TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ARMA, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), seeks the following prayers: "a) quash the Criminal Complaint No. 39 of 2009, presently pending in the Court of Mrs. R K GAUBA, Addl. Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi qua the petitioners in the interest of justice. b) pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case in order to meet the ends of justice." 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are as follows: i. The petitioners were directors in the company namely, Soubhagya India Vegetation an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accused nos. 6 and 4 respectively in the said complaint. v. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) took cognizance of the offences alleged in the said compliant against the accused persons therein, including the present petitioners. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 14.12.2004, in pursuance of an order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, whereby all the cases pertaining to the complaints pending before learned ACMM were directed to be transferred to the Court of learned ASJ. vi. Thereafter, on 11.02.2005, the petitioners appeared before the learned Trial Court and were granted bail. The present petitioners then....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. would be one year.........." 5. It was also submitted that no cause of action has taken place in Delhi and therefore, learned ACMM, Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the impugned complaint. It was further submitted that no specific role had been attributed to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 except that it is mentioned in para 18 of the said complaint that they were directors of the accused company and as such were in charge and responsible for the conduct of its business. It is further submitted that the petitioners had resigned on 23.02.1998 from the directorship of the company and since the CIS Regulations by SEBI came into force on 15.10.1999, the complainant (SEBI) could not have proceeded against the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 27.04.1998 is subsequent to the alleged resignation of the petitioners and therefore, the said issue needs to be determined during the course of the trial. It was further submitted that the limitation is not an issue in the present case as violation of the provisions of SEBI Act and CIS Regulations is continuing in nature and even otherwise, the complainant (SEBI) can move an application for condonation of delay, if any, before the learned Trial Court before the pronouncement of the judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Perusal of the record reflects that the present petition was filed in 2011 and vide order dated 25.11.2011, the learned predecessor Bench of this Court had stayed the passi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." Thus, it was incumbent upon the complainant (SEBI), i.e. respondent no. 2 to show that the petitioners were directors "at the time of commission of offence." 12. The contentions on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/SEBI that the aforesaid is a disputed question of fact is not tenable as the petitioners has placed on record the certified copy of Form-32, which had been placed before the learned Trial Court by SEBI itself. The Form-32, as placed on record, clearly reflects that the petitioners had resigned on 23.02.1998, which was much before the cause of action alleged to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led or not. It is not possible to accept the submission that this question can be examined only by the trial court when it can easily be verified by a mere inspection of the record of the Registrar of Companies. 10. It would indeed be unfair to require the petitioners to go through the ordeal of a trial only for proving a statutory document available for inspection by the SEBI in the office of the Registrar of Companies. Although in Sunaina R. Mathani, [2002] 1 AD 78, this court had opined that the question whether there was a Form No. 32 should also be examined by the trial court, this court does not find it necessary to do so here because certified copies of Form No. 32 have been placed on record and despite sufficient time avail....