Court denies stay in criminal case over trading irregularities, finds evidence to proceed against petitioners. Decision not final.

The court declined to stay trial proceedings in a criminal case involving allegations of irregularities in trading and shares against the petitioners. Despite challenges to the order on charge, the court found sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners, noting the involvement of a co-accused in the petitioner companies. The court emphasized that its decision did not prejudge the case's merits, leaving final determination for a later stage. Additionally, the court scheduled a future date for the final hearing of the main petition, allowing parties to submit written synopses and relevant judgments.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order on charge dated 03.10.2019 in Criminal Case No.33/16, Stay of proceedings in criminal complaint, Allegations of irregularities in trading and shares, Prima facie evidence to proceed against petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the order on charge dated 03.10.2019, alleging that they were not linked with co-accused No.17 and that there was no evidence to prove the connection. The learned senior counsel argued that the trial court failed to appreciate this fact and that the complaint against the petitioners was based on incorrect information regarding the involvement of accused No.17 in the petitioner companies. The counsel referred to specific paragraphs of the complaint and documents to support their argument, emphasizing that accused No.17 was not a director or shareholder of the petitioner companies. They also cited a previous court decision to support their contention that such matters should be verified before summoning. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the trial court had considered the submissions and found accused No.17 to be the director of the petitioner companies. They pointed out discrepancies in the documents referred to by the petitioners' counsel and asserted that the complaint clearly attributed a specific role to accused No.17 and the petitioners.

The court reviewed the submissions made by both parties and the case record. It noted the procedural history of the case, including directions for notice issuance and listing dates. The complaint filed in 2016 alleged irregularities in trading and shares, implicating various companies in market manipulation activities. Considering that the investigation period was from 09.08.2000 to 30.06.2001 and the trial court found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners, the court decided not to stay the trial proceedings at that stage. The court clarified that its decision did not prejudge the merits of the case, leaving the final determination for a later stage. The court disposed of the instant application, indicating that the trial court proceedings would continue, subject to the outcome of the petition.

In another related matter, the court listed the case with connected matters for a future date, allowing the parties to submit written synopses and relevant judgments for the final hearing of the main petition.

---