This revision arises against the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court IV, George Town, Chennai, passed in C.M.P.No.5297 of 2016 in C.C.No.16159 of 2007 on 08.12.2016.
2. By the order under challenge, Court below has permitted the respondent company, to substitute its representative before it. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after a delay of seven years, the fact of original representative of the respondent company having resigned has been informed towards substituting the person to represent the respondent before the Court below. Learned counsel submits that no proper record of the resignation of the original representative has been produced.
4. This Court finds absolutely no merits in the contention of learned counsel for petitioner. When Court below has permitted a company to prosecute its case through one other than the person through whom the complaint was preferred and in due exercise of discretion vested in it, this Court would not interfere.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 31.01.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court IV, George Town, Chennai.
C.T. SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2017 31.01.2017