A company can appoint its own representative for the purpose of inquiry or trial, and there is no provision in the Code compelling an individual to represent the company despite his clear objection.

Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.

Parties are present before me. Heard them at length.

2. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of O.N. Goenka, the petitioner herein, seeking to set aside the order dated 20.5.2002 passed by the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, 12th Bench, Calcutta, in connection with Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2002 whereby he was pleased to confirm the order dated 6th February, 2002 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court in connection with Case No. C-560/98 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court whereby the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear personally before the Court and express his consent to represent the accused No. 1, M/s. Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under :

4. The present petitioner is an old and ailing person aged about 73 years and leads a completely sedentary life at his residence at Faridabad within the State of Haryana and at the same time he was also suffering from hypertention, ischaemic heart disease etc.

5. It has been alleged that on 24.2.98 the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner and 10 others before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under section 138 read with section 141 of the N.I. Act. On receipt of the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and transferred the file before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court for inquiry and trial.

6. On 7.3.98 the transferee Magistrate after examining the opposite party No. 2 issued process against the petitioner and other accused persons fixing the date on 8.6.98 for their appearances.

7. On 8.6.98 one petition was filed under section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Pijush Kanti Dutta to represent the accused No. 1 (company) which was eventually allowed and the petition filed under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the present petitioner as accused No. 10 along with others were allowed.

8. On 12.8.99 an application under section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the opposite party No. 2 before the Hon'ble Court and the same was disposed of by Hon'ble Justice Amit Talukdar by directing the learned Magistrate to dispose of the entire proceeding within a fixed time and the learned Magistrate was directed to follow the time schedule i.e. to conclude the trial within a span of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

9. Again, after a lapse of considerable time, on 7.3.2000 the opposite party No. 2 moved another revisional application being CRR No. 561 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Court and the same was also disposed of by Justice Amit Talukdar by an order dated 7.3.2000 directing the learned Trial Magistrate to conclude the trial within three weeks from the date of communication of the said order.

10. On 17.4.2000 the accused No. 3, M.K. Vig moved one application under section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble Court against the order dated 12.4.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the accused persons for adjournment of cross-examination of opposite party No. 2's witnesses. The said application was finally heard and disposed of by Justice Arunabha Barua on 18.6.2001 when His Lordship was pleased to set aside the aforesaid order dated 12.4.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial in accordance with law positively within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

11. Again, on 4.12.2001 Pijush Kanti Dutta who was so long representing accused No. 1 filed a petition through his learned Advocate that he does not want to represent the accused No. 1 and again on 11.12.2001 the said Pijush Kanti Dutta filed another petition for exonerating him from representing accused No. 1 and on the self-same date the opposite party No. 2 also filed an application