Independent appellate findings are required before sustaining penalty for front running; the matter must be reconsidered afresh.

An appellate penalty cannot be sustained where the tribunal has not recorded an independent finding that the respondent himself engaged in front running. The Supreme Court noted that the finding of front running was recorded against other noticees, while the respondent was only described as having aided and abetted the transactions. In an appeal from the adjudicating authority, the Appellate Tribunal was required to reach its own conclusion before affirming penalty, and the merger argument was rejected. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and the matter had to be considered afresh by the Appellate Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order imposing penalty on the respondent could stand when no independent finding had been recorded that the respondent himself indulged in front running, and whether the matter required de novo consideration.

Analysis: The penalty order against the respondent was examined in the context of the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. The reasoning disclosed that the specific conclusion of front running was recorded against other noticees, while the respondent was only described as having aided and abetted the transactions. The Court held that in an appeal from the adjudicating authority the Appellate Tribunal was required to record its own independent findings and reach its own conclusion before sustaining penalty. The contention that the adjudication order had merged with the appellate order was rejected.

Conclusion: The order of penalty against the respondent could not be sustained and the matter was required to be considered afresh by the Appellate Tribunal.

---