Revision petition dismissed, confirming jurisdiction, procedural amendments valid, delay condoned for justice

The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge, the validity of the procedural amendments, and the appropriateness of the sequence in handling the application for condonation of delay. The administrative orders transferring the case to the Sessions Court were upheld, and the delay in filing the complaint was properly condoned in the interest of justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Sequence of handling the application for condonation of delay.
3. Retrospective application of procedural amendments.
4. Validity of administrative orders transferring cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge:
The petitioners argued that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider the application for condonation of delay before issuing summons, and the subsequent condonation by the Sessions Court was improper due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural flaws. The court clarified that the amendment to Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act, which took effect on 29.10.2002, mandated that offences under the SEBI Act be tried by a Court of Session. This procedural change, supported by legislative provisions, allowed the transfer of cases to the Sessions Court, making the Additional Sessions Judge's jurisdiction valid. The court distinguished this case from A.S. Impex Ltd., where administrative orders without legislative backing were quashed.

2. Sequence of Handling the Application for Condonation of Delay:
The petitioners contended that the application for condonation of delay should have been disposed of before taking cognizance and issuing summons. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab, which established that delay could be condoned at any stage of the trial, even after cognizance had been taken. The court also cited Vanka Radha Manohari, emphasizing that Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for condonation of delay in the interest of justice, even without a proper explanation. The Additional Sessions Judge's decision to condone the delay was deemed appropriate and within jurisdiction.

3. Retrospective Application of Procedural Amendments:
The court examined whether the procedural amendment to Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act, which changed the trial forum from a Magistrate to a Sessions Court, could be applied retrospectively. Citing Hitendera Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, the court noted that procedural laws, including those relating to forum and limitation, are presumed to be retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Since the amendment was procedural, it applied retrospectively, validating the transfer of the case to the Sessions Court.

4. Validity of Administrative Orders Transferring Cases:
The petitioners argued that the administrative order transferring cases to the Sessions Court bypassed special legislation. The court distinguished this case from A.S. Impex Ltd., where administrative orders lacked legislative backing. Here, the administrative order was supported by the amended Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act. The court noted that the administrative orders were not challenged by the petitioners, and thus, the transfer of the case was valid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge, the validity of the procedural amendments, and the appropriateness of the sequence in handling the application for condonation of delay. The administrative orders transferring the case to the Sessions Court were upheld, and the delay in filing the complaint was properly condoned in the interest of justice.

---