(Under Section 482 of the CrPC) v. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizer Limitet

prayer to treat the evidence of Mr. Chahar as otiose alleging that he was not a valid and proper power of attorney of Kribhco. Objections were made against the said application the company on 18.9.2008. Learned Magistrate dismissed the said application dated 16.9.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1106/2008 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun.

Learned Counsel the applicants has challenged the validity of the Special Power of Attorney dated 8.9.2006, on the basis of which impugned complaint has been filed by Mr. Chahar. This Special Power of Attorney was executed by TR Chaudhary, the then Managing Director of Kribhco, in favour of Mr. Chahar, who at that time was the Sr. State Marketing Manager of the said company based at Dehradun. It has been stated that Mr. TR Chaudhary resigned from Kribhco way back in the year 2007, while Mr. Chahar has also put in his papers on

1.9.2011.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicants has argued that Mr. TR Chaudhary executed this Special Power of Attorney not on behalf of the said company, rather he executed the same on his own behalf. So, there is an innate 3 legal defect in the case and the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Magistrate. This argument has been refuted by the learned Counsel for Kribhco by drawing attention of this Court towards the Special Power of Attorney, the last three lines of the first page thereof reads as under: (cid:147)AND I, on behalf of KSFL hereby agree that all acts, deeds and things lawfully done by the said attorney shall be construed as acts, deeds and things done by me on behalf of KFSL and I undertake to ratify and (cid:133).(cid:148)

It is also pertinent to mention that the trial in the Court of Magistrate was almost at the verge of completion inasmuch as after the examination of the witnesses the case was posted for 25.11.2008 for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. Moreover, this Court, in a petition, had also directed the court below to complete the trial of the said complaint case expeditiously within six months. It was ordered way back in the year 2008. More than four years have elapsed since then, which is on account of filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC as the same has been filed to impede the expeditious disposal of the trial as directed by this Court.

Since Mr. TR Chaudhary and Mr. RVS Chahar, both are now not working in the said company as they have put in their papers, already stated above, so, a substitution application has been moved by Kribhco along with the affidavit of one Kaptan Singh, who is presently working as Sr. State Marketing Manager, Dehradun in place of Mr. Chahar and, now, another Special Power of Attorney has been executed by Mr. VP Kaushik, present Managing 4 Director of Kribhco in favour of Mr. Kaptan Singh. Objections have also been raised against the substitution and amendment applications.

Learned Counsel for Kribhco, countered the objections raised on behalf of accused by relying upon the precedents rendered by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in MMTC Ltd. & Another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. & Another, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234 and United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar & Others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC

In the first authority, the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court has reiterated the view earlier taken by it in the second verdict, and has categorically held that complaint, if filed on behalf of a company by its employee without necessary authorization, then such a complaint is maintainable and want of authorization can be rectified even at a subsequent stage. At paragraph 12 of the said precedent, this ratio has been elaborated as under: (cid:147)In the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. V. Keshvanand it has been held by this Court that the complainant has to be a corporeal person who is capable of making a physical appearance in the court. It has been held that if a complaint is made in the name of an incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the court. It is held that the court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as de facto 5 complainant to represent the former in the court proceedings. It has further been held that no Magistrate shall insist that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant company to seek permission of the court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court. Thus, even presuming, that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaints could thus not have been quashed on this ground. (cid:148)

In view of the above legal proposition, the Court feels that argument made on behalf of the applicants petitioners are quite baseless and are rejected with hook, line and sinker. The petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Since the accused applicants have abused the process of Court by filing the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC and even defied the orders of this Court for expeditious completion of the trial, hence a special cost of Rs. 10,000/- is hereby imposed on Balvinder Singh (applicant no. 2). Court below is directed to expeditiously conclude the trial.

Inform the court concerned accordingly.

17.10.2012 Prabodh (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)