IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.787 of 1998 NAVIN KUMAR, S/o Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, Resident of Birla Colony, Phulwarisarif, P.O. & P.S. Phulwarisarif, District- Patna. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar, Patna having its office in Mauryalok, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District of Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 7/ 26.08.2010 No one appears for the Petitioner. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 04.03.1998 passed by Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna in Case no. 4 (C) of 1996 recalling the privilege under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 26.11.1998 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 267 of 1998. The petitioner stated that at the request of one Mr. B.K. Bhatt (Co-accused) he accepted the post of Director of Sanshar Developers Private Limited, which was registered on 07.06.1993. The petitioner resigned from the said post after 17 days vide his resignation letter dated 24.06.1993. On 24.06.1993 the Board of Directors of the company accepted his resignation. The said company also published notice in a local daily Navbharat times, Patna dated 09.11.1993 regarding his resignation. The petitioner vide his letter dated 16.11.1993 also informed the Registrar of the Company regarding his resignation. The petitioner however received notice dated 24.07.1996 from the Court of special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna bearing case no. 4 (C) of 1996 on 03.08.1996. The 2 petitioner was allowed privilege under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner stated that on one date i.e. 04.03.1998 Pairvi was not made and the learned Magistrate straightway recalled the privilege granted under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. A revision application has been filed against the order dated 04.03.1998 but that too was dismissed on 26.11.1998 by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna vide Cr. Revision no. 267 of 1998. The petitioner further stated that apart from this, the cognizance is also barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment under Section 220(3) of Companies Act. is Rs. 50/- per day as provided under Section 162(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Counsel for the State submits that if an accused misuses the privilege under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., the same can be recalled. The issue is whether if ‘Pairvi’ is not filed on one of these days by advocate, who was permitted to appear on behalf of accused, can the Magistrate issue Non-bailable warrant straight way, at the first instance itself. Section 205 of Cr.P.C. relates to power of Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance of accused. Section 205 (1) of Cr.P.C. confers power on Magistrate to issue summons, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. Sub-Section 2 of Section 205 of Cr.P.C. states 3 that it would be equally open for the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused. Thus, it appears that even if the Magistrate has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, he can direct for his personal attendance, if the counsel, who has been permitted to represent the accused, does not appear or file Pairvi. Thus, the Magistrate could not have issued Non-bailable warrant at the first instance, but could have issued summons to the petitioner to appear in the case. The punishment for alleged violation of Section 220(3) of the Indian Companies Act carries fine of Rs. 50/- per day as provided under Section 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, the impugned order recalling the privilege under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., and issuing the non-bailable warrant by same stroke of pen recalling the privilege granted thereof is not sustainable in law. Consequently the order dated 26.11.1998 passed by passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 267 of 1998 affirming the order of the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna in Case no. 4 (C) of 1996 are set aside. Furthermore, offences like Section 220(3) of the Indian Companies Act, under which the petitioner is being prosecuted would come within the purview of petty offences. The case has been filed in the year 1996, as such this Court directs the Magistrate in seisin of the case to dispose of the same preferably within a period 4 of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let this order be communicated to the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna in Case no. 4 (C) of 1996. This application stands allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)