IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.30505 OF 2009 1. SATYENDRA KUMAR AGARWALA, SON OF LATE P.C. AGARWALA 2. HARI KRISHNA SHARMA, SON OF LATE R.K. SHARMA 3. RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWALA, SON OF LATE P. C. AGARWALA 4. SHYAM SUNDER KHADRIA, SON OF LATE P. R. KHADRIA M/S SPEEDCRAFTS LTD., LAYAK BHAWAN, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA ………………………………………………………….………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI KHULESHWAR CHOUDHARY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EMPLOYMENT), PATNA DIVISION, LABOUR COMBINED BUILDING, PATNA ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 15/09/2009 This application has been filed on behalf of the above named Directors of M/s Speedcrafts Ltd., Layak Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna that they may be exempted from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 21.08.2003. The grounds taken in the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that the petitioners who are the Managing directors have been hauled up for the technical offence of not notifying the vacancies of two Sales Executive and one Executive Manager to the Central Employment Exchange, New Delhi in contravention of Section 4(ii) of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Court below by order dated 17.06.2009 on the ground that there has been great delay on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the matter. - 2 - Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Factory Manager has been made accused in the complaint petition and he is appearing before the Court below on each and every date and represent the Company and as such it cannot be said that the Company has remain unrepresented or that the petitioners cannot be blamed for delay in the disposal of the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the application which is Annexure-6, it has been specifically stated that the petitioners are ready to make themselves available whenever the Court directs them to appear at any stage of the case. In the facts of this case, since the Company is already represented and the offence is a technical one, I set aside the order dated 17.06.2009 passed by Sri Dasrath Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1616 of 2003. The above named petitioners are allowed to be represented through their Counsel on each and every date fixed in this case subject to the condition that the petitioners will make themselves available as per the direction of the Court below In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )