20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 2677/2010 NEXUS FARMS LTD & ORS Petitioners Through : l^r. Shaad Anwar, Adv. versus SEBI Respondent Through : i^r. Sanjay l^ann, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIIMA KOHLI ORDER % 03.12.2010 1. On the last date of hearing, an adjournnnent was sought by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that another case, registered as CrI.M.C. No.969/2010 entitled Sannaroan Aaro & Livestock Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, relating to the issue of limitation for filing of a complaint, was pending before another Bench and was listed on 21.10.2010 and the decision taken in the aforesaid case would be relevant for consideration in the present case. 2. Today, counsel for the respondent hands over a copy of the judgment dated 25.10.2010 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court(A.K. Pathak, J.) in Crl.MC No.969/2010, entitled Samarpan Aqro CRLM.C. 2677/2010 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified .X 8t Livestock Ltd.rsuora)", dismissing the petition preferred by the petitioner therein. 3_ In the aforesaid case, the question whicj;i arose for consideration of the Single Judge was framed as below : "whether violation of Regulations 73 and 74 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations,1999, punishableunder Section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is a continuingoffenceor not". 4. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on similar cases decided by the SupremeCourt and High Courts of Delhi and Madras to hold that the offence in question is a continuing offence till the time the Company complies with the regulationsand directions issued by SEBI by winding up the existing collective investment scheme and refunding the money to the investors. 5. In the present case also, the petitioners herein have sought quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from the ComplaintCase No.41/2005 filed for contravention of SEBI Regulations and pending before the learned ASJ, on the ground that the petition filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner is barred by time and, therefore, the same ought to be quashed. CRLM.C. 2677/2010 Page 2 of 3 6. This Court is inclined to agree with the view taken in the aforesaidjudgmentc:amarDanAgro &LivestockLtd. (supra) rendered by aCoordinateBench of this Courton an identicalissue. Followingthe aforesaidjudgment,the present petition is dismissed by holding that non-compliancewith the provisionsof SEBI, which requiresan existing collectiveinvestmentschemeto file an applicationfor registration,and initiate winding up of such a scheme as per Regulation 73 while repaying the money collected to the investorsas per Regulation 74, would be a continuing offence, and till the petitioner company complies with these regulations, the petition preferred by the complainant would not be barred by limitation and the provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. would not be attracted. 7. The petition is therefore dismissed. HIMA KOHLI,J DECEMBER 03, 2010 sk CRLM.C. 2677/2010 Page 3 of 3