PRAMOD JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 03.01.2011, passed by provisional court (Addl. Sessions Judge / First Fast Track Court, Nainital), in Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2010, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 21.11.2009, passed by the trial court (Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani), on the application of the corporation (accused No. 1) under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against (i) M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd, through its Managing Director Sri Pramod Jain, (ii) G.P. Agarwal, Company Secretary, and (iii) J.K. Agarwal, General Manager of accused No. 1 M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd., relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After proceeding under Section 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure., the trial court summoned all the three accused to face trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Said summoning order was also challenged, but the same was affirmed by the higher courts. Thereafter, an application was moved under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of accused No. 1 stating that since the accused No. 2 G.P. Agarwal, Company Secretary and accused No. 3 J.K. Agarwal, General Manager are already parties, as such, the accused No. 1 should be allowed to be represented through representative of the company. The trial court disposed of said application vide order dated 21.11.2009, with the observation that since Sri Pramod Jain was the Managing Director of the Company, and has been summoned in said capacity, charge would be framed as against him for M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd. (accused No. 1). It is further observed by the trial court that any other representative may appear on behalf of accused No. 1 for the purposes of contesting the case. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the provisional court. The provisional court, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order 03.01.2011, observed that the trial court has already allowed the accused company to appoint representative, as such, the order passed by the trial court suffers from no illegality.