:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2238 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2239 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 338 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1154 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1598 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1611 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1773 OF 2007 The Securities and Exchange Board of India ..Applicant/ Org.Respondent Vs. Videocon International & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. H.H. Ponda with Mr. V.N. Shingnapurkar i/by M/s. H.N. Associates for applicant. Ms. Neeta Rajda h/f Mr.Adhik Shirodkar i/by DSR Associates for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (applicants in Cri.Appln. Nos.2238 of 2007 and 2239 of 2007. Mr. Nitin Pradhan with Ms. S.D. Khot i/by Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for respondent no.3 (petitioner in Cri.W.P. No.338 of 2007). Mr. S.V. Marwadi for respondent no.4 (petitioner in Cri.W.P. No.1154/07). Mr. J.P. Shah, G. Agrawal and Sachin Kudalkar i/by J.P.S. Legal for respondent no.5 (petitioner in :2: Cri.W.P. No.1557/07). Mr. Amit Desai with Mr. J.P. Shah, G. Agrawal and Sachin Kudalkar i/by J.P.S. Legal for respondent no.6 (petitioner in Cri.W.P. No.1598/07). Mr. Nitin Deshpande for respondent no.7 (petitioner in Cri.W.P. No.1611/07). Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by Mr. S.P. Narkar for respondent no.8 (petitioner in Cri.W.P. No. 1773/07). Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : February 07, 2008. : February 07, 2008. : February 07, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Ponda the learned Counsel with Mr. Shingnapurkar i/by M/s. H.N. Associates for applicant-Board and Mr. Pradhan, Mr. Desai, Mr. Marwadi and Ms.Neeta Rajda the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Criminal Application Nos.2238 and 2239 of 2007 and Criminal Writ Petition Nos.338, 1154, 1557, 1598, 1611 and 1773 of 2007 were decided by this court as per the Judgment dated 16/1/2008. On pronouncement of the operative part of the order on 16/1/2008 in the open court, the Board did not take out any motion, :3: including an oral motion, for stay to the said order. However, this application has been moved by the Board on or about 2/2/2008 stating that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has taken a view that only those cases which are filed after 29th October, 2002 are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and the Board has decided to move the Supreme Court against the judgment rendered by this court on 16/1/2008 as well as part of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. It has been further stated that though an application was made on behalf of the Board for a certified true copy of the Judgment pronounced by this court on 16/1/2008 itself, a certified true copy was not made available by the Registry till this application was filed. 3. On the delay caused in issuing a certified true copy of the judgment the enquiry made with the Registry reveals that the certified true copy was made available on 31/1/2008 and in any case the Registry has installed a facilitation centre which issues uncertified copy of any judgment and order immediately, if such an application is made. It is, therefore, clear that if the learned Advocate :4: representing the Board had approached the facilitation centre of this court on 17/1/2008, there could be no difficulty in obtaining a steno copy of the said judgment and order so as to enable the Board to file an appeal before the Apex Court. Even otherwise it is well known that the judgments/orders of this court are available on the Internet. 4. On the merits of this application the learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court and urged before me that the prayer made by the Board in this application amounts to alteration in, if not review of, the order dated 16/1/2008 and once the court has pronounced the judgment on 16/1/2008 it has become functus officio. (a) Sankatha Singh and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1962 SC 1208]. (b) Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 169]. (c) State of Kerala vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair :5: [(2001) 4 SCC 752]. 5. It appears that the learned Judge of the Designated Court under SEBI has in some cases take steps to transfer the cases to the court, which had passed earlier the committal order, in obedience of the judgment dated 16/1/2008. Mr. Ponda expressed an apprehension that either the trial will start in some cases or in some cases the learned trial Judge may be persuaded to invoke his powers under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and dismiss the complaints. I am not impressed by the apprehensions expressed by the Board and, therefore, I am not inclined to stay the operation of the judgment dated 16/1/2008 as has been prayed in this application. 6. However, in a given case if an occasion arises for the trial court to invoke its powers under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. within a period of four weeks from today and if SEBI makes an application before the trial court not to invoke such powers on the ground that the SEBI has already approached the Supreme Court, such an application may be considered by the trial court rather than straightway proceeding to :6: dismiss the complaint. 7. Save and except the above observations, the application stands rejected. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)