Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1960
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
K. Kalaikottudayam & Another
Versus
Rajendran
CRL.RC No.113 of 2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 30-06-2009
For the Petitioners:M. Pari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: ----.
Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows only a company or other body corporate to appoint a representative for legal proceedings, excluding the Managing Director or Director from this privilege.
Headnote:
Section 305 - Representation of Company through Representative
Fact of the Case:
The second and third accused, who are Directors of the first accused company, sought permission to represent their cases through a representative under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that only the company, as a corporate entity, can appoint a representative to represent its case, and not the Managing Director or Director of the company.
Issues: Whether the Managing Director or Director of a company can invoke Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a representative for themselves in a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow only a company or other body corporate to appoint a representative, excluding the Managing Director or Director from this privilege.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the Managing Director and Director of the company cannot invoke Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a representative for themselves in a criminal case.
1. The revision is directed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the second and third accused who are the Directors of the first accused company seeking permission to represent their cases through their representative invoking the provision under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The fact remains that the company, the first accused alongwith these two petitioners has been prosecuted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These petitioners arrayed as second and third accused filed petition under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to represent not only the company but also the Managing Director and Director of the company through a representative appointed by them.
3. The trial court having thoroughly adverted to the provisions of Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure, returned a well considered decision that a company under the provisions of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can make a request to the Court to permit the company to represent its case through its representative appointed by it and not the Managing Director or Director of the company.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner citing three decisions rendered by various High Courts would submit that under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, even the Managing Director or Director of the company can very well invoke Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They can very well appoint a representative to represent their case before the trial court, he contends.
5. A bare reading of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would disclose that a Company incorporated or other body corporate or a Society registered which fall under the definition of corporation as per Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can alone appoint a representative to represent them for the purpose of enquiry or trial. Neither the Managing Director nor the Director or Member of the Society can have the privilege of invoking the provision under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a representative to represent him for the purpose of enquiry or trial.
6. The decision in Food Inspector Cuttack Municipality, Cuttack Vs. M/s.BP Oil Mills Limited 1995 CRI. L.J 3043 was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners to canvas the point that the Managing Director or Director of the company who has not been arrayed in their individual capacity can also appoint a representative and seek for recognition of the same under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court.
7. That was a case where the company represented by its Managing Director was arrayed as second accused. The second accused filed a petition under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission for the second accused to represent its case through its representative one Murali Lal. The said prayer was accepted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class. The Orissa High Court in the aforesaid ratio has held that acceptance of the prayer of Murali Lal, the representative appointed by the company, the second accused in that case to represent the company in terms of Second 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not at all contrary to law and is well maintainable. In effect, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class was not interfered by the High court of Orissa.
8. The aforesaid ratio was not laid in the background of the appointment of any representative by the Managing Director or Director of the company who has been arrayed separately as accused alongwith company in a criminal case. In the instant case, the Learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly upheld the plea of the company that it should be permitted to represent its case through its representative appointed by it. In view of above, the aforesaid ratio does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Coming to the last decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found that the An
