Order : Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one had appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 inspite of valid service of notice. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with G. Case No. 70 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 305 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. A complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on the allegation that certain irregularities were observed with respect to the minimum rate of wages which led to initiation of a proceeding under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 4. Vide order dated 30.05.2014 cognizance was taken against the accused Ajay Sagar by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Hazaribag for the offence punishable under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not the prerogative of the complainant to name the representative of the company if the company is made an accused as in terms of the Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. the liberty is with the company to nominate its representative to be prosecuted. It has been submitted that Ajay Sagar whose name figures in the complaint petition is a director of the company and infact the company had nominated one Mr. Amitava Sen to be its representative but without considering the content and purport of Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. such application has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 05.08.2015. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the judgments passed in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Company vs. State of Bihar reported in 1986 PLJR 270 and A.K. Das and another vs. State of Bihar and another reported in [1996 (1) East Cr C 333 (pat) (RB)]. 6. Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. 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 (21 of 1860). 6. Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. 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 (21 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 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 be accused, shall be construed as a requirement that 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. 7. Sub-Section 2 of Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. clearly lays down that if the corporation is an accused it may appoint a representative for the purpose of enquiry or trial. Sub Section 5 also states that a representative of the corporation may be named in the statement given in writing by any person of the corporation and unless the contrary is proved the court shall presume that such person has been appointed. Sub Section 5 also states that a representative of the corporation may be named in the statement given in writing by any person of the corporation and unless the contrary is proved the court shall presume that such person has been appointed. It thus appears that in terms of Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. the company had made an application making Mr. Amitava Sen as the representative of the company. 8. In the case of Indian Iron and Steel Company vs. State of Bihar (Supra) it was held that under Section 305 of the Code the option is with the company itself for nominating its representative and he will represent the company. In the case of A.K. Das vs. State of Bihar and Another (Supra) it was also held that the company has right to be represented in a proceeding initiated against it. 9. The prerogative of the company to nominate its representative under Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. has not been properly construed by the learned trial court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner of being represented through Mr. Amitava Sen. The proper appreciation of under Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. having not been made by the learned trial court the impugned order dated 05.08.2015 passed in G. Case No. 70 of 2014 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Accordingly, having found merit in this application, the same is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.08.2015 passed in G. Case No. 70 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. This application stands allowed.