TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one Pawan Kumar Agarwal but an application was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.11.2006 whereby a prayer for substitution was made. It was stated that one Vinay Kumar Gupta may be permitted to substitute the said Pawan Kumar Agarwal. 5. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate initially passed certain directions but ultimately by order dated 30.3.2007 permitted the said Vinay Kumar Gupta to represent the complainant-company as its authorised agent in place of Pawan Kumar Agarwal. 6. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took into consideration the plea on behalf of the company that the said Pawan Kumar Agarwal has already left the company and as such the company is not in a position to cause his appearance. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took into consideration that the complainant being a company, is a juristic person and as the erstwhile authorised representative of the company namely Pawan Kumar Agarwal has left the company, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the prayer of complainant-company and directed such substitution. 7. The order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in connection with Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2007. Learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articular person whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant company to seek permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court. Thus, even presuming, that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaints could thus not have been quashed on this ground. 11. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot have any grievance about such substitution particularly when learned Court below accepted the contention of the complainant-company that its erstwhile authorised representative has already left the company and he is required to be substituted by another authorised representative. If that application was rejected by the learned Magistrate then it would have caused great prejudice to the complainant in order to pursue their case as because the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll not be maintainable. 17. The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes concurrent jurisdiction so far as the revisional power is concerned, either with the Court of Sessions or with the High Court. Law has given the choice to the party to approach either the Court of Sessions or the High Court in connection with revisional application. But once the choice is taken by the party to move the Court of Sessions and if the revisional application is decided finally against him then he cannot file a second revisional application before the High Court. 18. It is also pertinent to point out that the power of this Court under Section 482 cannot be exercised against a specific legal provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate passed on 30.3.2007 where the learned Magistrate directed that evidence adduced by Pawan Kumar Agarwal be expunged. The relevant portion of the order runs as follows: Evidence adduced by P. Agarwal is hereby expunged. 20. In the revisional application, at ground No. 2, it has been averred that learned Magistrate committed a ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this context that the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is normally exercised when the High Court finds it necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court should be exercised when the High Court finds that serious illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while dealing with a judicial matter oven at the same is not the subject-matter of the revision. 24. The present revision is mainly directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is nothing to show in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that this aspect of the matter was at all taken up before the said Court. But while dealing with an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot be unmindful of the actual state of affairs and cannot adopt a hyper technical approach while dealing with the matter. If during the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court about the serious illegality committed by the Court below, then in all fairness of the matter the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
