Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Inderjit Singh, J.
Jay Switches (India) Private Limited through
its authorized representative Jitender
Taneja —Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. —Respondents
CRM No.M-12661 of 2014
Decided on 13.5.2014
Facts of the case.
Where offence under section 138 was committed by a company and complaint was filed under section 138, Sh. Jitender Taneja was appointed as authorised representative of the company. An application filed for appointing an authorised representative which was allowed by the trial court on the condition that all proceedings taken before the appointment of Jitender Taneja shall be deemed to be taken in his presence and that he shall file a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and that he will not absent himself from the court. Against the said order, petition under section 482 Cr. PC. was filed for quashing the order.
Findings of the court.
It was held that Section 305 Cr. PC deals with appointment of representatives for the purpose of enquiry or trial. Clause 3 to Sub-section 305 states that where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative etc. and any requirement that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined. Clause 4 of this Section states that where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub-section(3) shall not apply. Therefore, the above laid procedure clearly shows that if any representatives does not appear, then the condition that he shall be examined or anything is to explain to representative or to be read to him or evidence is to be taken in his presence, will not apply. It is nowhere written in the procedure that like an accused, bail bonds and surety bonds are to be taken or in his absence, non-bailable warrants be issued to procure the presence of the representative. It is also nothing in this provision that evidence must be recorded in the presence of representative or representative must be examined as is required for an accused. Therefore, in view of the specific provisions in the Cr. PC, no bail bonds can be taken from the representatives and his presence cannot be compelled on each and every date. Therefore, held that condition no. 2 could not be imposed on the representative. (Paras 8 and 9)
Inderjit Singh, J.—Petitioner Jay Switches (India) Private Limited through its authorized representative Jitender Taneja has filed this petition against State of Haryana and Tarun Bindal respondents under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 31.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar in criminal complaint titled as Tarun Bindal vs. Jai Switches Private Limited qua imposition of condition No. II.
2. It is stated in the petition that petitioner company has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case at the instance of the complainant. The facts as given in the petition are that respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant in the complaint had arrayed the present petitioner as accused No.1 and No.2 on the basis of two different addresses. However, the fact remains that both accused No.1 and No.2 are one and the same entity. On 11.02.2006, learned JMIC, Hisar passed the summoning order against the petitioner company and was pleased to dismiss the complaint qua accused No.3 to 6. Against partial dismissal of complaint, the complainant preferred revision petition before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, who accepted the same partly and summoned accused No.3 and for remaining accused, the petition was dismissed. It is further stated in the petition that Mr. P.C. Minda has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the complaint and he being an old aged, inform and suffering from serious diseases, moved an application for seeking exemption from personal appearance. The said prayer was granted by learned JMIC, Hisar vide order dated 11.02.2012. It is further stated in the petition that the trial in the case continued till 18.01.2012, when the learned trial Court had directed that the proceeding should start de novo and in fact the same is being carried out. After initiation of de novo trial, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning accused No.4 to 6 and learned JMIC, Hisar was pleased to allow the same and have summoned them to face trial. Against the summoning order, those accused preferred quashing petition before this Court and this Court has been pleased to stay the operation. It is further stated in the petition that till today only part chief examination of the complainant has been recorded as on most of the occasions, the complainant has been absent. On 07.0l.2014, the company passed a resolution dated 07.0l.2014, whereby Jitender Taneja was appointed as new authorized representative of the company. Accordingly, on 19.02.2014, the petitioner company had filed an application for appointing an authorized representative. It is also stated in the petition that notice of the application was issued and after hearing other party, the trial Court was pleased to allow the application but has imposed the following conditions:-
“I That all the proceedings taken before the appointment of Mr. Jitender Taneja applicant, against the accused company in presence of Mr. P.C. Minda shall not be set aside and shall be deemed to be taken in the presence of Mr. Jitender Taneja.
II. Mr. Jitender Taneja shall file a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, undertaking to represent the company on each and every date and also given undertaking that he will not absent himself from the Court without its permission (this will curb the delay which may be likely to be caused due to absence of Jitender Taneja, the representative of the company).”
3. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner company is not aggrieved by condition No.1 of the order dated 31.03.2014 but aggrieved by imposition of condition No. II It is also stated in the petition that condition No. II is illegal, contrary to law and amounts to violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The petitioner is a juristic and non-living person, being represented by an authorized representative but
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
