9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Court. Prima facie, therefore, prosecution of the applicants under the 2013 Act appears to be impermissible under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. As per Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act, prima facie it is seen that the SFIO has jurisdiction to investigate offence under the said Act only. Hence, the SFIO s investigation and subsequent complaint for offences under the Indian Penal Code and under the 1956 Act prima facie appears to be without jurisdiction. A contrary interpretation would permit the SFIO to encroach upon investigating powers of other investigating agencies under other laws, which cannot be the intention of the legislature - For the same underlying transactions arising out of the NSEL payment defaults, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s he is not instructed in factual aspects of the matter due to paucity of time. This is so because the learned Counsel for the applicants has pointed out that as the next date before the learned trial Court is on 20/01/2020, he is insisting for hearing the matter for grant of ad-interim relief only. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondent No.2/State. 2 By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity), the applicants assail the Order dated 29/07/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai (Court No.58), which I am informed is the Special Court constituted under the Companies Act, 2013, taking cogn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e platform have all occurred on or before 31st July 2013 as per the averments made in Paragraph 4 of the SFIO complaint itself. That being so, prosecution of the applicants under the 2013 Act for such prior violations is impermissible under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India which grants protection against ex post facto laws. He further argued that for the same underlying transactions arising out of the payment defaults at NSEL, applicant No.3 NSEL and others are already facing prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code before the learned MPID Court and the learned CBI Court, Mumbai. Similarly, for various violations under the 1956 Act discovered during inspection of NSEL by the Central Government, NSEL and others are alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent No.1/UOI invited my attention to Section 436(2) of the 2013 Act and pointed out that under the said provision, the learned Special Court has the power to try offences under not only the 2013 Act, but also under other laws such as the Indian Penal Code or the 1956 Act. Therefore, the impugned Order is not erroneous on this count. He further submitted that as per Section 465(2)(j) of the 2013 Act, any pending investigation by the SFIO under the 1956 Act has been expressly saved. Hence, there is no error in SFIO investigating offences under the 1956 Act. He then submitted that the Order dated 28/10/2016 has been passed by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory powers under Sections 210 and 212 of the 2013 Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the 2013 Act. He also relied on Section 212(17)(b) of the 2013 Act to support his contention that even if SFIO stumbles upon any material that constitutes an offence under any other law, then the SFIO is supposed to refer the same to the concerned investigating Agency. On Section 465(2)(j), he submits that the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case because SFIO investigation in the instant case was directed on 28/10/2016 i.e. after the commencement of the 2013 Act and, therefore, it would not fall within the category of pending investigation under the 1956 Act which has been saved under the said Section. In respect of the challenge to the Order dated 28/10/2016 of the Central Government, he submitted that his oral ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or offences under the Indian Penal Code and under the 1956 Act prima facie appears to be without jurisdiction. A contrary interpretation would permit the SFIO to encroach upon investigating powers of other investigating agencies under other laws, which cannot be the intention of the legislature. (c) For the same underlying transactions arising out of the NSEL payment defaults, the NSEL and others are already facing prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code before the learned MPID Court and the learned CBI Court, Mumbai. Similarly, for various violations under the 1956 Act discovered during inspection of NSEL by the Central Government, the NSEL and others are already facing prosecution before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
