Bombay High Court
Vikas Gourihar Narnavar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 508 OF 2019
Digitally signed
by SHALIKRAM
SHALIKRAM PRALHADRAO
PRALHADRAO BOREY
BOREY Date:
2022.04.08
11:35:26 +0530
IN
CRI. APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2019
Vikas Gourihar Narnavar ...Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
---
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 898 OF 2022
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 508 OF 2019
IN
CRI. APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2019
Vikas Gourihar Narnavar ...Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
---
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 509 OF 2019
IN
CRI. APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2019
Vikas Gourihar Narnavar ...Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
---
Mr. Manish Bohra, Advocate i/by M/s. A. S. Khan & Associates for
the Applicant/ Appellant.
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the State.
Ms. Anubha Rastogi, Advocate a/w. Shikha Nambiar for the
Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Ankon Ray, SEBI Officer, is present.
---
Spborey/-
1 of 7
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 6th APRIL, 2022.
P. C. :
1. The Applicant/Original Appellant has been
convicted by judgment and order dated 9 th September, 2019
for the offence punishable under section 24 (2) of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. He is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one and half
year and to pay fine of Rs. 7,50,000/-. It was further directed
that if the fine amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- is realized, an
amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- shall be paid to SEBI as
compensation by demand draft or pay order and an amount
of Rs., 50,000/- shall be deposited in the court.
2. Interim Application Nos. 508 & 509 of 2019 are
preferred for suspension of sentence and grant of bail;
whereas Interim Application No. 898 of 2022 is preferred for
seeking relaxation in depositing the fine amount.
3. The Appeal, challenging the judgment of
conviction, has been admitted by this Court and pending for
final disposal. The sentence of imprisonment was
suspended by the trial court on the date of conviction for a
period of one month, on depositing part fine amount of Rs.
50,000/-.
4. This Court by order dated 17 th October, 2019,
continued the order of suspension passed by trial Court, by
Spborey/-
2 of 7
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
granting time to deposit fine amount.
5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has
submitted that the Applicant has a good case on merit. The
impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities. The
amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited in the trial court.
The Applicant was given clean chit in the main matter. The
fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- is arbitrary. The offence under
section 24(2) of the SEBI Act is not made out against the
Applicant. The sentence was suspended by the trial court on
the date of conviction. The adjudication order was not
served upon the Applicant. The Applicant is not in a
position to deposit the fine amount. He is in financial
constrains. The fine amount may be relaxed by permitting
the Applicant to further deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/-
towards fine.
6. The learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2-
SEBI has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against
the Applicant. The adjudication officer's order relied upon
by the Applicant has no connection with the present case.
The Applicant has been convicted by judgment and order
dated 9th September, 2019. Sufficient time was available to
the Applicant to deposit the fine amount. No relaxation for
depositing the fine amount may be granted to the Applicant.
Despite serving adjudication order, the Applicant did not
comply the said order. The offence under section 24(2) of
the SEBI Act is clearly made out.
Spborey/-
3 of 7
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
7. The learned Advocate for the Applicant in support
of his submission relied upon the order dated 11.12.2017
passed by this court in Criminal Application No. 1473 of 2017
in the case of Rameshchandra K. Jain VS. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr. and contended that in the said case
the Accused therein was directed to pay fine of Rs.
3,00,000/- and the Applicant therein was permitted to
deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- towards fine and sentence of
imprisonment was suspended. He also relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang VS.
Ramesh Narang & Ors. [1995 (2) SCC 513] and submitted
that in paragraph 15 of the said order, the Apex Court
observed that the 'order' referred in Section 389(1) must be
an order capable of execution. Reliance is also place on the
order passed by this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2251
of 2008, wherein this court had directed the relaxation of
fine amount pending appeal.
8. The Applicant herein was on bail during trial.
Sentence was suspended by the trial court on the date of
conviction. Subsequently, by way of interim order, this
court had suspended the sentence. The Applicant has been
directed to pay fine of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The Applicant has
deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial court.
The sentence is of short term and hence, there is no
impediment in suspending the sentence of imprisonment
and granting of bail.
9. The Applicant has preferred Interim Application
Spborey/-
4 of 7
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
No. 898 of 2022 and submitted that the Applicant is not
employed. He is helping his wife, by selling dairy products
in Chawl. He has no relative or friends to help him in
depositing the huge fine amount. He has two school going
children, who are studying in 7th and 3rd standard. Due to
spread of Covid -19 pandemic, the Applicant and his family
was affected financially and on health front and they are
actually not in a position to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- towards
fine.
10. The Appeal preferred by the Applicant has been
admitted by this court. From the tenor of the judgment and
order, it appears that the transactions are of the year 2005.
The summons was issued to the accused on 02.03.2007
under section 11-C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act.
Adjudicating Officer has submitted that the Applicant has
failed to comply with the summons and imposed penalty of
Rs.5 lakhs by order dated 21st December, 2009. The
complaint was filed against the Applicant under section
24(2) of the SEBI Act in which he has been convicted, as
stated hereinabove.
11. Several grounds are urged in the Appeal,
challenging the impugned judgment and order of
conviction. Considering the factual aspects of the matter
and the financial condition of the Applicant, relaxation can
be granted to the Applicant for depositing the fine amount.
Spborey/-
5 of 7
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
12. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
i. Interim Application Nos. 508 & 509 of 2019 and
Interim Application No. 898 of 2022 in IA No. 508 of 2019
are allowed.
ii. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the
Special Judge under the SEBI Act, vide judgment and
order dated 9th September, 2019 passed in SEBI Special
Case No. 8 of 2013 is suspended and the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the
like amount.
iii. The Applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in
the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of twelve weeks in
lieu of surety.
iv. The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- before the trial Court towards the fine amount
within eight weeks from today.
v. The Applicant shall attend the trial Court once in
Spborey/-
6 of 7
4-IAs-508-509-19-898-22.doc
six months on first Saturday of the month till the final
disposal of the Appeal.
vi. In the event, there are two consecutive defaults of
the Applicant/ Appellant in attending the trial Court, the
said fact may be brought to the notice of this Court and
in such eventuality, the prosecution will be at liberty to
prefer an application for cancellation of bail.
vii. In the event, the fine amount is not deposited
within the time, as stipulated in this order, the trial Court
will be at liberty to initiate proceedings and the
Respondents will be at liberty to prefer an application for
cancellation of bail granted by this court.
viii. All the above Interim Applications stand disposed
of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
.....
Spborey/-
7 of 7
