Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 788 (PAT)

Anil D. Ambani v. State of Bihar

2006-08-31

body2006
ORDER 1. This writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash annexure-4 and 4/1 which are summons issued to the accused (1) Anil D. Ambani son of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Maker Chambers IV, Third Floor 222, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 (2) Mukesh D. Ambani son of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Maker Chambers IV, Third Floor 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Managing Deputy Director Reliance Indian Ltd. Company, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna and also for quashing annexure 6 the order dated 27.1.2006 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna whereby the prayer of the petitioners for recalling the summons which according to the petitioners was erroneous was refused. 2. In the fact of the case it appears that vide order dated 1.11.04 the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna in complaint case no. 2059(C)/ 2004 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 469/34 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons in complaint case no. 2059 (C)/2004 and the accused no.2 arrayed in the complaint petition was Reliance Indian Ltd. Company through Managing Director, Maker Chambers, 4th Floor 22 Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 (the names of Anil Ambani and Mukesh Ambani were mentioned as the Managing Director of the Company). After taking cognizance of the offence while issuing summons with respect to the accused no. 2(1) i.e. Reliance Indian Ltd. Company which is a corporate body or juristic person, the learned magistrate has issued summons in the form of annexure4 and 4/1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a corporate body or juristic person is accused in a criminal case the summons are required to be issued in the name of juristic person only. The learned counsel also submits that since the summons have been issued to the two petitioners in their private and individual capacity it cannot be allowed to stand as such. The learned counsel refers to Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which reads as follows: "63. The learned counsel also submits that since the summons have been issued to the two petitioners in their private and individual capacity it cannot be allowed to stand as such. The learned counsel refers to Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which reads as follows: "63. Service of summons on corporate bodies and societies: Service of a summons on a corporation may be effected by serving it on the secretary, local manager or other principal officer of the corporation, or by letter sent by registered post addressed to the Chief Officer of the corporation in India, in which case the service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter would arrive in ordinary course of post. 4. Referring this provison under Section 63 it was pointed out that the summons on a corporation or a corporate body can be served on the Secretary, Local Manager or other principal Officer of the corporation but the summons necessarily should be in the name of the corporation itself. In this context the learned counsel also refers to second schedule of the form. This form prescribed that at the top of the summons the name of the accused and his address is to be mentioned. It is submitted that here the accused is Reliance Indian Ltd. Company, a corporate body hence in the summons only the corporate body i.e. Reliance Indian Ltd. Company has to be named as the accused and nonelse. The above submissions of the learned counsel carry substantial reasons and are fit to be accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent also refers to Section 305 of the Code which reads as follows: “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(2) of 1860.” (2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the enquiry 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 subsection (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 the affairs of the corporation to the effect that the person named in the statement has been appointed as the 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.” 5. Under the provision of clauses (2) and (3) it is quite clear that when summons is sent to a corporation, the corporation may appoint any officer to represent the company as an accused before the Court. Thus it is quite clear that when a corporate body is an accused before a court the summons for the appearance of the corporate body has to be sent in the name of corporate body itself. The summons issued to the accused no. 2(1) as under the complaint petition relating to the case before the learned Magistrate does not indicate the two petitioners as accused in their personal capacity. Therefore, the summons issued to them under annexures 4 and 4/1, in their personal capacity cannot be allowed to stand under the law. Hence the same is quashed. Annexure 6 which is the order of the learned Magistrate in refusing to recall the summons is also in the facts of the case not fit to be sustained, hence the same is also quashed. 6. Hence the same is quashed. Annexure 6 which is the order of the learned Magistrate in refusing to recall the summons is also in the facts of the case not fit to be sustained, hence the same is also quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that while quashing the annexures 4 and 4/1 this court may make an observation clarifying that the learned Magistrate is not debarred from issuing summons in the name of the corporate body in accordance with law. Therefore, it is hereby clarified that the learned Magistrate will not be debarred from issuing summons according to law. 7. In the result this writ application is allowed in the manner as indicated above.