IMPORTANT POINT
A lower court has no locus standi to expunge any witness evidence.

Arunabha Basu, J. —The revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2008 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with criminal revision No.111 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court Calcutta.

2. A complaint case bearing No. C313 of 1996 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner is arrayed as accused in connection with the said case.

3. It appears that initially the opposite party No. 1, which is the company, was represented by one Pawan Kumar Agarwal but an application was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.11.2006 whereby a prayer for substitution was made. It was stated that one Vinay Kumar Gupta may be permitted to substitute the said Pawan Kumar Agarwal.

4. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate initially passed certain directions but ultimately by order dated 30.3.2007 permitted the said Vinay Kumar Gupta to represent the complainant/company as its authorised agent in place of Pawan Kumar Agarwal.

5. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took into consideration the plea on behalf of the company that the said Pawan Kumar Agarwal has already left the company and as such the company is not in a position to cause his appearance. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took into consideration that the complainant being a company, is a juristic person and as the erstwhile authorised representative of the company namely Pawan Kumar Agarwal has left the company, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the prayer of complainant/company and directed such substitution.

6. The order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in connection with criminal revision No.III of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the rival contention of respective parties and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s MMTC Ltd and Anr. v. M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr.1 and other decisions of this Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner during the course of his submission, pointed out that Pawan Kumar Agarwal, in his capacity as authorised representative of the complainant/company, was already examined in part and as such the learned Court below committed an illegality in permitting such substitution at the stage of evidence.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite party submitted that the opposite party has already filed an application for vacating the interim order, which is registered as CRAN 1739 of 2008. I have proposed to decide the revisional application along with the application filed by the opposite party.

9. Learned advocate for the opposite party while supporting the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge submitted that the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused cannot insist that a company must represent by a particular person, who shall be the authorised representative of the company. It is a matter between the company and the said person and as such the petitioner in his capacity as an accused cannot have any say over the matter. This decision is illustrated in Supreme Court in M/s M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. (supra) took into consideration the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd v. Keshvanand.2 In this case the Supreme Court held as follows:

“The complainant has to be a corporeal person who is capable of making a physical appearance in the Court. It has been held that if a complaint is made in the name of a incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the Court. It is held that the Court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant f