9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Director of the first accused company during the relevant time, the learned counsel submitted that no such notice was issued? HELD THAT:- It may be true that the first accused company had given information that the petitioner was also a Director of the company during the relevant time, but the respondent ought not have been satisfied with the said information, instead, the respondent ought to have verified with the Registrar of Companies before launching the prosecution. Thus, the respondent has failed to do so. The proceedings of the Assistant Registrar of Companies, which has been produced before this Court, shows that the petitioner was not a Director of the company with effect from 18.11.1998. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollective investment scheme titled as Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999. As per the said Regulations, for commencing collective investment scheme, one should apply for registration with SEBI and obtain such a registration in terms of Regulation 73(1) of the said Regulations. But the first accused company did not make any such application seeking registration and thus, the scheme in violation of Section 12(1B) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and Regulation 5(1) read with Regulation 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Collective Investment Scheme and Regulations, 1999. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that he resigned from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent ought not have been satisfied with the said information, instead, the respondent ought to have verified with the Registrar of Companies before launching the prosecution. Thus, the respondent has failed to do so. The proceedings of the Assistant Registrar of Companies, which has been produced before this Court, shows that the petitioner was not a Director of the company with effect from 18.11.1998. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not a Director of the first accused company during the relevant time in the year 1999, when the Regulation came into force and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is not sustainable. 8. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.37 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
