Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + HC SEBI - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 529 - HC - SEBIOffence under the SEBI Act - Illegal fund mobilization by the accused No.1/company - accused No.1 on an aggregate had allotted Non-Convertible Debentures to at least 14256 persons, thereby making it a public issue of securities and this was done without complying with the regulatory provisions applicable to public issue - Learned Judge issued warrant of arrest against the accused persons - complaint for prosecution for violation of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market HELD THAT:- The petitioner himself has filed a document uploaded in the official portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs wherefrom it is ascertained that the petitioner was appointed as a director of accused No.1/company on 4th November, 2013 and he remained as director till 23rd August, 2014. Thus, the petitioner was one of the directors of accused No.1/company during the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14. It is rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge that an offence under the SEBI Act is punishable for imprisonment which may extend to ten years. As submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT] the initial order passed by the learned Trial Judge issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner and other accused persons after taking cognizance is bad in law because ordinarily summons ought to have been issued at the first instance against the petitioner permitting him to appear through his lawyer. If the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court the learned Judge was empowered to file bailable warrant. At the third stage, if the petitioner failed to surrender before the court in pursuance to bailable warrant, the trial court was empowered to pass an order issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused/petitioner. On the same analogy, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 6th May, 2022 is illegal, inoperative and the learned trial judge failed to act within his power vested under the law. Obligation to issue summons against the accused persons after filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance arises in respect of the offences falling under Category-A mentioned hereinabove. In respect of the offences mentioned in Categories-B, C and D, the guideline made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil [2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT] in respect of Category-A is not applicable. We find no illegality or material irregularity in the order dated 6th May, 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, 5th Court at Calcutta. The instant criminal revision is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed on contest.
|