2013 (8) TMI 1189 - HC - SEBI

Petitions to Quash Dismissed; Issues of Delay and Authorization to Be Addressed During Trial.

Sudhir Gupta, P.R. Mehta and Prakash Gupta Versus State & Anr.

The HC dismissed the petitions to quash the criminal complaint and summoning order against the petitioners, ruling that the issues of delay and SEBI ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the complaint is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay in filing the complaint.2. Whether the Chairman of SEBI could authorize an official to file the complaint without specific delegation of powers.3. Whether a 'personal hearing' is mandatorily required by a statutory authority to comply with the principles of natural justice.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing the Complaint:The petitioners sought to quash the complaint on the grounds of delay. SEBI received a complaint on 27.06.1996, and an anonymous complaint in October 1996, alleging price rigging and insider trading. Preliminary inquiries were made to ensure the complaints were not frivolous, leading to a formal investigation ordered on 02.02.1999. The investigation concluded with filing the complaint in March 2000. The court noted that economic offences involving complex transactions take time to investigate. The court referenced Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for extending the limitation period if justified in the interest of justice. The court left the question of limitation open for trial consideration, allowing the respondent to seek extension under Section 473 during the trial.2. Authorization by SEBI Chairman:The petitioners questioned whether the SEBI Chairman could authorize a complaint filing without specific delegation. The court referred to Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992, which vest general superintendence, direction, and management in the Board and the Chairman. The court concluded that the Chairman's powers include initiating prosecution without needing specific delegation from the Board. The court emphasized that reading Section 19 of the Act concerning delegation harmoniously with Section 4 supports this interpretation, and any substantial compliance questions should be considered at trial, not at the initial stage.3. Requirement of Personal Hearing:The petitioners argued that a personal hearing was necessary to comply with natural justice principles. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, which stated that a personal hearing is not an inviolable rule before every state decision. The court noted that since show-cause notices were issued and the petitioners did not request a personal hearing, the lack of such a hearing does not vitiate the proceedings. The court found no violation of natural justice principles in this context.Conclusion:The court found no justification to quash the criminal complaint and the summoning order. The petitions were dismissed, with the court refraining from commenting on the merits to avoid prejudicing the petitioners at trial. The issues of delay and authorization were left open for further consideration during the trial.