2003 (8) TMI 412 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of the matter to another court.
2. Requirement of personal appearance of the accused.
3. Nature and sufficiency of sureties for bail.
4. Conduct and decisions of the Judicial Magistrate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of the Matter to Another Court:
The petitioner, facing prosecution initiated by the Registrar of Companies, sought the transfer of his case to another court of competent jurisdiction. The High Court took cognizance of the matter and called for a report from the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. Requirement of Personal Appearance of the Accused:
The summons issued to the accused required him to appear in person or through a pleader. The court emphasized that it is not mandatory for the accused to be present personally at all times. The presence of an advocate is considered sufficient compliance with the summons. This is supported by the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which provides machinery to secure the presence of an accused and allows representation through a lawyer.

3. Nature and Sufficiency of Sureties for Bail:
The petitioner challenged the non-acceptance of sureties offered for bail. The court reviewed the Magistrate's refusal to accept the sureties provided by the petitioner, including an FDR and documents from a Government servant. The High Court highlighted that bail is a right in bailable offences and should not be excessive. The Magistrate's insistence on additional documents like property papers or car registration was deemed unnecessary, given the nature of the offence, which was punishable with a fine of Rs. 500. The High Court Manual also supports the prompt granting of bail and the acceptance of cash or Government promissory notes in lieu of bail.

4. Conduct and Decisions of the Judicial Magistrate:
The court scrutinized the Magistrate's actions, noting that the order sheet did not record reasons for non-acceptance of sureties. The Magistrate's refusal to accept the surety offered by Ms. Archana Shukla, despite her providing an FDR, and Mr. Chakraverty, despite his sufficient documentation, was found unjustified. The High Court emphasized that the Magistrate should have considered the sufficiency of the sureties in light of the offence's nature and the provided documents.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Magistrate's demand for a Government surety and additional documents was uncalled for. The court directed the Magistrate to re-examine the matter carefully and pass an appropriate order on the application submitted by the accused. The petition and applications were disposed of with these observations.