JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner herein is said to have been the Managing Director of a company, which is sole accused in C.C.Nos.679 and 759 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the complainant in the said cases had named him as the representative of the accused-company and is insisting on his appearance on behalf of the accused-company.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had resigned as the Managing Director of the company even prior to filing of the complaint and cannot be forced to appear on behalf of the company on that count also.

4. Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., sets out the manner in which the company, which is arrayed as an accused in a criminal case is to be represented. He submits that the provisions of Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., would not give discretion to the complainant to name the person who should represent the company. He further submits that Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., in fact provides discretion to the company to decide whet