A. RAMAMURTHI, J.

For the The petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 5566 of 1996 on the file of the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. They have preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1140 of 1999.

The case in brief is as follows :

The petitioners filed a petition under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The first accused-company is represented by the company secretary, who is in charge of the company affairs at Bombay. As the company secretary, who has to represent the company in all matters on a day-to-day basis, his presence is required in Bombay. The second petitioner is an industrialist and chairman of the company and he is also director of many other companies. The third petitioner is a full time director of the company, who co-ordinates various divisions in the company at Bombay. The fourth petitioner is the general manager, marketing, who has to meet various customers in various parts of Madras. The fifth petitioner is the corporate head of the company division at Germany, who also travels out of India to various countries. The seventh petitioner is the commercial head of the company. The eighth petitioner is the full time director of the medical division. The petitioners do not dispute their identity before the court. They undertake - to appear before the court as and when necessary. They being away from Madras, find it difficult to appear before the court on every hearing. They are prepared to allow the proceedings in the case to be conducted in their absence while they are represented by their counsel. Their personal appearance has to be dispensed with and they should be permitted to be represented by their counsel.The learned magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that excepting one of the accused, none of them has appeared and since it is a private complaint, he was not inclined to allow the petition under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed the same. Aggrieved against this, the present revision is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that summons issued to the fourth petitioner was received on June 4, 1999, and counsel entered appearance on behalf of other petitioners also and the case was adjourned to June 21, 1999. They were not served with the copy of the complaint as contemplated under section 204(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. When a copy was sought for, the court informed that the copy of the complaint could be given after all the accused appear in the court. It is against the provisions of section 204(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and rule 7 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. They also applied for a certified copy of the complaint; but, however, it was returned on June 7, 1999, with an endorsement, copies are given only when all the accused are present. The fourth petitioner filed a revision before the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Madras, and obtained stay of all further proceedings. Now warrant has been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners have been kept in the dark about the nature of the accusation. It has been held by this court that the presence of the accused for obtaining copies under sections 204 and 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not mandatory.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contended that in respect of the business dealings done by the company, the materials and records will speak. The company had already filed a suit C.S. No. 1019 of 1995 before this court, wherein a decree was passed, directing the complainant to pay a sum of more than Rs. 76 lakhs. Further, in respect of the dishonoured cheque issued by the respondents, the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed and it is pending trial. The present prosecution against the petitioners, who are the directors and officers of the company, is nothing but an act of vindictiveness and an ab