Special Court jurisdiction over securities transaction offences extends beyond notified persons under the 1992 Act.

The Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 was construed to have criminal jurisdiction over offences relating to securities transactions committed during the specified period, even where the accused was not a notified person under section 3(2). The scheme of sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9A, 11 and 13 was read as distinguishing civil consequences for notified persons from criminal prosecution for transaction-related offences. A narrower reading tied to notification status was rejected because it would create an anomalous and truncated jurisdiction dependent on the Custodian's discretion. The alleged entrustment and sale of shares was treated as an offence relating to transactions in securities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 had jurisdiction to try a criminal case relating to transactions in securities against a person who was not a notified person under section 3(2) of the Act.

Analysis: The Act was enacted to create a Special Court for offences relating to transactions in securities during the relevant period. Section 7, read with section 3(2), was interpreted to govern offences relating to securities transactions committed between 1-4-1991 and 6-6-1992, and not to confine criminal jurisdiction only to notified persons. The scheme of sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9A, 11 and 13 showed a distinction between civil consequences for notified persons and criminal prosecution for offences arising out of securities transactions. A contrary construction would create an anomalous and truncated jurisdiction and would make the Special Court's jurisdiction depend on the Custodian's discretion to notify a person. The alleged offence, based on the entrustment and sale of shares during the relevant period, was held to be one relating to transactions in securities.

Conclusion: The Special Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the criminal case against the accused even though he was not a notified person, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of section 7 of the Act, the Special Court's criminal jurisdiction extends to offences relating to transactions in securities committed within the specified period, irrespective of whether the accused is a notified person under section 3(2).

---