Forum change under SEBI Act operates retrospectively, while delay under criminal procedure may be condoned even after cognizance.

A procedural amendment to Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act changing the trial forum from a magistrate to the Court of Sessions was treated as retrospective, because it affected forum and not substantive rights, and the complaint could therefore proceed before the Additional Sessions Judge. The text also states that a summons case remained so under the unamended punishment provision. On limitation, Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied after cognizance and does not require prior condonation of delay; the court may extend the benefit where delay is explained or where justice requires it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the complaint to the Court of Sessions and the assumption of jurisdiction by the Additional Sessions Judge were valid after the amendment to Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act, and (ii) whether the application under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be allowed after cognizance had been taken and without first condoning the delay.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the complaint to the Court of Sessions and the assumption of jurisdiction by the Additional Sessions Judge were valid after the amendment to Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 26(2) altered the forum for trial by substituting the Court of Sessions for the earlier magisterial forum. The change was procedural and related to forum rather than substantive rights, so it was capable of retrospective application. The earlier pre-amendment position under the SEBI Act did not prevent the complaint from being tried by the Sessions Court once the statutory amendment and the High Court's administrative assignment of such matters had taken effect. The case remained a summons case because the unamended punishment under Section 24(1) was imprisonment up to one year.

Conclusion: The transfer to and continuation before the Additional Sessions Judge was held to be within jurisdiction and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be allowed after cognizance had been taken and without first condoning the delay.

Analysis: Section 473 overrides the bar of limitation under Section 468 where the delay is properly explained or where it is necessary in the interests of justice. The provision does not require that delay must be condoned before cognizance is taken, and the application may be entertained at a later stage of the proceedings. On the facts, the delay application had been considered in detail and there was no reason to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was upheld and the challenge to the order allowing the application failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed on both jurisdiction and limitation grounds, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural amendment changing the forum of trial operates retrospectively unless the statute indicates otherwise, and delay under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be condoned at any stage if the court is satisfied that the delay is explained or that condonation is required in the interests of justice.

---