JUDGMENT 1. :- By way of instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 23.2.1998 whereby the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur had taken cognizance against the petitioners for purported offence punishable u/Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, for short "the Act" in Complaint No. 60/98. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 4.5.1999 had issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted and disposed of at admission stage itself and the same were issued by the office on 6.5.1999. The State is duly represented by the leaned Public Prosecutor Mr. Madhav Mitra who is present in Court. As regards service report on complainant- respondent No.1, it was not deemed to be sufficient in view of the endorsement on the notice that since the addressee is available at the registered address (Maru Hospital, PO Navalgarh Jhunjhunu) consequently, the service could not be effected. 2. Though, as per the requirement of Section 170 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, all the requisite particulars must be indicated in the notice which is issued for effecting service on the non-petitioners pursuant to the directions of this Court and it cannot be said that due particulars had not been indicated by the petitioners for effecting service on respondent No.1 yet, having regard to the fact that service will take time and in the meantime the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial Court may not be delayed and that the interest of justice will be served if instead of adhering to the matter which involves pure question of law to be raised for adjudication and determination by the trial Court more particularly having regard to the provisions of Section 63 read with 621 of the Act as well as other relevant provisions of the law, I am of the view that instead of keeping this petition pending here in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. having involved the question relating to jurisdiction of the court in the matter of taking cognizance against the petitioners, this matter requires adjudication at the first instance before the trial can proceed against the accused for the cognizance having been taken against them for offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act. 3. 3. It is consequently directed that the trial Court shall after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties decide the aforesaid question and record its finding by passing a reasoned order in this regard. Since the petitioners are already represented by their counsel before the trial Court, it is consequently directed that the trial Court shall not insist upon their personal presence till the aforesaid questions are decided thereafter, even deeming necessary the trial Court may direct the accused to be present since cognizance has already been taken against them in accordance with law. 4. With the observations made above, the misc. petition stands disposed of.Petition Disposed Of. *******