2014 (5) TMI 1238 - HC - Indian Laws

Company representatives cannot be forced to furnish bonds under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - HC rules practice illegal

The Punjab and Haryana HC held that imposing conditions requiring an authorized representative of a company to furnish bonds under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ... Imposition of conditions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for appointment of an authorized representative in a criminal complaint - asking the representative to furnish bonds - whether the condition imposed amounts to issuance of direction to the company to furnish bonds and this condition is illegal and erroneous as there is no provision in the Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT:- Section 305 Cr.P.C. deals with appointment of representative for the purpose of enquiry or trial. Clause 3 to Sub-section 305 sates that where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative etc. and any requirement that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined. Clause 4 of this Section states that where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub-section(3) shall not apply. The above laid procedure clearly shows that if any representative does not appear, then the condition that he shall be examined or anything is to explained to representative or to be read to him or evidence is to be taken in his presence, will not apply. It is nowhere written in the procedure that like an accused, bail bonds and surety bonds are to be taken or in his absence, non-bailable warrants be issued to procure the presence of the representative. It is also nothing in this provision that evidence must be recorded in the presence of representative or representative must be examined as is required for an accused. Therefore, in view of the specific provisions in the Cr.P.C., no bail bonds can be taken from the representative and his presence cannot be compelled on each and every date. The part of the impugned order whereby the representative of the Company was directed to furnish the bail bonds/surety bonds is set aside. Keeping in view the above discussion, the condition cannot be imposed as per the provisions of Section 305 Cr.P.C. Petition allowed. Issues:Petitioner seeks quashing of order imposing conditions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for appointment of an authorized representative in a criminal complaint. The issue involves legality of imposing conditions on the authorized representative of a corporation and compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.Analysis:The petitioner, a company, filed a petition against the State and respondents challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a criminal complaint. The petitioner was accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint involved summoning orders against the company and others, including an old-aged accused seeking exemption from appearance. The trial had to be restarted de-novo, and additional accused were summoned later. The petitioner appointed a new authorized representative due to the absence of the previous one. The trial court imposed conditions, including filing a bond, on the new representative, which the petitioner found illegal and contrary to law.The respondent argued that the conditions imposed by the trial court were correct and lawful. The court examined Section 305 Cr.P.C., which deals with the procedure for corporations or registered societies as accused. The section allows a corporation to appoint a representative for inquiry or trial, and if the representative does not appear, certain requirements do not apply. The court noted that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for taking bail bonds from a representative or compelling their presence on every date.Referring to a previous case, the court held that the condition imposing bail bonds on the representative was not in line with Section 305 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court set aside the condition imposed on the authorized representative, stating that any order resulting from noncompliance with the condition should also be nullified. The petition was allowed, and the condition was deemed unlawful and set aside.