law. Therefore, certainly, the or