IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1339 OF 2011 Between: Kum. S.Vanaja & Anr. … Petitioners-A8 & A10 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Addl. Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following order : (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1339 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 06-12-2010 passed in Crl.MP.No.1301 of 2010 in CC.No. 394 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IV-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, grant stay of all further proceedings and consequently permit the petitioner to be represented by Sri G.Praveen Kumar in CC.No. 394 of 2010 in the interest of justice and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The point to be decided is the petitioner, which is a company arrayed as an accused had moved application under section 305 Cr.P.C. seeking to represent the petitioner-company through Mr.G.Praveen Kumar. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy submitted that since the Managing Director of the Company, Mr.Ch.Kiron is being prosecuted as A-3 and it is not possible for him to represent the petitioner-company (A2) particularly to avoid conflict and embarrassment at the time of trial and a resolution was passed by the Board and Mr.G.Praveen Kumar filed an application to represent the said company and the said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that without any authority Mr. G.Praveen Kumar ifiled the said application. Hence, the learned Magistrate had rightly dismissed the petition filed under section 305 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioner-company can file a fresh application and the trial court can consider the same. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the records. 5. In view of the above submissions, the person who is authorised by the petitioner-company can move the trial Court by way of filing a fresh application and the learned Magistrate is also directed to consider it favourably in view of the provisions under section 305 Cr.P.C. 6. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court on 18-02-2011 is also dispensed with and further the learned Magistrate is directed to conclude the trial of CC.No. 394 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15-02-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1339 OF 2011 Circulation No. 93 Date: 15-02-2011 Court Master : I s L