The central legal point established in the judgment is that accused individuals, as employees of a corporate body, deserve the benefit of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Because of nature of the order under challenge and the stage of criminal proceeding, this revision application has been heard in detail at the stage of admission itself and is being disposed of finally. All the three petitioners are accused in complaint case no. 456/2001 lodged by opposite party no. 2 and pending before Judicial Magistrate, Purnia. By the impugned order dated 8.3.2002 the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioners to recall warrants of arrest issued against them and to dispense with personal appearance of the petitioners under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. Before taking note of main issues and the submission of rival parties the essential facts may be noticed in brief. In May 2001 O.P. No. 2, the complainant filed the complaint in question before the CJM, Purnia The complaint alleges that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are respectively the Area Manager at Patna and the Regional Manager at Kolkata of ESPN Software India Limited. Petitioner no. 3, Manu Sahni has been shown as representative of the aforesaid company located at New Delhi without giving details as to how he is the representative.

It further appears from the complaint that two television channels belonging to the company were being operated by the complainant, a cable operator at Purnia. Allegedly, under a saving scheme launched by the company the. complainant sent a draft of Rs. 93124/-dated 8.1.2001 to the companys Patna office. It further appears that allegedly the company wanted to adjust the draft amount towards certain old dues of the complainant but the draft could not be encashed due to complainants instructions to his Bank to the effect that the draft was lost. In the complaint petition it has been further alleged that the draft was returned to the complainant but got lost at Patna and has somehow gone back in the custody of the accused and the company has admitted possession of the draft with them. Allegedly the company stopped supply of the two television channels from February 2001 after the draft could not be encashed.

3. After due enquiry cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 420 IPC on 31.7.2001 for alleged deception by the three petitioners in obtaining the draft of Rs. 93124/- under companys Super Saver Scheme. It is not in dispute that the draft has not been encashed as yet. Initially, learned Magistrate chose to issue only summons against the petitioners which is permissible under law although section 420 of the IPC is a non-bailable offence punishable with more than two years of imprisonment and hence requires to be tried by a Magistrate as a warrant trial. It further appears that summons were served on petitioners no. 1 and 2, the two employees of the company at Patna and Kolkata respectively but there is no material on record to show service of summons on the representative of the company, petitioner no. 3 who admittedly resides at New Delhi. On 22.9.2001 the learned Magistrate noticed receipt of summons by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and on that very date order was passed for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest which was actually issued on 23.11.2001 and before its service report could be received, on 15.12.2001 non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against all the three accused. The non-bailable warrants were actually issued on 21.12.2001 and the petitioners appeared in the court of learned Magistrate on 7.2.2002 by filing Vakalatnama and prayed for recall of the warrant of arrest and for being exempted from personal appearance.

4. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that since the petitioners are admittedly employees and representative of a corporate body and are residents of different places away from Purnea and since the case is actually of a petty nature in which no money has been taken by the petitioners in their individual capacity and nothing has been received by the Company also, the privilege