Section 305 CrPC inapplicable to partnership firms; Income-tax Act penalty provisions cannot compel representation in criminal prosecution.

Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to an accused that is a corporation or registered society, and a partnership firm does not fall within that definition because it is not an incorporated company, other body corporate, or registered society. The Income-tax Act provisions relied on by the Revenue, including sections 159(6), 189(3) and 189(5), relate to penalty proceedings under Chapter XXI and do not authorise representation in prosecutions and offences under Chapter XXII. As a result, those provisions cannot be used to compel a legal representative to represent a firm in criminal proceedings, and an order fixing such representation is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a partnership firm so as to enable the court to fix a person to represent the firm in prosecution proceedings, and whether the Income-tax Act, 1961 provisions relied on by the Revenue authorise such representation in a criminal prosecution.

Analysis: Section 305 applies only where the accused is a corporation or a registered society, and the statutory definition of corporation is confined to an incorporated company, other body corporate, or a registered society. A partnership firm does not fall within that definition. The provisions of sections 159(6), 189(3) and 189(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were held to relate to penalty proceedings under Chapter XXI and not to prosecutions and offences under Chapter XXII. Accordingly, those provisions could not be invoked to compel a legal representative to represent the firm in criminal proceedings.

Conclusion: Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable to a firm, and the order fixing the petitioner as representative of the firm was unsustainable.

---