spb/- 1 15-10wp858-854-07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 858 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 855 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 856 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 857 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2007 WITH CRI. APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2008 IN W.P. NO. 854 OF 2007 Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd., ... Petitioners (s). Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. ... Respondents. ...... Mrs. Mohite Revati Dere for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. None for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in all the above petitions and learned APP for the State. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though they are served. spb/- 2 15-10wp858-854-07.sxw 2 By order dated 28th September, 2010 these writ petitions were specifically listed for final hearing today in the presence of the learned counsel then appeared on behalf of the respondent nos.2,3 and 4. 3 Brief facts of the matter are as under : The complaint was filed by the petitioners herein against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the time of filing of the complaint, the petitioners had authorized one Sureh Kumar Kanchinadham to represent them. Thereafter, Ketan Shah was substituted in place of the said Suresh Kumar Kandhinadham and thereafter again an application was made for substitution in place of said Ketan Shah. Thereafter, the petitioners company had issued a power of attorney dated 25th April, 2006 in favour of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.; whereby the petitioners have absolutely assigned, transfered and released its rights to the M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., as their power of attorney to pursue their cases. Accordingly, thereafter, an application was made for substitution of the name of M/s. Poonam Chavan, as a representative of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank in place of Ketan Shah. This authorization was made by the Board Resolution dated 25th May, 2006. The learned Magistrate allowed the application for substitution and accordingly, amendment was also carried out by the petitioners in the plaint. 4 However, the respondents challenged the said order before the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay who by its judgment and order dated 24.03.2007 was placed to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed these writ spb/- 3 15-10wp858-854-07.sxw petitions. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners is a Bank, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, has to be represented by a natural person. The petitioners having assigned the rights to represent the petitioners to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank, who in turn authorized Mrs. Poonam Chavan to represent the petitioners in the criminal cases. It is submitted that there are several judgments of our Courts and the Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that such substitution is permissible. 6 None appears on behalf of the Respondents though they have been served. They are aware that the matter is kept for final disposal. In my view, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is patently illegal. It is settled position in law that in a case of an artificial person, such as a company, it has to be represented through a natural person. The petitioners having assigned their rights to pursue the case to the Kotak Mahindra Bank, who had authorized Mrs. Poonam Chavan by resolution dated 25th May, 2006 to represent the petitioners in the trial court, in my view, the petitioners were perfectly justified in filing application for substitution. The Sessions Court in my opinion, clearly committed an error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned order. 7 The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Petitioners have already amended the complaint pursuant to their application being allowed by the learned Magistrate. The trial court is spb/- 4 15-10wp858-854-07.sxw directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from today. 8 I am informed that even Mrs. Poonam Chavan has been transfered by the company M/s. Kotak Mahindra Ltd., from one department to another and therefore, if an application for substitution is filed by the petitioners company, the same may be disposed of expeditiously by permitting the substitution. 9 All these petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, the Cri. Application No. 88/2008 and other applications, if any, are also disposed of. 10 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order duly issued by the Registry. [V.M. KANADE, J.]