JUDGMENT D.P. Sengupta, J. Inspite of notice, nobody is appearing on behalf of the accused opposite parties. 2. The petitioner/complainant has come up before this Court for an appropriate direction upon the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and to dispose of the case No. 1499 of 97 under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the court of the learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. 3. The petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid proceeding under section 138 of the N.I. Act. On a prayer made by the accused company, the learned Magistrate allowed the company to be represented by a representative in the aforesaid case. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that one Mr. Manab Chatterjee represented the accused company upto 9th November, 1998 and then he stopped representing the company. On 19.2.99, one Anup Barua, Executive Officer of the said company prayed for allowing him to represent the accused company under section 305 Cr. P.C. Such prayer was allowed. The said second representative of the accused company stopped coming to Court on and from 17.5.99 and the defence prayed for time for further representation of the accused company by some other person before the trial court. On 1st March, 2000, the third representative namely Ashish Kr. Pandit filed an application praying for permission to represent the accused company. Such prayer was allowed and on the very same day, the plea was recorded and 28.4.2000 was fixed for evidence. It is submitted by the learned advocate of the petitioner that in this case, evidence is completed and the case is fixed for examination of accused persons under section 313 Cr. P.C. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since nobody is representing the company, the matter is being adjourned by the learned Magistrate time to time and the trial is kept pending for a long time. This proceeding was initiated in the year 1997 and since then the same is kept pending in the court below. The petitioner being the complainant in the present case is seriously prejudiced by such long pendency of the case. In such circumstances, the complainant made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for direction upon the accused No.2 who is the Managing Director of the company to represent the accused company. Such prayer was refused by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner being the complainant in the present case is seriously prejudiced by such long pendency of the case. In such circumstances, the complainant made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for direction upon the accused No.2 who is the Managing Director of the company to represent the accused company. Such prayer was refused by the learned Magistrate. It is at this stage the petitioner has come up before this court in revision. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in the present situation it is proper that the accused No.2 who is the Managing Director of the company should be directed to represent the company or the case of accused No.1 namely the accused company may be split up and the trial should proceed accordingly. 5. After hearing the learned advocate of the petitioner, I find sufficient merit in his submission. The proceeding cannot be kept pending for indefinite period since the accused company is not being represented by anybody. In such circumstances, I dispose of the present application by directing the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta to take up the matter and direct the accused No.2 who is the Managing Director of the company to represent the accused company as he is very much competent to represent the company. If the accused No.2 refuses to represent the company, the learned Magistrate is directed to split up the case of an accused No.1 company and proceed with the trial in accordance with law and to conclude same with utmost expedition, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 6. The present application is accordingly disposed of. 7. The learned advocate of the petitioner is directed to take the gist of the order and to communicate the same to the Court below. 8. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below by a special messenger at the cost of the petitioner and such cost is to be put in by tomorrow. Appeal disposed of