ORDER :

V. Parthiban, J.

1. The above Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 28.06.2018 in Crl.M.P. No. 5075 of 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track Court II), Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, rejecting the petition filed in Crl.M.P. No. 5075 of 2018 by the accused/petitioners herein, praying to permit the Authorized Interim Resolution Professional, Mr. Ram Ratan Kanoongo to represent for and behalf of first petitioner company in all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1475 of 2018.

2. According to the petitioners/accused, the company approached the National Company Law Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'), Chennai by filing a petition as Corporate Debtor under Rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 to initiate Corporate ISRP. The Tribunal delivered its order on 23.4.2018 on the Corporate Debtor Application. While passing the order, subsequently on 21.6.2018, the Tribunal appointed one Shri Ram Ratan Kanoongo as Interim Resolution Professional (in short, 'IRP'). On the appointment of IRP, the Directors of the first petitioner company ceased to have any control over the same. Therefore, in the pending proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner company to permit the IRP to represent for and on behalf of first petitioner company. The trial Court, after adverting to the petition, has dismissed the same. Against the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. According to the trial Court, the accused cannot represent through the representative in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'N.I. Act') and the order passed by the Tribunal is not relevant and will not bind the proceedings.

4. Shri V. Karthik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court has completely misdirected itself by dismissing the petition without proper understanding of the scheme of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Rules framed therein. He would initially draw the attention of this Court to Section 304 of Cr.P.C., particularly, Sub Clause 2, which reads as under:

"305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended.

(1)..............

(2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation.

(3) to (6)............"

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Company can appoint its representative to represent the same as per the above provision. He would also refer to relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to point out the fact that as to how the trial Court has erred in dismissing the petition. Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Section 17, particularly, Sub Clause (1)(a) & (b) of Section 17, which reads as under:

"17. Management of affairs of corporate debtor by interim resolution professional.

(1) From the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional.

(a) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the interim resolution professional;

(b) the powers of the board of directors or the partners of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall stand suspended and be exercised by the interim resolution professional."

(c) & (d)............

(2)...................

(a) to (d)............."

6. Secondly, he would refer to Section 25 which enumerates the duties of Resolution Professional and draw the reference to Sub Clause 2 (a) & (b), which reads as under:

"25. Duties of Resolution Professional.

(1)...............

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the resolution professional shall undertake the following actions, namely :-

(a) take immediate custo