CR.MA/9884/2003 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9884 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= CHHAGANLAL B.RATHOD - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR S.V.Raju, Senior Advocate with ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH for the Applicant. Ms. Falguni D.Patel, Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent no.1. MR AJAYKUMAR CHOKSI for Respondent no.2. MR VAIBHAV A VYAS for Respondent no.2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL Date : 22/11/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT The present application has been preferred CR.MA/9884/2003 2/7 JUDGMENT under section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint bearing Criminal complaint no. 1 of 1999 filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, by Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI” for short), having its office at Mumbai. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the offence allege is under section 24 of The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act of 1992”) for the violation of the Regulation 4 (A) (C) an (D) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 1995 and regulation 7 read with clause A(3) of Schedule II of SEBI (Stock Brokers and sub- brokers) Regulations, 1992. Under the aforesaid sections, one year is the limitation, looking to the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the complaint has been filed at a belated time, that is, in the year 1999, cognizance could not have been taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The allege dates of CR.MA/9884/2003 3/7 JUDGMENT offence are running from January to March, 1996 and the complaint is filed on 8th January, 1999. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2003) 7 SCC, 254 and (2001) 1 SCC, 1225. 3. I have also heard the learned advocates for the respondents who have mainly submitted that it is not true that the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation. Even otherwise also, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad has all power, jurisdiction and authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of summons looking to the nature of the offence committed by the present petitioner and looking to the facts of the present case, at this stage, limitation cannot be the ground for quashing of the complaint. Even otherwise also, looking to the facts of the present case, which are narrated in the affidavit-in-reply, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the complaint is not filed beyond the CR.MA/9884/2003 4/7 JUDGMENT period of limitation. The complainant had inquired into the matter, awaited for some report and thereafter, complaint has been filed, after finding out all facts and after arriving at a final conclusion, the complaint has been filed. Therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation. Detailed narration of facts date-wise has been referred in the affidavit filed by SEBI. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts of the present case, I see no reason to quash the complaint filed by SEBI against the present petitioner, for the following facts and reasons: (i) Looking to the facts of the present case, it appears that SEBI has inquired into the allegations against the present petitioner. There are lot of irregularities as alleged in the complaint. There is a deliberate attempt on the part of the present petitioner for rising share prices. There is enough evidence against the petitioner looking to the allegation to the effect that the present petitioner is prima CR.MA/9884/2003 5/7 JUDGMENT facie involved in committing the offences as alleged by the complainant. There is no proper and satisfactory explanation coming forth from the petitioner looking to the inquiry effected by SEBI. Even Reserve Bank of India has also given its report in the subject matter of the allegations against the present petitioner. (ii)Looking to date-wise explanation given in the affidavit-in-reply also, there are enough explanations with the original complainant. The explanations given are sufficient enough for arriving at a satisfaction by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for issuance of summons. At this stage, it is therefore, not necessary for this Court to looking into the period of limitation with a microscopic eye. Every day's delay is not to be seen by this Court at this stage. The Court has to see whether prima facie there is an explanation or not. Looking to the facts of the present case, I am fully satisfied that no error has been committed by the trial court in issuing summons. The judgments cited by the learned CR.MA/9884/2003 6/7 JUDGMENT counsel for the petitioner, looking to the facts of the present case, are not applicable. There is therefore, no substance in this application. As the Court is dismissing the application, this Court is not analysing the evidence in detail as to how the petitioner is involved in the commission of the offence. Suffice it to say that prima facie there are allegations and there is a substance in the allegations against the petitioners. Looking to the facts of the present case, there are cogent and convincing reasons with the learned additional Metropolitan Magistrate for issuance of the summons in view of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any stands vacated. (D.N.Patel,J) At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further stay of this order with a view to approach the higher forum. The learned counsel for both the respondents are objecting to this request. Looking to the facts and reasons mentioned CR.MA/9884/2003 7/7 JUDGMENT hereinabove, this request is not acceded to. (D.N.Patel,J) ***darji