IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.25876 OF 2009 RPG TRANSMISSION LIMITED, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTRE, BASANT LOK, BASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110057 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RAKESH DIXIT, ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE LABOUR INFORMATION OFFICER (CENTRAL), BHAGALPUR, INCHARGE, KATIHAR ******* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. SANDEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. MAYANAND JHA, A.P.P. ************** 2 19/08/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.06.2009 by which the Judicial Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 27.08.2003, 13.03.2004 and 09.01.2007 by which bailable and non-bailable warrant of arrest have been directed to be issued against the petitioner. A complaint petition has been filed by the State Government through the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bhagalpur and Incharge Katihar making the company accused through Shri Ramesh Chandak, Managing Director and Shri Deepak Luthra, General Manager (Project). The case of the petitioner is that the 2 Court below issued summons to the two representatives of the Company which were never served on the Company or its representatives and they could not come to know about the case until the year 2007 when the Police visited them. On learning about the case pending against the Company, the Company appointed Shri Vijay Kumar to represent the Company in the said case vide Annexure-2. It has been stated in Annexure-2 that there is no person by the name of Ramesh Chandak who is the Managing Director of the Company. With respect to Deepak Luthra, it has been stated that he was the General Manager (Project) of the Company till the year 2001 and after that he resigned and has left the Company and at present his whereabouts are not known to the Company. Mr. Vijay Kumar appeared in the case and filed a petition contained in Annexure-2 on 22.11.2007 seeking the Court’s permission under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to represent the Company in all the proceedings pending before the Court below. However, the Court below has rejected the petition by order dated 17.06.2009 on the ground that the petitioners never appeared and as such the non-bailable warrant of arrest were issued by order dated 09.01.2007 will be effected. 3 The questions involved here are that whether the summons issued has been validly served on the Company? Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that having received no summons, the Court below erred in issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is well settled that on issuance of summons the Court should wait for the report or send fresh notice before issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest. There is no report with respect to the fact that notices were served to the petitioner company and as such the order issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest cannot be said to be legally correct. The larger question in this case is whether Mr. Vijay Kumar can be permitted to appear and represent the Company in this case. Sub-section 2 of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “where a corporation is the accused persons or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative of the purpose the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation”. Sub-section 3 of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a representative of the corporation on appearance would be deemed to 4 represent the company for any action taken under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, it is apparent that there is no person by the name of Ramesh Chandak and as such the complaint petition appears to be defective. This fact would be the subject matter of enquiry before the Court below and the Court below ought to satisfy itself as to whether the First Information Report has been led against a person who is actually a Managing Director of the Company. However, in view of the fact that the company has now been presented itself, the Court below ought to proceed with the case accepting the representation of Mr. Vijay Kumar in accordance with law. Accordingly, the orders dated 27.08.2003, 13.03.2004 and 09.01.2007 along with the order dated 17.06.2009 are quashed and the Court below is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court of Shri S.M.F. Bari, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Case No. C II 45 of 2001 through fax at the cost of the 5 petitioner. A.F.R./Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )