JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein is said to have been the Managing Director of a company, which is sole accused in C.C.Nos.679 and 759 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the complainant in the said cases had named him as the representative of the accused-company and is insisting on his appearance on behalf of the accused-company. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had resigned as the Managing Director of the company even prior to filing of the complaint and cannot be forced to appear on behalf of the company on that count also. 4. Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., sets out the manner in which the company, which is arrayed as an accused in a criminal case is to be represented. He submits that the provisions of Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., would not give discretion to the complainant to name the person who should represent the company. He further submits that Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., in fact provides discretion to the company to decide whether any person should represent it or whether a particular person should represent it before the Court. In the circumstances, the insistence that the petitioner should represent the accused company before the trial Court is not in accordance with Sec. 305 Cr.P.C. 5. Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, contends that the petitioner is very much the Managing Director of the company and had only set up documentation to claim that he had ceased to be the Managing Director of the company even before the filing of the criminal complaint. This issue is a question of fact, which is not being considered by this court and this judgment is proceeding on the basis of the petitioner continuing to be the managing director of the company. Consideration of the Court: 6. The method and procedure of service of summons on a company is contained in sec. This issue is a question of fact, which is not being considered by this court and this judgment is proceeding on the basis of the petitioner continuing to be the managing director of the company. Consideration of the Court: 6. The method and procedure of service of summons on a company is contained in sec. 63 of Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 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. 7. The above provision permits service of summons on a company by serving the said summons on any of the principal officers of the company mentioned in the Sec. 63. However, the manner in which the company is to be represented before a court, after service of summons, is contained in sec. 305 of the criminal procedure code which reads as follows: 305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused. (1) In this sec., " 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 the 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 sub- sec. (3) shall not apply. (4) Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub- sec. (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 sec., 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. 8. A reading of the above provision would make it clear that, after receipt of the notice, it would be open to the company to decide whether the person named in the notice would continue to represent the company or not. It would also be open to the person named as the representative of the company to decline to represent the company. In both the situations, applications may be made before the trial Court under Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., to remove the name of the person who is arrayed as the representative of the said accused-company. This view is fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay, dtd. 14/1/2020, in criminal Writ Petition No.4942 of 2019, in the case of Sanjeev S. Malhotra vs. the State of Maharashtra. 9. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner herein that he cannot be forced to represent the company irrespective of whether he continues to be a Director or not of the company, has to be accepted. 10. It is also necessary to mention that the provisions of Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., also provide for a situation where the company may refuse to name any person as its representative. 10. It is also necessary to mention that the provisions of Sec. 305 Cr.P.C., also provide for a situation where the company may refuse to name any person as its representative. In such circumstances, Sec. 305 (4) Cr.P.C., provides that the trial Court may take up trial of the matter without having to insist upon any person representing the company and all the requirements that are set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure for doing certain acts in the presence of the accused will stand waived. 11. Consequently, these criminal petitions are allowed directing the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District, to remove the name of the petitioner as the person representing the company, in C.C.Nos.679 and 759 of 2016. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.