ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. A MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed by the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai-600 006, against the order dated 31. 10. 2003 and made in M. P. No. 393 of 2003 in C. C. No. 447 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I) Court, Egmore, Chennai-8.

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2/accused 2 and 3 in C. C. No. 447 of 2002 filed M. P. No. 393 of 2003 under Section 305 (6) of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to issue summons to M/s. New Line Finance Ltd. , the first accused and direct them to send an authorised representative to defend them in the proceedings in C. C. No. 447 of 2002. As per order dated 31. 10. 2003, the petition was allowed ordering summons to be issued to the company, the first accused and one S. Ramasamy, Manager of the said company for appearance. The order is challenged by the revision petitioner.

(3.) THE respondents 1 and 2/accused 2 and 3 filed the petition in M. P. No. 393 of 2003 stating that in the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner/complainant, the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, has arrayed M/s. New Line Finance Ltd. , as the first accused denoting the accused 2 and 3 as representing the first accused company. The second accused has resigned from the post of Managing Director of M/s. New Line Finance Ltd. , with effect from 6. 2. 1997, which has been accepted by the Board of Directors vide Resolution dated 6. 2. 1997 and which has also been notified to the Registrar of Companies by submitting Form No. 32 dated 3. 3. 1997. It is also brought to the notice of the complainant by way of reply to the show cause notice. The third accused was only an employee occupying the position of Vice-President of the first accused company and was never in the Board of Directors of the first accused company. The third accused has resigned as early as in December, 1996 and as such, the accused 2 and 3 have no locus standi to represent the first accused company, which is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is the corporation within the meaning of Section 305 (1) Cr. P. C. and as such, the said company alone can appoint a representative for facing the prosecution. The complainant is not empowered to make the accused 2 and 3 to represent the first accused company. Since the first accused company is a juristic person and on the date of launching the prosecution, the accused 2 and 3 had severed all ties with the first accused company, the accused 2 and 3 cannot plead on behalf of the first accused company under Section 246 (2) Cr. P. C. and also cannot answer the questions under Section 311 Cr. P. C. At present, the first accused company is not being represented by any competent person authorised by the first accused company to participate in the proceedings. As per the resolution dated 6. 2. 1997 by the Board of Directors of the first accused company, one S. Ramasamy has been authorised to institute and defend legal proceedings both civil and criminal. Therefore, they prayed to issue summons to the first accused company to direct them to send an authorised representative to defend the first accused company in the proceedings.