TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By this petition under Article 226 read with Articles 227, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of orders of imposition of fine on the petitioners as ordered by the learned trial court vide order dated 4-2-2010. 2. The petitioners were convicted by the learned trial court under sections 24 and 27 of SEBI Act for violation of Regulation 5(1) read with Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment of 2002, the case was transferred to Sessions Court. He submits that since the offence was committed prior to 2002, the un-amended provisions of Cr. P.C. would be applicable and the sentence of Rs. 5 lac as fine as imposed by learned Sessions Judge was unlawful since the powers of ACMM was only to impose a fine of Rs. 5,000. The petitioners relied upon Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission of crime cannot 'ipso facto' be held to be unconstitutional. A person accused of the commission of an offence has no fundamental right to trial by a particular Court or under a particular procedure, except insofar as any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right may be involved. Thus, trial of the petitioners by the Sessions Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l if finds that while his power to impose penalty was only Rs. 5,000 but the case was such that higher penalty should be imposed, he can refer the matter to Court of CMM so that higher penalty could be imposed. The trial conducted by the Sessions Judge in this case was perfectly in accordance with law and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge is also in accordance with un-amended provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
