A company is a separate, distinct juristic entity. Criminal courts cannot compel an unwilling individual or a former director to act as the company's representative. It is the company's sole prerogative to nominate an authorized person, and failure to do so must be addressed through prescribed statutory procedural mechanisms.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE

CRR 3146 of 2023

Suman Chattopadhyay

Vs.

Enforcement Directorate

For the petitioner : Mr. Somopriya Chowdhury

Mr. Koushik Dey Ms. Iram Hassan

Mr. S. Sarawgi

Mr. M. Majumder

For the Enforcement Directorate : Mrs. Debjani Roy

Mr. Steven S. Biswas

Heard on : 13.08.2025 Judgment on : 01.12.2025

Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioner herein preferred the instant application being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd November 2022 passed by learned CBI Court, Bichar Bhavan in ML case no. 1 of 2013, initiated under section 3 read with section 17 and section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as PMLA). By the impugned order learned Court below rejected the petitioners prayer for passing necessary direction upon accused no. 1 to 4 for their proper representation on the ground that it could be considered at

later stage but not at the stage of service of copy of documents under section

207 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner contended that the petitioner has been arraigned as accused no. 22 in the said complaint case filed by opposite party. Though the petitioner has been implicated in his personal capacity in the said complaint as above but he was also indirectly impleaded to represent two other accused persons being accused no.23 and 24 namely M/s Disha Production & Media Pvt Ltd. and M/S Akdin Media Pvt. Ltd. and described the said two entities in the following manners.

“(a) M/S, Disha Production and Media Private Limited, having its registered office at 74, Beliaghata Main Road, Kolkata-700010 represented by its director, Shri Suman Chattopadhyay (accused No.23).

(b) M/S. Akdin Media private Limited, having its registered office at 74, Beliaghata Main Road, Kolkata-7000010 represented by its director, Shri Suman Chattopadhyay(

accused No.24).”

3. Now the petitioner’s contention is that the company namely accused no. 23 and 24 has separate and independent juristic entity and completely distinct from its Directors and Share Holders. A company cannot be implicated in criminal complaint depicting representation by a specific individual as a Director. If the complainant wants to implicate M/S Akdin Media Private Limited or the other company namely M/S Disha Production & Media Pvt. Ltd., they are to be implicated in their own name without depicting representation by any individual including the petitioner. Moreover, though the petitioner continued to be a Director of M/S Akdin Media Pvt. Ltd. on the date when summon was issued by the court, but the petitioner had no association with the accused no. 23, namely M/s Disha Production & Media Pvt. Ltd.

4. His further contention is M/S Akdin Media Pvt Ltd. is presently represented under section 305 of the Cr.P.C. by an authorized officer which has been accepted by the court below but so far as accused no. 23 is concerned, the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the opposite party as the opposite party is insisting that the petitioner must represent the said accused no. 23, inspite of the fact that he has got no connection with the said company. Further contention is that the petitioner has resigned from his positon of directorship of the said company prior to 14th March, 2013. On the date of issuance of summon, the petitioner was not connected with M/S Disha production & Media Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, he could not have been saddled with any responsibility to represent the said Company i.e. accused no.23 in any manner during the course of proceeding and the petitioner cannot be asked to represent the said company during trial.

5. Mr. Choudhury learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the summon issued in the name of M/S Disha Production & Media Pvt. Ltd. was actually never sent to the registered address to the said company but to the address of the petitioner, inspite of the fact that he had resigned from th