IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1878 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.293/2007 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- M.K. DILEEP KUMAR,S/O.SHRI KRISHNAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, ARAKKUZHA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SHASHI KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. (FORMERLY SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD), 40/786, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, MR.SIBI JOHN, S/O. JOHN, RESIDING AT ANANTHURUTHIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1878 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The complaint was preferred by the complainant company through an official of the company, its power of attorney holder. Complaint was received. Cognizance was taken. The case is progressing before the court below. At that stage the earlier power of attorney holder was promoted and it became difficult for such person to continue as the power of attorney holder of the company for the conduct of cases. Therefore the company made a request that another person may be permitted to function as the power of attorney holder of the company. Substitution of the power of attorney holder was prayed for. That application was opposed stoutly by the accused. What is the ground of objection? The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the power of attorney who was to step into the shoes of the former power of attorney was a person who did not know all the details of the transaction. Crl.M.C.No.1878/08 2 Ignoring this objection raised by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition. The prayer for substitution was allowed. The petitioner is said to be aggrieved by the said order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the objection that the present power of attorney is not a person competent to tender evidence on behalf of the company. I find this objection to be absolutely untenable. The question is not whether the present power of attorney is competent to tender evidence or not. The question is only whether he can represent the company which is only a fictitious legal person and not a natural legal person. If the present power of attorney holder who represents the company attempts to tender evidence and the court is not satisfied on his cross examination that he has direct information about the facts to be deposed, the value of the evidence he tenders will be too low for acceptance. That is not the question to be considered now. At present the only consideration is whether the present power of attorney holder can be permitted to represent the company which is not a natural legal person. Such representation of the company can be made by any individual whether he be one knowing the details of the transaction or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a further grievance that the application was not properly numbered and that there was no proper hearing before the decision was taken to allow the application. He complains that there was no detailed Crl.M.C.No.1878/08 3 reasoned order. 3. The report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The learned Magistrate accepts that there was some delay in the numbering of petitions. But I am satisfied that the alleged defect is not at all sufficient to assail the impugned decision on merits. Objections have been raised in detail by the petitioner and the only objection is what I have already referred above. That objection is totally untenable. The fact that there was no formal hearing in the petition or that there was no formal detailed reasoned order do not in the facts and circumstances of this case persuade me to interfere with the impugned order invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The nature of the order must be alertly perceived. The company which is a legal person and not a natural one must have someone in flesh and blood to represent the company before the court. The earlier person was unable to continue and therefore the present power of attorney holder had requested that he may be permitted to represent the company. In any view of the matter the request cannot but be allowed. 5. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.1878/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.1878/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008