M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 207/2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning one person for giving evidence has been rejected. The facts, which are relevant, are that the complainant - opposite party no.2, fled the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of quarter in question and, therefore, committed an offence under the said Act. The petitioner appeared in the complaint case and filed application that the person, who lodged complaint case, has no authority inasmuch as the Board of Director of Tata Steel Limited company has not passed any resolution authorizing the person to file the complaint. The Court below after hearing the petitioner, rejected the said application by order dated 2.2.2008. Against the said order the petitioner filed a criminal revision in the High Court being Cr. Revision No.137/2008. The said revision application was, however, dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of hearing of the case. After dismissal of the revision by this Court, the petitioner filed a fresh application on 5.6.2009 in the Court below contending, inter alia, that Mr. R.H. Suryavanshi, Chief of Legal Department had no power or authority to authorize any person to file the complaint case. It was contended that said Mr.R.H. Suryavanshi is the competent witness in the matter and, therefore, he may be summoned to depose in the case. The said application was rejected by the Court below by passing the impugned order. Hence this application.
(3.) MR . Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction by rejecting the application for issuance of summons to the person concerned. Learned counsel submitted that while rejecting the earlier criminal revision this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of hearing of the case. Hence unless the material witness is summoned, the entire case of the petitioner would be prejudiced.;