Vinod Shanker Dave, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated July 5, 1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City Jaipur.
2. An Ambassador car bearing registration No. MRC 9833 belonging to the Company was, it is alleged, driven by W.J. Samual on June 14, 1980 met an accident resulting in a fracture of the leg of one Shri Shyam Chaturvedi. A report was lodged and case was registered under Section 279 & 338 IPC which is pending trial before Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
3. Mr. Samul left the service of the petitioner company and is facing trial as an accused. The vehicle MRC 9833 was handed over to the petitioner company on supardginama. As mentioned above the accident took place in June, 1980 and the application on which impugned order was passed is dated July 3,1985, i.e., after 5 year of the occurrence. The permission was sought on behalf of the company that company be permitted to sell the vehicle. Attention of the trial court was drawn towards a decision of this court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 59/85, decided on April 6, 1985. (Vidya Sagar Rastogi v. State of Raj.). That was a case under Section 304A IPC in the similar circumstances where permission was granted to dispose of the vehicle, but the learned Magistrate distinguished this case on the ground that firstly the Asian Paints, applicant, was not present in person; secondly the power was filed for and on behalf of the President of Asian Pains who too was not present in person. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is absolutely untenable. As for the first reason assigned that the company is not present in person I can only pity the approach of the learned Magistrate. The company is always an abstract person which has to be represented by a human being. It is a juristic person under law which has to be represented through its Principal officer and once the President filed power for and on behalf of the Company the ground given by the learned Magistrate becomes frivolous. So far as the second ground is concerned, the company was represented in the court through its President whose counsel was present in the court. The case had been argued and the learned Magistrate had decided on merits. Once he had heard the argument it was only question of passing an order where he could have insisted that first the President may be called in the court for fulfilling the conditions if he was going to allow it instead of rejecting the application. The entire approach given to the application is totally an eye-wash and is nothing but circumventing the order referred to i.e., in Vidya Sugar's case. Such attitude of the Magistrate is not justified.
4. I have perused the order as well as have gone through the grounds. The only purpose for which the vehicle can be required in an accident case like the present one can be identification and there are no remote chances of order of confiscation of the vehicle. Five years have already elapsed and if the company wants to change the model of the car this case ought not to come in its way as the purpose of the identification can be better served in case colour photograph in cabinet size of the vehicle from different angles is kept on record, particularly showing its registration number and also keeping the details about Chesis number and Engine number.
5. Consequently I allow the application of the petitioner and permit the Company to dispose of the Ambassador Car bearing registration No. MRC 9833 after placing on record the colour photographs in triplicate showing its registration number. The photographs will be taken in the presence of Investigating Officer.