1. A Short but interesting question emerges for consideration in the above petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the ‘Code’, over the continuation and sustainability of a criminal proceeding against a bank after its amalgamation with another bank.

2. Petitioner is the Reserve Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’, which filed a complaint against two persons, a Scheduled bank and its Chairman, imputing against them offences punishable under Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

3. The 1st accused, a Banking company, and the 2nd accused, its Chairman are liable to be punished for the gross irregularities in the business operations carried out by the bank flouting the provisions of the Act and directions issued by the complainant, which were detected in the annual inspection over the bank by the complainant form January to March, 2001, was its case to prosecute them.

4. Cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 46(1) and (4) of the Act taken against the accused and process issued, both accused entered appearance, and an enquiry under Section 244 of the Code recording the evidence of the complainant followed. On the evidence recorded in such enquiry, the magistrate being satisfied there is ground for presuming that the accused have committed the offences imputed, charges were framed against them, to which both pleaded not guilty.

5. Pending the proceedings in the complaint before the magistrate, on the recommendation made by the complainant, the Government passed an order of moratorium against the 1st accused bank and later ordered amalgamation of that bank with another bank, namely, Punjab National Bank, for short, the ‘PN Bank’ approving the scheme prepared by the complainant. Annexures A and A1 are the two notifications issued by the Government over the amalgamation of the 1st accused bank on the basis of the scheme prepared by the complainant/R.B.I.

6. Meanwhile, against the order framing charge, the 2nd accused, Chairman of the 1st accused bank, preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge. In that proceeding, he applied for impleading the PN Bank as an additional respondent. Sessions Judge allowed the implement. That order was challenged by the PN Bank filing a revision before this Court, numbered as Crl.R.P.No.225 of 2004. In the revision filed by the 2nd accused against the order framing charge against him in the case, the PN Bank is not to be impleaded as an additional respondent, and the question whether such bank because of amalgamation is a necessary party has to be decided separately by the magistrate, was the view taken by this Court to set aside the order of impleadment of additional respondent in the revision pending before the Sessions Judge. Pursuant there to, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision of the 2nd accused challenging the order framing charge against him.

7. Subsequently, Annexure B petition was moved before the magistrate styling it as under Section 246 and 273 of the Code contending that since the 1st accused is not in existence prosecution cannot be continued against it as an accused. That petition was filed by the advocate who represented the 1st accused. To that petition, complainant filed objections, in which, among others locus standi of the counsel for the 1st accused to move such a petition was also impeached, and that too after framing of charge against the accused. Learned magistrate upholding the contention canvassed for in Annexure B petition passed Annexure C order holding that further proceeding against the 1st accused shall stand dropped as abated. Against Annexure C order, complainant preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, which was turned down affirming the order of the magistrate vide Annexure D order. Annexure C order passed by the magistrate and Annexure D order of the Sessions Judge affirming such order are challenged in the petitionby