Company representation in criminal proceedings upheld where petitioner was in charge during the relevant period.

In criminal proceedings against a company, representation may be directed in favour of the person who was in charge of its affairs during the relevant period. The Court noted that the company shown as A-2 had been treated in the records as a division of A-1 during that period, and that the petitioner was Chairman of A-1 at the time. Later transfer arrangements and custody issues relating to records did not displace that earlier position, and any difficulty in producing documents could be addressed by procedural directions. The request to substitute the petitioner as representative of A-2 was upheld and the criminal revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to represent the arrayed company A-2 in the criminal case.

Analysis: The company described as A-2 had been shown in the records as a division of A-1 during the relevant period, and the petitioner was the Chairman of A-1 at that time. The Court noted that the later transfer arrangements and custody of records did not displace the earlier position for purposes of representation at the trial stage, and that any difficulty in producing records could be met by appropriate procedural directions.

Conclusion: The request to substitute the petitioner as representative of A-2 was upheld, and no ground was found to interfere with that direction.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revision failed and the order permitting the petitioner to represent A-2 remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of criminal proceedings against a company, representation may be ordered in favour of the person who was in charge of its affairs during the relevant period, and later procedural difficulties regarding records do not by themselves warrant interference.

---