Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited vs The Additional Deputy Commercial ... on 9 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
and Crl.MP.Nos.1482, 1483 & 1484 of 2016
Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited,
Manali Express Highway,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Muthukaruppan, Manali, Chennai - 68.
...Petitioner/A3
Versus
The Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Commercial Tax Department,
Puducherry. .. Respondent
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 08.12.2015 made in Crl.R.C.No.
9 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, confirming
the order dated 21.04.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.6739 of 2009 in C.C.No.506
of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
For Mr.T.K. Ravikumar
For Respondent : Mr.Bharath Chakravarthy
Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.
---
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 08.12.2015
made in Crl.R.C.No. 9 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge,
Puducherry, confirming the order dated 21.04.2014 made in
Crl.M.P.No.6739 of 2009 in C.C.No.506 of 2006 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry.
2. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint in C.C.No.506 of
2006 against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 190(1)
(a) of CrPC., r/w Section 49(1)(a), 49(2)(b), 49(2)(d) of the PGST Act, 1967
r/w Sec.34 IPC., Rule 56 of the PGST Rules, 1967 r/w Section 34 IPC and
also under Sections 177, 409, 420 IPC and Section 34 IPC. The petitioner
herein is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.506 of 2006 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry. During the pendency of the calendar case, the
respondent/complainant filed a petition under Section 305 of CrPC., to
permit the company to appoint a representative and to represent on behalf of
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
Company/A3 in this case, and the same was dismissed by order dated
21.04.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner/A3 filed a petition in
Crl.R.C.No.9 of 2014 under Sections 397 r/w Section 401 of CrPC., to revise
the order of the Court below and the same was dismissed by the learned II
Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, dated 08.12.2015. Aggrieved by
the said order, the petitioner/A3 filed a Criminal Original Petition before this
Court to set aside the order dated 08.12.2015 made in Crl.R.C.No.9 of 2014
on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Pondicherry.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the 3rd accused namely M/s. Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Limited
in C.C.No.506 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry, is a
body incorporated under the Companies Act, 1955 and the said company has
a right under Section 305 of CrPC., to appoint some one to represent on
behalf of Company during the trial. At this stage, the
respondent/complainant has no right to say that the Managing Director is to
represent the case, which is in clear violation of Section 305 of CrPC.
Hence, he prays to permit the company to appoint a representative under
Section 305 CrPC., and permit him to represent on behalf of the 3rd accused
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
in the above case. He further submitted that the resolution dated 29.07.1999
stating that the Managing Director was authorised to nominate a person to
represent the company and accordingly, Mr.Ramamurthy, was authorized by
letter dated 29.03.2007, who was representing the company in Court matters.
The authorisation letter was kept in abeyance, the said Ramamurthy resigned
on 29.05.2009 and hence, another authorization letter dated 29.05.2009 was
given in favour of Mr.Ralph and the same was produced before the Court on
28.10.2009 along with a petition under Section 305 CrPC., During the
pendency of the petition before the Court below namely Mr.Ralph retired and
based on the resolution dated 12.02.2014 Mr.Syed Jalal, Deputy Manager
was authorized to represent the Company and the same was accepted and the
same was produced before the Court below. Hence he prays to set aside the
order dated 08.12.2015.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) submitted that the
petitioner's company/A3 has not stated that the liability fixed under Section
305 CrPC., on a person who is in charge of responsible in the above said
company for the conduct of the business was intended to get over resort to
Section 305 CrPC., which has permitted a person to be representative of a
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
Company. He further submitted that the petitioner/A3 has not stated that the
proposed representative would give undertake that he was a responsible
person to the Company for the conduct of the business at the time of alleged
commission of offence and indicated the details of a person who is liable to
be proceeded against if the company is found guilty.
5. Heard Mr.Mr.S.Karthikeyan for Mr.T.K. Ravikumar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Bharath Chakravarthy, learned
Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondent and perused
the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the documents and typed set of papers, it is clear that
the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and two others. The
petitioner is the 3rd accused namely M/s.Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Limited,
represented by Mr.R.M.Muthukaruppan, Managing Directer of the Company
and it has been cited as an accused citing its representative who is
responsible for the said offence of the relevant point of time by citing its
Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer as 3rd accused but the said
Managing Director and the Chief Operating Officer authorized one
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
Mr.Ramamoorthy who lead executive tax (Commercial Tax) to act on behalf
of the company to execute the legal proceedings on behalf of the company as
per the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company at their
meeting held on 29.07.1999 but the same could be applied in case of any
legal proceedings initiated as arrayed an accused and the representative of
the said Muthukaruppan has been arrayed as A3 who is responsible for the
said act of the company at the relevant point of time and the charges can be
decided only after full trial but he cannot further delicate his possession of
accused of some other person and he cannot be reported or substituted by
another person in terms of section 305 CrPC., As such, the points raised by
the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by the Court below, dated 08.12.2015 made in
Crl.R.C.No. 9 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions
Judge, Puducherry, confirming the order dated 21.04.2014 made in
Crl.M.P.No.6739 of 2009 in C.C.No.506 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. However, the petitioner shall be present
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges,
questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
The trial Court is directed to complete the entire process within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
8. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are
also closed.
09.08.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
msm
To
1. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry.
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
msm
Crl.O.P.No. 2826 of 2016
and Crl.MP.Nos.1482, 1483 & 1484 of 2016
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
