SHORT NOTE
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
India Brewery and Distillery (P) Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
R.K. Distilleries (P) Ltd., & Anr. —Respondents
Cri. Petition No. 432 of 2013
Decided on 14.3.2014

IMPORTANT POINT:
Under Section 305 Cr.PC., it is the privilege of the accused company to authorise any person of its choice to represent the accused company.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 305 — A company when prosecuted for any offence can appoint a representative for inquiry or trial — It is the privilege of accused company to authorized any person of its choice to represent it — Accused company had every authority to substitute a person of its choice to represent the company during trial — Petitioner accused company was being presented for offence of dishonour of cheque through its managing director who had signed the cheque — Managing director had not been made accused in complaint — Application by accused company for substituting its representative by a director — Courts below committed error in disallowing application — Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held: In the instant case, the first respondent company filed a private complaint against the accused company showing its Managing Director as the person representing the said company. He was not made an accused in his individual capacity though he was a signatory to the cheque. Pursuant to an authorization dated 13.8.2012 given by the accused company one Mr. Parasram N. Ramnani styling himself as a person representing the company filed an application to substitute his name as the person representing the accused company instead of its Managing Director Balkrishan Mankani. The said application was opposed by the first respondent herein stating that the Managing Director who is responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company alone has to represent the company under Section 305 Cr.PC., it is the privilege of the accused company to authorise any person of its choice to represent the accused company. Since the Managing Director of the accused was not individually prosecuted and as to company cannot be sent to jail, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the accused is represented by a person authorised by the accused company. The argument of the Counsel that the person who signed the cheque alone has to represent the company and not by a stranger who has nothing to do with the issuance of a cheque cannot be accepted. In a given situation, if the person who signs the cheque and shown as a person representing the company dies, the prosecution against the company will not get abated. Steps have to be taken to substitute a person to represent the company. Therefore, the accused company has every authority to substitute a person of its choice to represent the company under Section 305 CrPC Even if person who signed the cheque is made individually liable, still the accused company can be represented by a person of its choice. Both the Courts have erred in holding that the Managing Director who signed and issued the cheque alone has to represent the company and that the company cannot be permitted to substitute a person of its choice.

       For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the revisional Court confirming the orders passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set-aside.

       Result: Petition allowed.