TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000. 2. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on 31.8.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 25.7.2020 and that charge sheet has now been filed, that the complainant has not approached the police, but it is police who had come to know about the name of the complainants from SEBI, that the applicant is an employee of an investment advisory firm which is certified by SEBI and this Court had earlier in M.Cr.C.No.23883/2020 had held that the violation by any such advisory firm would be dealt with under SEBI Act only by SEBI Board. Hence, police was not authorized to initiate action against the applicant who was an employee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence, this Court was of the view that in absence of any victim provisions of Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 etc will not be attracted. As against the aforesaid order, in the present case, there are number of complainants whose statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C have been recorded. Further, Section 32 of SEBI Act is very relevant which reads as under :- "Section 32. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." 6. Thus, the provision of application of other laws such as IPC is not prohibited in view of the aforesaid provision. Section 26 of SEBI Act only prohibits cognizance of offence which is punishable under SEBI Act, but does not prevent c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the amount charged was fees. The text invoice at Page No.270 shows service charge of Rs. 2,80,000/- and amount paid is Rs. 26,500/- and the service duration has been shown to be quarterly, but at Page No.271, for the same service of Rs. 2,80,000/-, the amount paid has been shown to be Rs. 55,800/- for the same service duration, ie., quarterly duration. Further at Page No.272, the service charges are again Rs. 2,80,000/- and the amount paid is Rs. 1,13,700/- and the invoice dates in all these three are respectively 20.1.2020, 21.1.2020 and 28.1.2020 for the same consumer whose name is Santanu Sarbabhum. Thus, prima facie the aforesaid amount charged does not appear to be fees or service charge, rather there is substance in the submission ....