9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her record. Respondent no. 2 does not dispute the authenticity of the said document as the same has been filed by them. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is that the letter dated 27.04.1998 reflecting the names of the petitioners as directors was issued much after the alleged date of resignation, again, is not tenable as the document-Form 32, has been recognised in law to be a public document to be regarded as evidence regarding whether a person is a director of a company or not. The said letter dated 27.04.1998 cannot override Form-32. In the present case, Form-32, has been placed by respondent no. 2 itself before the learned Trial Court. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The Criminal Complaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SEBI ), i.e., Respondent no. 2, in exercise of powers conferred to it by Section 30 read with Sections 11 and 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as SEBI Act ), framed Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as CIS Regulations ), which came into force on 15.10.1999. iii. On 15.12.1999, SEBI passed a direction to the SIVPL company to send information regarding details of all investors and amounts to be repaid to them. iv. Subsequently, on 14.01.2004, the respondent no. 2/SEBI through its Authorised Representative filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 24(1)/27 of the SEBI Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 qua the present petitioners. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the present complaint was barred by limitation as the direction issued by SEBI for refund of money was on 07.12.2000 and the complaint was filed on 14.01.2004. It is submitted that since the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is one year, the complaint should have been filed by 07.12.2001 and therefore, the aforesaid complaint was barred by limitation as per the provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Gaurav Varshney and Another, (2016) 14 SCC 430, which held as under: 100. We have, during the course of recording our consideration hereinabove, upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Gaurav Varshney and Another, (2016) 14 SCC 430. 7. It is submitted that Form-32, which shows the resignation of the present petitioners on 23.02.1998, has been placed on record by SEBI/Respondent no.2 itself before the learned Trial Court. Certified copy of the same, obtained from the records of the learned Trial Court has been placed before this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the trial in the present complaint was already over and the matter was fixed for final arguments before the Court of learned ASJ and at that stage, petitioners had filed the present petition in 2011. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that they had resigned from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of the SEBI Act reads as under: 27. Offences by companies. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a public document to be regarded as evidence regarding whether a person is a director of a company or not. The said letter dated 27.04.1998 cannot override Form-32. 13. In Virender Kumar Singh (supra), the Learned Single Judge of this Court, in similar circumstances observed and held as under: 9. As regards the petitioners the only allegation in the complaint is in paragraph 18 to the effect that they were in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. However, the fact that the petitioners had already resigned much before end December 2000, as evidenced by Form No. 32 filed with the Registrar of Companies has not been controverted. The only explanation is that this fact can be established only at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
