TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Representative Substitution; Bars Multiple Revisions; Quashes Evidence Expunction; Trial to Conclude in 6 Months.</h1> <h3>Bijay Kumar Bhattar Versus Trimurti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The HC upheld the substitution of the complainant company's authorized representative, affirming that the accused cannot dictate representation. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Substitution of authorized representative in a complaint case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Maintainability of a second revisional application u/s 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Legality of expunging evidence already on record.Summary:1. Substitution of Authorized Representative:The revisional application u/s 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenges the judgment dated 29.1.2008 by the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, which affirmed the order dated 30.3.2007 by the Metropolitan Magistrate allowing substitution of the authorized representative of the complainant company. The Metropolitan Magistrate permitted Vinay Kumar Gupta to replace Pawan Kumar Agarwal, who had left the company. The Sessions Judge upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr., which allows a company to change its representative during proceedings. The court emphasized that the accused cannot dictate who represents the company and that the substitution was necessary as the previous representative had left the company.2. Maintainability of Second Revisional Application:The petitioner filed a second revisional application after the initial one was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The court highlighted the bar u/s 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits a second revisional application by the same person. The court noted that the concurrent jurisdiction for revisional power lies either with the Sessions Court or the High Court, and once a choice is made, a second application is not maintainable.3. Legality of Expunging Evidence:The petitioner contested the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate expunging the evidence given by Pawan Kumar Agarwal. The court found no provision in the Evidence Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows for the expunction of evidence already on record. The court ruled that the substitution of the authorized representative does not justify expunging the evidence and that the value of such evidence should be assessed at the trial's conclusion. Consequently, the order to expunge the evidence was set aside and quashed.Conclusion:The revisional application was disposed of with directions to proceed expeditiously and conclude the trial within six months. The court clarified that it did not discuss the merits of the complaint case or the value of the evidence, leaving these matters to be decided independently by the lower court. The application filed by the opposite party (CRAN 1739/2008) was also disposed of along with the revisional application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
