Delhi High Court
Vinod Mahajan vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 4 September, 2018
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: September 04, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1898/2016
VINOD MAHAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Priyank Sharma and Mr.
Pankaj Mani, Advocates
versus
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD
OF INDIA ( SEBI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
O R D E R (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing trial in the court of the Additional
Sessions Judge in criminal case (CC no.10/14) on the complaint
of the first respondent on allegations of offences punishable
under Section 24(1) and Section 27 of Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act, 1992 (in short, "SEBI Act") on account of
he alongwith certain others having indulged in certain acts of
commission or omission in violation of Section 11 B of SEBI
Act and regulation nos.5(1) r/w 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of SEBI
(Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999. He is
described as one of the directors of M/s. Golden Land
Development India Ltd., a company in liquidation, it also being
one of the accused before the trial court.
2. The trial had commenced with notice under Section 251
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) having been
issued and served in terms of order dated 1.08.2012. It is
conceded that the evidence has already been adduced and the
case is at the stage of hearing of arguments for final
adjudication.
3. At the above-said concluding stage, the petitioner had
moved application seeking discharge, inter alia, on the grounds
that the court of the Additional Sessions Judge in Delhi does not
have the territorial jurisdiction, the company accused in which
the petitioner was a director being located in Chandigarh, all the
acts of commission or omission leading to the prosecution also
having occurred there. The petitioner also contended before the
Additional Sessions Judge by the said application that no case
was made out showing his complicity. The prayer was declined
by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 23.01.2016.
4. By the petition at hand invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC, challenge is brought to
the said ruling by order dated 23.01.2016 of the trial court, the
prayer being for the proceedings against the petitioner to be
quashed.
5. Having heard the submissions of both sides and having
gone through the record, this court finds no merit in the petition
at hand. The reasons may be set out hereinafter.
6. The trial court has rightly referred to a previous ruling of
this court in Brijeshwar Jaiswal vs. SEBI, 189 (2012) Delhi Law
Times, 766 wherein similar contentions qua the jurisdiction
were repelled. Suffice it to note here, as also pointed out by the
trial court in the impugned order, the Securities Exchange
Board of India (SEBI) has its regional office in Delhi and the
correspondence leading to the prosecution through the above
mentioned complaint was exchanged by the said office with the
company accused and its directors that include the petitioner.
The prime fact which needs to be noted in this regard is that
under the regulations, the company was required to get itself
registered with SEBI at its regional office in Delhi, the failure to
comply with the said requirement being one of the grounds
leading to the prosecution.
7. As noted above, the case has reached the stage of final
adjudication. At such stage, it will not be proper, particularly
when issues of fact have been raised, for this court to return
findings on questions of complicity in the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr. PC. [see: Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lal
Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330].
8. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J
SEPTEMBER 04, 2018
yg
