Allahabad High Court explains procedure for service of summons on corporate bodies or firms under BNSS

The Allahabad High Court recently said that summons on a company or a corporation can now be served through the director also apart from the manager, secretary or other officers of the company [M/S Parthas Textiles And Another vs State of UP and Another] ..Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the observation while comparing Section 63 (service of summons on corporate bodies and societies) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its corresponding provision of Section 65 of the recently introduced Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.“Section 65 of the BNSS also prescribes that summons of a company or corporation may be served through the director apart from the manager, secretary and other officers of the company. In Section 63 CrPC, word “Director” was missing,” the Court noted. .The Court added that Section Section 65 of the BNSS also provides that if the letter containing the summons for the company is sent through the registered post addressed to the director, manager or other officer of the company or corporation in India, that will also be deemed to be served.Under Section 63 of CrPC, summons sent through a letter by registered post addressed to chief officer of the corporation in India was deemed to be served, it noted..The Court made the observations while dealing with a petition challenging the proceedings under Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against a partner of Parthas Textiles. A summoning order and non-bailable warrant was also issued against the partner.It was argued before the Court that there was no allegation against the partner and instead of issuing summons to the firm, the partner was summoned personally..The Court considered the following question: When a cheque issued on behalf of a firm bounces and then it fails to pay the amount despite notice, whether summons is required to be issued to a firm or its partner?From the complaint, it found that only the firm has been arraigned as accused through its partner Praveen Raj Rajendran. It further found that the demand notice was sent to the firm.“On bouncing the cheque issued on behalf of a registered firm, primary liability is of the firm, and its partner can also be liable vicarious, but in the present case, the partner (applicant no.2) was not implicated as accused along with the firm,” it observed..The Court then examined Section 63 of CrPC and Section 65 of BNSS, which came into force on July 1.“In place of the Officer of the Corporation in India as mentioned in Section 63 Cr.P.C., Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officer of the company or corporation in India has been replaced by Section 65 of the BNSS. Apart from this, in Section 63 of Cr.P.C. only company or other corporate body, including registered society, was mentioned, but in the corresponding Section of the BNSS, the firm or other associations of individuals are also mentioned,” it found..In conclusion, the Court said that if a company is named as accused in a complaint, then summons ought to be issued to it through its principal officer or local manager as mentioned under Section 63 CrPC. After service of summons, the company can appoint any of his representatives as per Section 305 CrPC and when the representative of the company appears before the court, the proceeding before him would be deemed to be the proceeding in the presence of the accused and representative will be examined on behalf of the company.“Representative of the company is not required to seek bail on behalf of the company as the company can change its representative at any stage of proceeding with the permission of the Court concerned,” it added..In the present case, the Court quashed the summoning order and non-bailable warrant against the firm’s partner since he was not impleaded as accused.“The Court below is directed to pass fresh summoning order in the light of the observation made hereinabove within one month from the date of receiving a copy of this order,” it ordered.The Court clarified that since the present case dates back to the time when CrPC was in force, the trial court would proceed in accordance with old procedure only..Advocate Nikhil Mishra represented the petitioners.Advocate Rajeev Kumar Singh represented the State.[Read Judgment]