- (1.) Order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in M.F. Case No. 197 of 2015 has been assailed. By the said order prayer of dispensing with personal attendance of the petitioner No. 2 was turned down and the prayer of petitioner No. 1/company to be represented through pleader under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also rejected.
(2.) Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners with Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel, submits that it is within the discretion of the accused Corporation to decide as to who would represent it before the learned trial Court. Hence, learned Magistrate acted illegally in permitting the pleader to represent the Corporation under Section 305, Cr.P.C. in the said trial. It is also submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is an executive of the company and remains busy in running the administration of the said company and he did not challenge his identity in the course of the proceeding and it is further submitted that in view of the nature of the alleged offence and the fact that he is a busy official who has to go out frequently from Calcutta his personal attendance ought to have been dispensed with under Section 205, Cr.P.C.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the order of the learneS Magistrate does not call for any interference.;