9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 869 - SC - Companies LawOffences punishable under SEBI - jurisdiction transferred for trial to a Special Court - whether trial would move to the changed forum (to the Court of Session, after the 2002 Amendment Act and, to the Special Court, after the 2014 Amendment Act )? - Held that - It is not reasonable to read anything further into the words highlighted by learned senior counsel. The 2014 Amendment Act expressly provided, that for all offences committed even prior to the 2014 Amendment Act, proceedings would be conducted only before the Special Court. The provision itself therefore expressly mandated, that the change of forum would operate retrospectively, and as such, pending proceedings would necessarily have to be transferred to the changed forum the Special Court. This is our considered view. For the reasons recorded above, we hereby hold, that even for such matters where trial had commenced under the unamended provision, after the amendments, which we have held to be operational retrospectively, the trial would move to the changed forum (to the Court of Session, after the 2002 Amendment Act and, to the Special Court, after the 2014 Amendment Act ). We are of the view, that the forum for trial earlier vested in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (-or, Judicial Magistrate of the first class) was retrospectively amended, inasmuch as, the forum of trial after the 2002 Amendment Act was retrospectively changed to the Court of Session. In this view of the matter, the trials even in respect of offences allegedly committed before 29.10.2002 (-the date with effect from which, the 2002 Amendment Act became operational), whether in respect whereof trial had or had not been initiated, would stand jurisdictionally vested in a Court of Session. And likewise, trials of offences under the SEBI Act, consequent upon the 2014 Amendment Act (which became operational, with effect from 18.07.2013) would stand jurisdictionally transferred for trial to a Special Court, irrespective of whether the offence under the SEBI Act was committed before 29.10.2002 and/or before 18.07.2013 (-the date with effect from which the 2014 Amendment Act became operational), and irrespective of the fact whether trial had or had not been initiated. Our above conclusion, affirms the determination recorded by the Delhi High Court in Mahender Singh v. High Court of Delhi (2008 (1) TMI 627 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) but for the reasons recorded hereinabove. The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in M/s. Classic Credit Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2008 (1) TMI 608 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY), is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly hereby set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective application of procedural amendments. 2. Change of forum for trial under the SEBI Act. 3. Impact of the 2002 and 2014 amendments on pending cases. 4. Jurisdictional authority of courts post-amendment. 5. Right of revision and its implications on the accused. Detailed Analysis: 1. Retrospective Application of Procedural Amendments: The Court examined whether procedural amendments, specifically changes in the forum for trial, could be applied retrospectively. It was established that procedural amendments are generally presumed to be retrospective unless the amending statute expressly or impliedly indicates otherwise. This principle was supported by precedents such as *New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra* and *Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Ajay Agarwal*. 2. Change of Forum for Trial under the SEBI Act: The Court analyzed the changes brought by the 2002 and 2014 amendments to the SEBI Act, which altered the forum for trial from the Metropolitan Magistrate (or Judicial Magistrate of the first class) to the Court of Session and later to the Special Court. The Court concluded that these changes were procedural and therefore retrospective, meaning that all pending cases, regardless of when the offence was committed, would be tried by the newly designated forums. 3. Impact of the 2002 and 2014 Amendments on Pending Cases: The Court held that the amendments in 2002 and 2014, which changed the forum for trial, applied to all pending cases. The phrase "No court inferior to that of a court of session shall try any offence punishable under this Act" in the 2002 amendment and the provision in the 2014 amendment that all offences under the SEBI Act, committed before or after the amendment, shall be tried by the Special Court, were interpreted to mean that the changes applied to all pending cases. 4. Jurisdictional Authority of Courts Post-Amendment: The Court clarified that after the 2002 amendment, the jurisdiction for trying offences under the SEBI Act was vested in the Court of Session, and after the 2014 amendment, it was vested in the Special Court. This change was deemed to have a retrospective effect, thereby transferring the jurisdiction of all pending cases to the newly designated courts. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in denuding the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate (or Judicial Magistrate of the first class) post-amendment. 5. Right of Revision and Its Implications on the Accused: The Court addressed the contention that the change of forum deprived the accused of the right of revision, which was available under the unamended provisions. It was held that the power of revision is a discretionary power and does not confer a right on the litigant. Therefore, the absence of a revisional remedy due to the change of forum does not constitute a deprivation of a vested right. This conclusion was supported by precedents such as *Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal* and *Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand*. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the retrospective application of procedural amendments, specifically the change of forum for trial under the SEBI Act, brought by the 2002 and 2014 amendments. It held that these changes applied to all pending cases, thereby transferring jurisdiction to the Court of Session and subsequently to the Special Court. The Court also clarified that the right of revision is not a vested right, and its absence due to the change of forum does not prejudice the accused. The judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court was set aside, and the determination by the Delhi High Court was affirmed.
|
