Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Krishnaswamy Sridhar, was accused No.4 in Special C.C. No.245/2002 pending before the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore. The case arose from a CBI FIR against M/s Emvee Comforts and Travels Limited and M/s Dhanapriya Housing and Finance Limited (collectively 'the Company') and others for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, a director of the company, filed an application under Section 305(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to represent the company before the court, claiming he had resigned as director. The trial court dismissed the application on 04.07.2018, holding that the petitioner's resignation was not believable and that he must continue as a representative of the company. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court observed that the trial court's order was unsustainable as it pre-judged the issue of resignation and exceeded the scope of Section 305(6) CrPC. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to consider the application afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier observations. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 305(6) - Representation of Company - The petitioner, accused No.4 and a director of the company, sought to represent the company under Section 305(6) CrPC after resigning as director. The trial court dismissed the application doubting the genuineness of resignation. The High Court held that the trial court's order was unsustainable as it pre-judged the issue and exceeded the scope of Section 305(6) CrPC. The court set aside the order and directed the trial court to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 305(6) CrPC seeking to represent the company, on the ground that his resignation as director was not believable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 04.07.2018, and directed the trial court to consider the application under Section 305(6) CrPC afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier observations.
Law Points
- Section 305 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- Right of accused to represent company
- Resignation of director
- CBI cases
