9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 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 othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HURI For the Petitioner: Mr. Ayan Basu, Adv., Mr. D.N. Maiti, Adv., Mr. Sumit Routh, Adv. For the S.E.B.I:- Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Sudip Kr. Dutta, Adv. BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : 1. The petitioner is the accused No.4 in connections with SEBI Case No.32 of 2018. 2. The aforesaid case has been registered in the 5th Special Court (SEBI) at Calcutta on the basis of a complaint for prosecution for violation of Sections 56/60/67/68/70 read with Sections 2(36)/73 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 40 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Regulation 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company. 5. Learned Judge issued warrant of arrest against the accused persons following the ratio of decision of this Court passed in CRR No.1137 of 2015 (Shibamoy Dutta Ors. vs. Monoj Kumar). Subsequently, some of the accused person other than the present petitioner surrendered before the trial court and were granted bail. 6. The petitioner, on the other hand filed an application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for recalling the warrant of arrest issued against him by the Trial Judge. The learned Judge by passing a reasoned order rejected the said application. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6th May, 2022 in the instant revision. 8. It is submitted on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. 12. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has categorized the offences into four groups:- A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Categories B and D. B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years. C) Offences punishable under Special Acts c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
