*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA +Criminal Revision Case Nos.235, 423 & 424 of 2002 % 08.04.2010 +Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2002: # M/s. Natco Pharma Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad. … Petitioner/A.1 and $M/s. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., rep. by its Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory, Ameerpet,Hyderabad, and another … Respondents +Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2002: # M/s. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., rep. by its Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory, Ameerpet,Hyderabad. … Petitioner/ Complainant and $ K.V. Ranga Rao and another … Respondents + Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2002: # M/s. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., rep. by its Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory, Ameerpet,Hyderabad. … Petitioner/ Complainant and $ V.C.Nannapaneni and another … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri C.Kodandaram, Counsel for petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2002 Sri D.Srinivas Prasad, Counsel for petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.423&424 of 2002 ^ Counsel for respondents: Public Prosecutor for State and others ? CASES REFERRED: ---- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case Nos.235, 423 & 424 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: These three revisions are inter-related, and hence, they are disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2002 is filed by Accused No.1 against the order dated 07.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001, whereas Crl.R.C.Nos.423 and 424 of 2002 are filed by the complainant against the orders dated 07.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.Nos.3205 and 3204 of 2001 respectively, in C.C.No.52 of 2001 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited is the complainant, M/s. Natco Pharma Limited is Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Executive Director respectively, in C.C.No.52 of 2001. The complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 418 IPC. i) Subsequently, A.1 to A.3 filed three separate applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.2296, 3205 and 3204 of 2001 respectively with a prayer that A.1 company may be permitted to be represented by its Company Secretary and A.2 and A.3 may be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder. It is stated that A.2 and A.3 are looking after the day to day affairs of A.1 company and because of their daily business schedule i.e. meetings, welfare measures of the employees of A.1 company and their frequent travel to various countries in connection with their business activities, they are not in a position to attend the court. ii) The said applications were opposed by the complainant company stating that if A.2 and A.3 are permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder, they may leave the country and there is no possibility of securing their presence. Therefore, A.2 and A.3 shall not be permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder. iii) The court below, having considered the submissions and also the legal aspect involved in the matter, came to the conclusion that A.2 and A.3 can be permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat holder, and accordingly, allowed the applications filed by them, while dismissing the application filed on behalf of A.1 company on the ground that A.2 alone shall represent A.1 company, by separate orders dated 07.01.2002. Aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001, A.1 company filed Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2002. Challenging the orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.3205 and 3204 of 2001, the complainant filed Crl.R.C.Nos.423 and 424 of 2002 respectively. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is reiterated by the learned counsel for the complainant company that if A.2 and A.3 are permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder, they may leave the country and there is no possibility of securing their presence. 7. Admittedly, A.1 company is one of the leading pharmaceutical company having a business turnover of about Rs.500 crores. The allegation against the accused is that they have committed fraud/misappropriation of raw material worth Rs.2.4 crores, and in that regard, as admitted by both the counsel, there are suits pending before a competent civil court. The said suits have been instituted by A.1 company and the complainant company against each other. When once the suits are pending and A.1 company is having a business turnover of more than Rs.500 crores, it is highly unbelievable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant company that if A.2 and A.3 are permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder and they do not attend the court, there is every likelihood of their fleeing away and as such their presence cannot be secured. 8. As rightly held by the court below, granting permission to A.2 and A.3 to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder, as provided for under Section 205 Cr.P.C., is within the discretion of the court below, and the said discretion cannot be said to be arbitrarily exercised by the court below. 9. In the light of the above, I see no merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant company. 10. In so far as the Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001 filed by A.1 company is concerned, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for A.1 company that when once A.2 is permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder, as provided for under Section 205 Cr.P.C., it is absurd to hold that A.1 company shall be represented only by A.2. In my considered view, by virtue of the order dated 07.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001, A.2 shall be present before the court on behalf of A.1 company, whereas by an order dated 07.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.3204 of 2001, A.2 is permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder. When A.2 is permitted to be represented by a Special Vakalat Holder, how can he appear before the Court to represent A.1 company. As stated supra, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001 will run contrary to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3204 of 2001. Hence this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order dated 07.01.2002 passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001 is liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the foregone discussion, Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2002 filed on behalf of A.1 is allowed. The order dated 07.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001 in C.C.No.52 of 2001 is hereby set aside, and consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2296 of 2001 is allowed and it is ordered that A.1 company be represented by its Company Secretary. In so far as Crl.R.C.Nos.423 and 424 of 2002 filed on behalf of the complainant company are concerned, they are dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th April, 2010 Note: L.R.copy to bemarked. (b/o) CBS Oval: 144 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case Nos.235, 423 & 424 of 2002 8th April, 2010 Note: L.R.copy to bemarked. (b/o) CBS