JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)By this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Company (original accused no. 3) has approached this Court, challenging an order
dtd. 25/11/2019, passed by the Sessions Court, whereby the
petitioner-Company has been directed to depute some other
authorized person, failing which, the prosecution is directed to
take steps against the petitioner-Company (accused no. 3).
(2.)The said order is passed in the backdrop of a prosecution launched against the respondent no. 2 (original accused no. 1),
respondent no. 3 (original accused no. 2) and the petitionerCompany (original accused no. 3), for offences under Ss. 119, 120, 201, 420 read with Sec. 120-B of the IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.)During the course of the proceedings before the Sessions Court, an order dtd. 15/11/2018, came to be passed, whereby it
was recorded that the respondent no. 3 herein (accused no. 2) was
permitted to represent the accused no. 3 i.e. the petitionerCompany, in the proceedings. The said order appears to have
been passed on a prayer to that effect made by the petitionerCompany i.e. the accused no. 3. In this backdrop, respondent
no. 3 i.e. original accused no. 2 filed an application for
recalling/modification of the order dtd. 15/11/2018. In the said
application, it was specifically stated by the respondent no. 3
(accused no. 2) that neither an opportunity of hearing nor to file
response to the request made on behalf of the petitioner (accused
no. 3), was granted, while passing the order dtd. 15/11/2018. It
was submitted that the respondent no. 3 (accused no. 2) was no
longer a majority shareholder of the Company and he was
holding a negligible share i.e. less than 2% and therefore, he
could not represent the petitioner Company i.e. the original
accused no. 3. In this backdrop, a prayer was made for recalling
the order dtd. 15/11/2018.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.