2008 (1) TMI 627 - HC - Companies Law

Offences and prosecution - Cognizance of offences by Courts - complaints under sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judge - Held that - The administrative orders passed by this Court and consequential orders issued by the District and Sessions Judge passed thereon as well as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perfectly valid. The Additional Sessions Judge has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with these orders and consequently dismiss these writ petitions as misconceived and frivolous.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Court post-amendment for offences committed prior to the amendment.
2. Impact of administrative orders on jurisdiction.
3. Applicability of procedural amendments retrospectively.
4. Rights of appeal and revision post-amendment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Court Post-Amendment for Offences Committed Prior to the Amendment:
The primary issue was whether pending complaints for offences committed before the amendment of the SEBI Act on 29-10-2002 should be tried by the Court of Sessions or by a Magistrate. The amendment increased the punishment for certain offences from one year to ten years, making them triable by a Sessions Court. The Court concluded that complaints filed after the amendment, even if related to offences committed before the amendment, should be tried by the Court of Sessions. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Section 26 of the SEBI Act, which was deemed procedural and thus applicable retrospectively.

2. Impact of Administrative Orders on Jurisdiction:
Administrative orders from the High Court and District and Sessions Judge transferred SEBI cases to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that their offences, committed before the amendment, should be tried by a Magistrate. The Court upheld the administrative orders, noting they were backed by legislative provisions and did not violate any statutory rights. The Court distinguished this case from A.S. Impex Ltd., where administrative orders were not supported by legislative backing.

3. Applicability of Procedural Amendments Retrospectively:
The Court held that procedural amendments, such as changes in the forum for trial, apply retrospectively. This principle was supported by precedents from the Supreme Court, which state that procedural changes do not affect substantive rights and are presumed to apply to pending cases unless explicitly stated otherwise. The amendment to Section 26 of the SEBI Act, changing the trial forum to the Court of Sessions, was considered procedural.

4. Rights of Appeal and Revision Post-Amendment:
Petitioners argued that being tried by the Court of Sessions deprived them of the right to appeal to the Sessions Court and subsequent revision to the High Court. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the right to appeal remains intact, albeit the forum changes. The Court emphasized that the change in the forum of appeal does not amount to denial of the right to appeal. The Court also clarified that revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is not a statutory right but a procedural facility.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the Court of Sessions has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed after the amendment, even if the offences were committed before the amendment. The administrative orders transferring cases to the Court of Sessions were upheld as valid and backed by legislative provisions. The procedural nature of the amendment justified its retrospective application, and the petitioners' rights to appeal were not deemed violated by the change in the trial forum.

← Previous Next →