HIRALAL GUPTA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short but interesting question arises in this revision. The Petitioner, H.P. Gupta, who was nominated by one Doaba Industrial & Trading Company (Private) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " DITCO" for brevity), assails the order passed by the Special C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No. 32 of 1994, wherein the learned trial court ordered that the representative of the Company should appear in the court and apply for bail. In other words, the prayer of the Petitioner to exempt him from applying for on bail was rejected. Such order is assailed in this revision.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that upon submission of charge sheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI" for brevity) for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity), cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and processes were issued against DITCO and against one P.R. Maniktala, Director-cum-General Manager, DITCO. In a revision application, this Court quashed the order of cognizance and prosecution against P.R. Maniktala. The CBI thereafter filed supplementary charge sheet against one J.K. Mediretta instead of P.R. Maniktala. Accordingly, processes were issued against J.K. Mediretta and charge was framed. Thereafter, the Company nominated HP. Gupta, being its Accounts Officer, under Section 305(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code" for brevity). The nomination was accepted by the learned Magistrate and the case was fixed for appearance of the said HP. Gupta as an accused. The use of word "accused" in respect of the said HP. Gupta was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3220 of 2009 and this Court, as per the order dated 14.10.2009, directed that HP. Gupta to be arrayed as representative of the Company (DITCO). Thereafter, he filed a petition for exempting him to go on bail as he is not an accused in this case. The learned Magistrate rejected the petition. Such order is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Keeping in view the limited nature of question involved and the fact that the Petitioner has also served a copy of the brief on the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, the matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission on consent of both the sides.