Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) IN the present case a complaint was filed by Shrisardar Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 500 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against M/s. Odebrecht Perfuracoes Ltd. , (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the company ) and Mr. J. A. Bernardi, Director of Operations in India of the said company, the allegations made in thecomplaint are based on a news item published in the Financial Express dated 20/11/1992. In this news item it has been, inter alia, stated "thatm/s. Jagson International Limited, (JIL), an oil drilling company, has alreadybeen dragged to the Court by OPL over what they claim to be unethicalbusiness practices by the Indian company. According to OPL,none of these conditions were fulfilled. Jagson undertook contracts for thetwo rigs under the name of JIL instead. Terming this as unethical OPLdecided to withdraw from the agreement. " ( 2 ) THE said complaint was listed for hearing before Shri R. S. Mahla,metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 19/12/1992 and the complainant examined himself in support of the allegations made in the complaint. In his statement, inter alia, he stated that as a shareholder of the companyknown as JIL he was an interested and affected party when its reputationwas damaged. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learnedcounsel for the complainant, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate orderedthat all the accused be summoned.) In terms of the order passed by thelearned Metropolitan Magistrate both the accused were further restrainedfrom leaving the country without prior permission of the Court It may bepointed out here that as per the complaint, the company has been shownbeing represented through it Managing Director Mr. Luiz Villar. ( 3 ) IN the present petition the petitioners have challenged the orderdated 19/12/1992 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. ( 4 ) MR. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalfof the petitioners submitted that the complainant without even verifyingfrom the newspaper concerned as to whether the news item published in thenewspaper was on the basis of any statement given by the petitioner, hasfiled this complaint which was false and frivolous. He further submittedthat even in the same news item it has been stated that JIL of which thecomplainant claims to be one of the shareholders has alleged that OPLsiphoned off millions of Dollars through the sale of the rigs to two papercompanies. He further submittedthat even in the same news item it has been stated that JIL of which thecomplainant claims to be one of the shareholders has alleged that OPLsiphoned off millions of Dollars through the sale of the rigs to two papercompanies. Hi", therefore, submitted that the complainant before rushingto the Court atleast should have contacted the newspaper concerned to verifythe facts mentioned in the news item. He, further submitted that in anycase the complaint could have been filed by JIL and not by the complainantwho has not even stated in the complaint or in his statement as to nowmany shares he owns. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate exceeded the jurisdiction inpassing the restraint order against the Managing Director of the petitionercompany as under the law, the company could be represented by any of itsauthorised representative. He also submitted that there was no justificationeven in passing any restraint order against petitioner No. 2. He furthersubmitted that in the absence of confirmation of facts from the newspaperconcerned no offence is made out in terms of the allegations made in thecomplaint. ( 5 ) MR. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf ofrespondent No. 2, submitted that from the allegations made in the complaint read with the statement of the complainant made before the learnedmetroplitan Magistrate, prima fade, a case is made out against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC. He further submitted that even if there wereno allegations in the complaint involving the petitioners in the commissionof crime, it was open to the petitioners to plead before the learned Magistrate concerned that the process against them ought not have been issued andthe learned Magistrate may drop the proceedings after he is satisfied onreconsideration of the complaint thatjthere was no evidence for which thepetitioners could be tried. For this, there was no justification to approachthis Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention the learned Counsel placedreliance on two Supreme Court decisions in Khachru v. State of U. P. , 1982 (3) SCO 218 and KM. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) SCC 217 . P. C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention the learned Counsel placedreliance on two Supreme Court decisions in Khachru v. State of U. P. , 1982 (3) SCO 218 and KM. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) SCC 217 . ( 6 ) I have perused the record and after hearing the learned Counselfor the parties I am of the view that the petitioners after entering appearancein response to the summons should approach the learned Magistrate fordropping the proceedings. ( 7 ) I, however, do not find any justification for passing the order bythe learned Metropolitan Magistrate restraining the Managing Director ofthe petitioner company from leaving the country without prior permissionof the Court. It is well settled law that a company accused of any offencemay be represented by any person duly authorised by the company and notnecessarily by the Managing Director. I, therefore, set aside the directiongiven by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate placing restraint on themanaging Director of the petitioner company from leaving the countrywithout prior permission of the Court. As regards petitioner No. 2 I directthat he shall enter his appearance before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the date fixed for hearing and he shall be released on bail in termsand conditions of the bail to be imposed by the learned Metropolitanmagistrate and thereafter on the subsequent dates of hearing he will not berequired to appear in person and may appear through his Counsel till thelearned Magistrate finds his personal presence necessary at any stage of theproceedings of the case. The impugned order passed by the learnedmetropolitan Magistrate is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. ( 8 ) WITH this order the petition stands disposed of.