IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, October 21, 2011 Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Criminal Petition No. 7653 of 2011 Between: Mrs. Anju Singh ..Petitioner and The State of A.P. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Criminal Petition No. 7653 of 2011 O r d e r: The point that is raised in this criminal petition is - whether the petitioner herein, who is earlier shown as A-1 in the case and who is also shown as representing A-4-company in the complaint – C.C.No. 325 of 2010 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, can be allowed to make a request that one - O.N.Vaishy, Vice-President of A-4-company be permitted to represent the aforesaid company in the case instead of herself. 2. The point is raised in the following circumstances. The petitioner who was earlier arrayed as A-1 in C.C.No. 325 of 2010 along with A-2 and A-3 filed Crl.P.No. 3622 of 2011 in this court for quashing the proceedings against her. That criminal petition was allowed on 14-06-2011 quashing the proceedings not only against her, who is the first petitioner (A-1) therein, but also against A-2 and A-3. It must however be mentioned here that since in the original criminal case A-4-company is shown as represented by A-1, who is the petitioner herein and who is the first petitioner in the above Crl.P.No. 3622 of 2011, in the above order a direction was given that A-4 company can be continued to be represented by A-1 i.e., the petitioner herein. 3. Now the petitioner’s grievance is that she is a lady residing in the State of Himachal Pradesh; that she cannot attend the court on every date of hearing representing the company and therefore another person as authorized by A-4 company should be permitted to represent A-4 in the aforesaid criminal case. The petitioner also submitted that one – O.N. Vaishy, has been chosen by A-4 to represent it in the above criminal proceedings. Vakalath has also been filed on his behalf, even prior to filing of Crl.P.No. 3622 of 2011. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not present. However, in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that his presence is not necessary also, having regard to the legal position emanating from Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S. 305 (2) says: “Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation.” It may be noted that employees and Directors of the Company may keep on changing and whenever there is such a change, the company may choose to appoint a new person to represent it in the criminal proceedings and some times this need may arise also because of the inconvenience of the persons earlier representing the company. In these circumstances and in view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that her request can be upheld. 5. Accordingly this criminal petition is allowed. A-4-company in C.C.No. 325 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District is permitted to appoint any other authorized representative to represent it in the aforesaid criminal case, subject to the orders of the learned Magistrate regarding the competence and suitability of such person to represent the company. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. October 21, 2011. *BVS