JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 14.9.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, No. 1, Bhilwara in criminal revision no. 19/96 whereby the revision has been rejected and the order dated 11.1.1996 passed by the Seamed Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur in criminal regular case no. 1066/92 of taking cognizance has been upheld. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Deepak Sarkar is an officer of Rajasthan Cooperative Service and has been working as General Manager of Gangapur Cooperative Spinning Mills which is now renamed as Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Limited, (Spinning Unit), Gangapur since 29.7.2000. The said mill, during the period 2.12.1991 to 24,12.1991, purchased 5603 bales of cotton and brought them within the limits of Municipal Board, Gangapur without paying necessary octroi thereon. So, the Municipal Board filed a complaint against the Mill through its Administrator-cum-Collector, General Manager and Purchase Officer in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur for the offence under Sections 132 and 251 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter for short called the Act) read with RR. 6, 8, 9 and 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962. it appears that on an application being filed on behalf of the Administrator-cum-District Collector and the Purchase Officer, the proceedings against them were dropped, but the plea of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was turned down and the cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 11.1.1996. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken charge of the office of the General Manager of the petitioner Society only on 29.7.2000 whereas the offences alleged to have been committed in the year 1991 and criminal proceedings can belonged and initiated only against persons who committed them and not against the posts. He has also contended that the learned courts below have wrongly rejected the application under Section 197 Cr.RC. He has also contended that the learned courts below have wrongly rejected the application under Section 197 Cr.RC. filed on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, to allow these proceedings to continue against him tantamounts to abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the same should be dropped in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.RC. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have strongly supported the orders of the learned courts below. They have strenuously argued that the complaint has been filed against the Mill through its Administrator-cum-District Collector, General Manager and Purchase Officer. They have contended that the service of summons on judicial person such as a Corporation or an incorporated Company or other body corporate or a registered society can be effected through its Secretary, Local manager or other Principal Officer and the' petitioner being the General Manager of the aforesaid Mill, the summons of the said Mill is being sought to be served through him and no proceedings are being taken against him in his personal capacity or as an officer of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Service. They have also, on the strength of an authority in the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 SC 1945 , argued that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.RC. is required to be taken in this case. 4. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration and have also perused the record. 5. A perusal of the complaint filed before the trial court shows that the complaint is filed against the Mill through its Administrator-cum-District Collector, General Manager and Purchase Officer. The proceedings as against the Administrator and the Purchase Officer have already been dropped, it is not disputed that the petitioner is presently working as General Manager of the Mill. As per the provisions of Section 63 Cr.RC. the service of summons on the said Mill can be effected through its General Manager, he being the Principal Officer of Mill. There is no question of any offence having been committed by him in his personal capacity. In the instant case, the offences are alleged to have been committed by the said Mill and the complaint is also filed against the Mill only. There is no question of any offence having been committed by him in his personal capacity. In the instant case, the offences are alleged to have been committed by the said Mill and the complaint is also filed against the Mill only. It is only for the purpose of getting.the summons served on the Mill that the summons appears to have been issued through him. It will be useful to extract Section 305 Cr.RC. which deals with the procedure of enquiry or trial where a Corporation is an accused, which is as under: "305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused.-(1) in this section, "corporation" means an incorporated company or other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860). (2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused person in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation. (3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative or read or stated or explained to the representative, and any requirement that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined. (4) Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub-section (3) shall not apply (5) Where a statement in writing purporting to be signed by the managing director of the corporation or by any person (by whatever name called having, or being one of the persons having the management of affairs of the corporation to the effect that the person named in the statement has been appointed as ..o representative of the corporation for the purposes of this section, is filed, the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such person has been so appointed. (6) If a question arises as to whether any person, appearing as the ' representative of a corporation in an inquiry or trial before a Court is or is not such representative, the question shall be determined by the Court." 6. Thus, it is abundantly clear from a bare perusal of Sections 63 and 305 Cr.P.C. as also the complaint filed in this case, that the petitioner is being ; summoned to represent the mill and not in his personal capacity. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja (supra) no sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.PC. is required in respect of petitioner, who is the General Manager of the Mill. 8. in view of the a foregoing discussion, therefore, I do not find any error, : illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.RC. are to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and in the rarest of rare case and that too for the purpose mentioned therein. No such case has been made out in the instant case and, therefore, no interference seems to be justified and : warranted in the impugned order. 9. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, to allay the apprehension of the petitioner, it is made clear that the cognizance shall be treated to have been taken against the Mill through its General Manager only and not against the petitioner in his personal capacity and with the change of the General Manager the new incumbent shall be liable to be substituted to represent the Mill for the purpose of this case.Petition dismissed. *******