Company authorised representative substitution and recorded testimony cannot be expunged merely because the representative changes

A company, as a juristic person, may substitute one authorised representative for another during criminal proceedings when the earlier representative no longer has a connection with it, and the accused cannot insist on continuity of the same individual. Evidence already recorded of the earlier representative cannot be expunged merely because of that substitution, since recorded testimony remains part of the trial record and must be assessed on its own worth. The High Court may still intervene under its inherent jurisdiction to correct a grave illegality or prevent abuse of process notwithstanding the bar on a second revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complainant-company could substitute a different authorised representative in place of the person who had earlier represented it; (ii) whether evidence already recorded of the earlier authorised representative could be expunged merely because of such substitution; and (iii) whether the High Court could intervene despite the bar on a second revision.

Issue (i): whether a complainant-company could substitute a different authorised representative in place of the person who had earlier represented it.

Analysis: A company is a juristic person and must act through a natural person in court proceedings. The person who represents it is not immutable, and the company may seek substitution when the earlier representative has ceased to have any connection with it. The accused cannot insist that the company must continue with the same individual throughout the proceeding.

Conclusion: The substitution of the authorised representative was permissible and calls for no interference.

Issue (ii): whether evidence already recorded of the earlier authorised representative could be expunged merely because of such substitution.

Analysis: Evidence once recorded forms part of the record and has to be assessed on its own worth at the stage of trial. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Evidence Act authorising expunction of such evidence merely because the complainant-company changes its representative. The incomplete testimony of the earlier representative therefore could not be wiped out from the record on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The order expunging the recorded evidence was unlawful and was set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court could intervene despite the bar on a second revision.

Analysis: Section 397(3) bars a further revision by the same person after choosing one revisional forum, but the High Court's inherent power may still be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to correct a grave illegality. Where the impugned order discloses a clear jurisdictional or legal error causing injustice, the High Court is not powerless to act.

Conclusion: The bar on second revision did not prevent corrective interference in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The substitution of the company's representative was upheld, but the direction expunging the earlier evidence was quashed, and the revisional application was disposed of with a partial grant of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A company may replace its authorised representative during trial, and evidence already recorded cannot be expunged merely because of such substitution; the High Court may correct a clear illegality under its inherent jurisdiction notwithstanding the bar on a second revision.

---