Delhi District Court
Manjitinder Pal Singh vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 26 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. : 01/14
Unique Case ID :02401R0294682014
Manjitinder Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
R/o Village Dadherian, Post Office, Sanour,
Punjab 147103 ........... Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Having its regional office at
Block No. 1, Rajendra Bhawan,
Rajendra Place District Centre,
New Delhi10008. .......... Respondent
AND
Crl. Appeal. No. : 02/14
Unique Case ID : 02401R0294752014
Yashinderjit Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
R/o Village Dadherian, Post Office, Sanour,
Punjab 147103 ........... Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Having its regional office at
CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 1 of 42
Block No. 1, Rajendra Bhawan,
Rajendra Place District Centre,
New Delhi10008. .......... Respondent
AND
Crl. Appeal No. : 03/14
Unique Case ID : 02401R0304282014
Rakam Singh
S/o Sh. Bachan Ram
R/o H. No. 1, New Afsar Colony,
Kheri Gujran Road,
Patiala, Punjab. ........... Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) .......... Respondent
Date of Institution of CA No.01/14 dated 02.07.2014
Date of Institution of CA No.02/14 dated 02.07.2014
Date of Institution of CA No.03/14 dated 05.07.2014
Judgment reserved on 22.11.2014
Judgment delivered on 26.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. These three Criminal Appeals bearing CA Nos. 01/14, 02/14 and 03/14 are directed against the same judgment dated 03.06.2014 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 2 of 42 and Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014 as passed by Sh. D.K. Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the Complaint Case bearing CC No. 11/2005 titled as "SEBI Vs. Woodworth Plantations & Ors.", whereby Ld. ACMM was pleased to convict the Appellants for offence punishable U/S 24(1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act, and awarded Sentence of fine of Rs.1,00,000/ with SI for period of 3 months and in default of payment of fine, SI for one month as against the Convict Rakam Singh and fine of Rs.2,00,000/ each with SI for period of 6 months each and in default of payment of fine, SI for 2 months each as against the Convict Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Manjitinder Pal Singh for offence punishable U/S 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act. So by being aggrieved against the said Judgment dt. 03.06.2014 and Order on Sentence dt. 05.06.2014 of Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the Convicts Manjitinder Pal Singh, Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Rakam Singh have filed these Criminal Appeals bearing CA No. 01/14, 02/14 & 03/14 respectively.
2. By virtue of this common Judgment, I shall dispose of these three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No. 01/14, 02/14 & 03/14 as these Appeals are directed against the same Judgment dt. 3.6.2014 and Order on Sentence dt. 5.6.2014 as passed by Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts, CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 3 of 42 Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and even the common Arguments have been addressed by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent in all these Appeals.
3. I have heard common Arguments addressed by Sh. H.S. Bhullar, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent in these three Appeals and perused the relevant Record.
4. In support of these Criminal Appeals, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that the Ld. ACMM has failed to appreciate the matter properly and thereby reached to the wrong conclusion in passing the Impugned Judgment dt. 3.6.2014 and Order on Sentence dt. 5.6.2014 which deserve to be set aside and the Appellants be ordered to be acquitted and these Appeals be allowed accordingly. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that Ld. ACMM has not properly appreciate the relevant material available on the Record relating to the facts as well as Law and thereby came to the wrong findings whereby convicting the Appellants by virtue of the Impugned Judgment dt. 3.6.2014 and Order on Sentence dt. 5.6.2014, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside and Appellants be acquitted accordingly. It is further added by Ld. CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 4 of 42 Counsel for the Appellants that there is nothing on Record to establish that the Appellants were the persons Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Accused No.1 Company i.e., M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and therefore the Appellants cannot be held vicariously liable by virtue of Section 27 (1) of SEBI Act for the commission of the alleged offence U/S 24(1) of SEBI Act. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no mention in the complaint of the specific role of the Appellants in handling the affairs of Accused No. 1 Company i.e., M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and therefore the Appellants cannot be held liable for the commission of the alleged offence on behalf of the Accused No. 1 Company i.e., M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. but the Ld. ACMM has failed to appreciate the same and hence the Impugned Judgment dt. 3.6.2014 and Order on Sentence dt. 5.6.2014 deserve to be set aside. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants in support of his said submission referred and relied upon Judgment reported as (2009) 157 DLT 417 "Rashima Verma Vs. SEBI". It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that since the Accused No. 1 Company i.e., M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was not served with the Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C and not convicted in the present case, therefore, the Appellants who were the Directors of the said Company cannot be held liable for the offence punishable U/S 24(1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act and Ld. Counsel referred and relied upon Judgment CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 5 of 42 reported as 2012 (5) SCC, 661 "Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd." Thus, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants added that in the absence of conviction of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., the conviction of the Appellants who were the directors of the said Accused Company is unsustainable in view of the said Judgment. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that from the bare perusal of the Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. dated 4.7.2012 as framed by Ld. ACMM, it is clearly reflected that said Notice was defective as said Notice was framed only against the Accused No.2 Rakam Singh, Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Accused No.4 Manjitinder Pal Singh, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and not against the prime Accused i.e. the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that despite the said defect in the Notice, was brought to the notice of Ld. ACMM, he has not rectified the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that therefore, no order of conviction has been passed as against said Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that in the absence of conviction of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., the conviction of other Accused/ Directors who are Appellants herein is not sustainable in CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 6 of 42 view of the Judgment 2012 (5) SCC, 661 "Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd." It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that Section 12 (1B) of SEBI Act is not applicable in the present case as the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was incorporated on dated 20.5.1997 and when it started its business w.e.f. 21.5.1997 as per Letter Ex.PW1/6, the activities of the Company were not considered to come under the ambit of Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) and therefore, the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was not required to obtain any registration for commencement of the business. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that Regulations 5, 68, 73, 74 of SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations 1999 are not applicable in the present case as said Regulations 1999 came into force on 15.10.1999 and the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. has otherwise ceased its business activities related to CIS at the time of commencement of said Regulations and therefore, no culpability can accrue under said Regulations 5, 68, 73, 74 and hence, no case U/S 12 (1B) of SEBI Act is made out as against the Appellants, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that even otherwise, 70% of the invested money were of Directors themselves and 30% of the CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 7 of 42 money had been of the Public. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that most of the money of the Investors were repaid much prior to the Regulations came into force on 15.10.99. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that the factum of return of the money to the Investors was also intimated to SEBI. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that all the Investors were satisfied with the return and there was no complaint against the Company or Directors of the Company by any of the Investors to any Authority which is found supported from the Certificate as issued by the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Patiala which is Ex.DW1/4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants thus submitted for setting aside of the aforesaid Impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence as passed by Ld. ACMM, Delhi and for allowing these Appeals.
5. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that Ld. ACMM has rightly passed the aforesaid Judgment of Conviction dated 3.6.2014 and Order on Sentence dated 5.6.2014 after proper appreciation of the material available on the record and as these Appeals are devoid of any merit, deserve to be dismissed. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that there are adequate material available on record to establish that Accused No.2 to 4 i.e. Rakam Singh, Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Manjitinder Pal CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 8 of 42 Singh were the Directors and persons Incharge and responsible for the business of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that even all these accused persons in their statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. have clearly admitted that they were the Directors and persons Incharge of the affairs of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and therefore, they cannot be allowed to retract from the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that from the bare perusal of the certified copy of the Balance Sheet of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. which are Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2, Ex.DW1/3, it is clearly reflected that said Accused persons were the Directors and persons responsible for the business affairs of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and hence, liable for the commission of the offence under Section 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that after taking cognizance, all the four Accused were summoned by Ld. ACMM and thereafter, all the four Accused have appeared before the Trial Court. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that it is Accused No.3 i.e. Yashinderjit Pal Singh who has represented the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and also filed an application U/S 305 (2) Cr.P.C. to represent the Accused No.1 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 9 of 42 Company. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that since it was brought to the notice of the Trial Court on behalf of the Accused persons that the name of the Accused Company has been struck off by the concerned Registrar of Companies and said Company had been dissolved as per Section 560 of Companies Act and therefore, no Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C was served to Accused No.1 Company/M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and hence, said Accused No.1 was not convicted and in the said circumstances, there is no legal bar for the conviction of Accused NO.2, 3 and 4 who were the Directors of Accused No.1 i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., in the absence of conviction of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. has been rightly framed by Ld. ACMM as against the Accused No.2, Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4, who were the Directors and persons responsible for conduct of the business of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that as the name of the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. had already been struck off by the concerned Registrar of Companies and said Company was no more in existence on the date of framing of the Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. i.e. 4.7.2012 and that is why no such Notice was rightly framed as against Accused No.1 Company M/s CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 10 of 42 Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and therefore, there is no legal defect in the said Notice. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was incorporated on 20.5.97 and started its business w.e.f. 21.5.97 and Section 12 (1B) of SEBI Act came into force from 25.1.1995 and SEBI (CIS) Regulations 1999 came into force on 15.10.1999. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Accused No. 1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. started the business of CIS without getting the Scheme registered nor the repayment was made to the Investors in accordance with the SEBI (CIS) Regulations 1999 and no Winding up Report and Repayment (WRR) was filed on behalf of the Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and therefore, the Accused No.2 to 4, who were the Directors and persons responsible for conduct of business of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. have been rightly held guilty for violation of Section 12 (1B) of SEBI Act r/w CIS Regulations. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent in support of his submission referred and relied upon the Judgment reported as "Ankur Forest and Project Development India Ltd. & Others Vs. SEBI", 2011 (III) AD DELHI 163.
6. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 11 of 42 complaint was filed by SEBI as against Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and its 3 Directors i.e. Rakam Singh as Accused No.2, Yashinderjit Pal Singh as Accused No.3 and Manjitinder Pal Singh as Accused No.4, on dated 24.12.2001 for offence punishable U/S 24 (1) and Section 27 of SEBI Act 1992. The precise case of the complainant is that the Accused No.2 to 4 were the Directors and persons responsible for conduct of business of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., who failed to comply with Chapter IX of the Regulations as issued by SEBI in respect of Collective Investment Scheme as Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was running a Collective Investment Scheme and has raised an aggregate sum of Rs.1.35 crores during the period 21.5.97 to 31.12.97 but failed to get the said Collective Investment Scheme registered prior to floating such Scheme and after CIS Regulations came into effect, with the complainant within a period of 2 months after Notification of CIS Regulations in the year 1999 and further failed to make the repayment of the amount to the Investors despite Letter dated 15.12.99, 29.12.99 and Public Notice dated 10.12.99 and 22.2.2000 as given by the SEBI. Further Notice dated 12.5.2000 of SEBI was also ignored and money received from the Investors was not repaid as per the Regulations and thereby the Accused persons have committed offence punishable U/S CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 12 of 42 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is further reflected that after the service of the summons, all the accused persons appeared and Accused No.1 Company was represented through Accused No.3 Yashjitinder Pal Singh. Thereafter, Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed as against Accused No.2 to 4 vide Order dated 4.7.2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. However, no Notice was framed as against Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. as name of the said Company was stated to have been struck off and has been dissolved by the concerned Registrar of Companies. The complainant in support of its case got examined Ms.Versha Aggarwal, Asstt. General Manager, SEBI as PW1and thereafter, the complainant's evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of Accused No.2, 3 and 4 U/S 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Thereafter, the Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh has been examined as Defence Witness as DW1 and DE was closed. Thereafter, on hearing both sides, Ld. ACMM passed the aforesaid Impugned Judgment dated 3.6.2014 and Order on Sentence dated 5.6.2014 as against the Accused No.2 Rakam Singh, Accused No. 3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Accused No. 4 Manjitinder Pal Singh. So by being aggrieved against the aforesaid CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 13 of 42 Judgment and Order on Sentence, the Accused No.2, 3 4 have preferred these present Appeals.
8. For ready reference relevant provisions of SEBI Act 1992 and SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations 1999 are reproduced as under: Section 12(1)(B): "No person shall sponsor or cause to be sponsored or carry on or cause to be carried on any venture capital funds or collective investment scheme including mutual funds, unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the regulations:
Provided that any person sponsoring or cause to be sponsored, carrying or causing to be carried on any venture capital funds or collective investment scheme operating in the securities market immediately before the commencement of the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 1995 for which no certificate of registration was required prior to such commencement, may continue to operate till such time regulations are made under clause (d) of CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 14 of 42 subsection (2) of Section 30.]" (w.e.f. 25.01.1995) Section 24: "Without prejudice to any award or penalty by the adjudicating officer under this Act, if any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any rules or regulations made thereunder, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both]" (old Act) Section 27: "Offences by Companies - (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 15 of 42 that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
Regulations 68(1) of C.I.S Regulations provides that any person who has been operating a C.I.S at the time of commencement of these regulations shall be deemed to be an existing C.I.S and shall also comply with the provisions of this Chapter. SubClause (2) directs the applicant to give a written undertaking to the SEBI to comply with CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 16 of 42 the conditions specified in Regulation (5). In terms of subRegulation (3) of Regulation 71 states that an applicant who after grant of provisional registration fails to comply with the conditions as specified in SubRegulation (1) and Regulation (9) shall not be considered eligible for the grant of certificate for registration under Regulation 10 and shall wind up the scheme in the manner specified under Regulation
73. Regulation 72 provides for grant of registration certificate to an existing C.I.S. Scheme which satisfied the SEBI that requirements specified in Regulation 9 and the conditions specified under Regulation 71 have been fulfilled, upon the payment of Registration fees as specified by the SEBI. Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 72 permits the SEBI to grant the certificate to an existing CIS to float new schemes on such terms and condition as may be specified by the Board.
Regulation 73: "provides for a complete mechanism for the manner of repayment and winding up of the CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 17 of 42 existing collective investment scheme.
Regulation 73 states as under:
Manner of repayment and winding up 73. (1) An existing collective investment scheme which :
(a) has failed to make an application for registration to the Board; or
(b) has not been granted provisional registration by the Board; or
(c) having obtained provisional registration fails to comply with the provisions of Regulation 71; shall wind up the existing scheme.
(2) The existing Collective Investment Scheme to be wound up under subregulation (1) shall send an information memorandum to the investors who have subscribed to the schemes, within two months from the date of receipt of intimation from the Board, detailing the state of affairs of the scheme, the amount repayable to each investor and the manner in which such amount is determined.
(3) The information memorandum referred to in CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 18 of 42 subregulation (2) shall be dated and signed by all the directors of the scheme.
(4) The Board may specify such other disclosures to be made in the information memorandum, as it deems fit.
(5) The information memorandum shall be sent to the investors within one week from the date of the information memorandum.
(6) The information memorandum shall explicitly states that investors desirous of continuing with the scheme shall have to give a positive consent within one month from the date of the information memorandum to continue with the same. (7) The investors who have given positive consent under subregulation (6) shall continue with the scheme at their risk and responsibility:
Provided that if the positive consent to continue with the scheme, is received from only twentyfive per cent or less of the total number of existing investors, the scheme shall be would up.
CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 19 of 42
(8) On completion of the winding up, the existing collective investment scheme shall file with the Board such reports, as may be specified by the Board.
Regulation 74: "An existing collective investment scheme which is not desirous of obtaining provisional registration from the Board shall formulate a scheme of repayment and make such repayment to the existing investors in the manner specified in regulation 73. (Regulations came into effect from 15.10.1999)
9. With regard to the point as raised by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants to the effect that there is nothing on record to establish that the Appellants were the persons Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants in view of the availability of ample material on record in negating the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants. In Para 18 of the Complaint Ex.PW1/28, it is found mentioned that the Accused No.2 to CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 20 of 42 4 are the Directors /or persons Incharge and responsible to Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. for the conduct of its business and are liable for the violation of Accused No.1, in terms of Section 27 of SEBI Act 1992. Furthermore, PW1 Ms. Versha Aggarwal Asst. General Manager, SEBI is also found to have deposed in this respect as under: "The Accused No.2 to 4 were the Directors and persons Incharge of affairs of Accused No.1 Company. The letter dated 06.04.98 along with its Enclosure is Ex.PW1/6."
Said Part of deposition of PW1 has gone unrebutted as there is no cross examination to PW1 in this respect on behalf of the accused persons.
10. The name of the Accused No.2 to 4 are also found mentioned as Directors in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., which was sent to SEBI along with the aforesaid Letter Ex.PW1/6 on behalf of M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd.
11. Furthermore, from the perusal of the statement as recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. of Accused No.2 to 4, it is CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 21 of 42 clearly reflected that they are found to have admitted to be correct with regard to the fact that said Accused No.2 to 4 were the Directors and persons Incharge of the affairs of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. As the Accused No.2 Rakam Singh in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. has stated in this respect as under: "Q. It is further in evidence against you that accused No.2 to 4 were the Directors and persons Incharge of affairs of accused No.1 Company. What you have to say?
A. It is correct."
12. Similarly, the Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. has stated in this respect as under: "Q. It is further in evidence against you that accused No. 2 to 4 were the Directors and persons Incharge of affairs of accused No.1 Company. What you have to say?
A. It is correct."
13. Similarly, the Accused No.4 Manjitinder Pal Singh in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. has stated in this CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 22 of 42 respect as under: "Q. It is further in evidence against you that accused No. 2 to 4 were the Directors and persons Incharge of affairs of accused No.1 Company. What you have to say?
A. It is correct."
14. Furthermore, Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh who has got himself examined as DW1 and has deposed as under: "I am one of the Directors of accused no.1 company. Accused no.1 company was formed in 1997 for carrying on business of agricultural and plantation. Company collected an amount of Rs.1.36 crore approx. out of which 95 lacs is of the Directors and their family members, which is approx 69% of total amount. In Dec. 1997, SEBI directed to all the plantation companies to not to mobilize further funds till policy is formulated. The company asked to SEBI for an extension of six months so that the ongoing project are completed. The same was refused by SEBI in March, 1998. The company took decision to return investor's money which was informed to SEBI. SEBI formulated the policy in October, 1999. By this time most CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 23 of 42 of the money of the investor's was returned to their satisfaction by the company and the same was informed to SEBI. The same is reflected in the balance sheet submitted to the ROC of 31.03.99. The certified copy of the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.99 is Ex.DW1/1. The balance amount of the directors was also returned before 31.03.2000 except small amount which is reflected in the balance sheet ending 31.03.2000. The certified copy of the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2000 is Ex.DW1/2. The balance amount was also cleared which is reflected in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2001 and the certified copy of the said balance sheet is Ex.DW1/3. The factum of return of money was also intimated to SEBI. However, we cannot file WRR as amount paid to different investors was different and different scheme accrued on different amount of interest to the investors. All the investors are satisfied with the return and there are no complaints against the company by any of the investors to any of the authorities. A certificate to this effect has been issued by the Superintendent of police, EOW, Patiala. The CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 24 of 42 original certificate is Ex.DW1/4. The company submitted the balance sheet to the ROC for the closure of company and further ROC advertised whether any investor has any objection to the closure of the company. There was no objection hence the ROC dissolved the company by its gazette notification. Copy of the extract is mark A. The company also obtained NOC from the Income Tax Department stating that there are no arrears/no dues pending against the accused no.1 company. The original of the said certificate is Ex.DW1/5. There is no non compliance by the accused company of SEBI directions. No amount is left to be paid by the accused no.1 company to any investors or any person."
15. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid certified copy of these Balance Sheets of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., which are Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3, it is clearly reflected that the Notice as well as the Director's Report forming part of said Balance Sheet found bear 'sd/' of Rakam Singh, Director for and on behalf of the Board and Annexure B which is the Notes attached to and forming part of Balance Sheet as well as the CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 25 of 42 copy of the Balance Sheet found bear 'sd/' of Rakam Singh, Director as well as 'sd/' Yashinderjit Pal Singh, Director.
16. In view of the aforesaid material available on the record i.e. contents of Para 18 of the Complaint Ex.PW1/28, the deposition of PW1 Ms.Versha Aggarwal concerning this aspect, which has gone unrebutted and the material as available on certified copy of Balance Sheet of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., which are Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3 coupled with the Statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. of the Accused No.2 to 4 i.e. Rakam Singh, Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Manjitinder Pal Singh, it is clearly established that these 3 Accused/Appellants herein were the Directors and the persons Incharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and therefore, I am of considered view that the Judgment of "Rashima Verma Vs. SEBI 2009 157 DLT 417"
being not applicable and can be of no help for the Appellants. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants in this respect.
17. With regard to the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants to the effect that in the absence of the conviction of CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 26 of 42 Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., the conviction of the Appellants, who were the Directors of the said Company is unsustainable in view of the Judgment reported as "2012 (5) SCC 661 Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.", I do not find any force in said submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants in view of fact and circumstances related to the present case. As from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the Accused Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., has been duly arrayed as Accused No.1 besides the 3 Appellants who were the Directors of the Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and were arrayed as Accused No.2, 3 and 4 as per the Complaint Ex.PW1/28. It is further reflected from the record that vide Order dated 24.12.2001, Ld. ACMM after taking cognizance has passed order for summoning against all the 4 Accused for the offence punishable U/S 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act. It is further revealed from the record that the Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh has represented for Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and Application U/S 305 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the Accused No.3 to represent Accused No.1 Company. It is further revealed from the record that it was submitted on behalf of the Accused persons that the name of the Accused Company has been struck off by the concerned Registrar of the Companies and said CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 27 of 42 Company had been dissolved. Furthermore, the Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh, who has been examined as DW1 and during course of his deposition has stated regarding the dissolution of the Accused No.1 Company as under: "The company submitted the balance sheet to the ROC for the closure of company and further ROC advertised whether any investor has any objection to the closure of the company. There was no objection hence the ROC dissolved the company by its gazette notification. Copy of the extract is mark A."
18. From the perusal of the copy of said Gazette Notification dated 1.10.2004, it is reflected that the name of M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. has been struck off from the Register of the Companies and said Company stands dissolved from the date of publication of the Notice dated 1.10.2004, as issued Under Sub Section 5 of Section 560 of Companies Act, 1956.
19. Furthermore, even at Para 6 of the Impugned Judgment, Ld. ACMM has clearly observed as under: "After the service of the summons, all the accused CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 28 of 42 persons appeared. Formal notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the accused No.2 to 4 vide order dated 04.07.2012 by Ld. Predecessor Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, no formal notice was framed against accused no.1 company which is now stated to have been dissolved."
20. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, it is clearly reflected that Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was arrayed as Accused No.1 and was ordered to be summoned as an Accused and was duly represented through Accused No.3 who was one of the Director of Accused No.1 but since it was brought to the notice of the Trial Court that the name of Accused No.1 Company had already been struck off by the concerned Registrar of the Companies and said Company had been dissolved w.e.f. Gazzete Notification dated 1.10.2004 and hence, said Accused Company being no more in existence and therefore, no Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the Accused No.1 Company though said Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed on dated 4.7.2012 as against Accused No.2 to 4, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and ultimately vide Impugned Judgment dated 03.06.2014, said Accused No.2 to 4 (Appellants) were convicted U/S CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 29 of 42 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act and awarded sentence vide Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014.
21. In view of the aforesaid peculiarities of the present case and as the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was no more in existence w.e.f. 1.10.2004 as its name was already struck off and stood dissolved vide Gazette Notification dated 1.10.2004 and therefore, as there was legal bar for proceeding as against said Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., no Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed by Ld. Trial Court on dated 4.7.2012 and therefore, said Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. could not be convicted vide Judgment of Conviction dated 03.06.2014 but the same does not stand in the way of conviction of the Accused No.2 to 4, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. for offence punishable U/S 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act by virtue of the Impugned Judgment dated 03.06.2014 and my said view is found supported even from the Judgment reported as "Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (5) SCC 661" wherein it was observed that there is mandatory requirement for impleading the Company as one of the Accused and the prosecution against the Director /Signatory of the Cheque is not maintainable without arraying the Company as an CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 30 of 42 Accused. Only exception would be in a case applying the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia i.e. if for some legal snag, company cannot be proceeded against without obtaining sanction of a court of law or other authority, trial as against the other accused may be proceeded against if ingredients of S. 138 as also S. 141 are otherwise fulfilled - In such an event, clarified that it would not be a case where company had not been made an accused but would be one where company cannot be proceeded against due to existence of a legal bar - A distinction must be borne in mind between cases where a company had not been made an accused and the one where despite making it an accused, it cannot be proceeded against because of a legal bar.
22. In view of the aforesaid material as available on record and as the name of the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was struck off and it was dissolved by the concerned Registrar of Companies w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and therefore, said Company was no more in existence and when it was brought to the notice of the Trial Court that is why the Accused No.1 due to legal bar could not be proceeded further and Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. could not be framed as against the Accused No.1 Company on dated 04.07.2012 and hence, CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 31 of 42 said Accused No.1 could not be convicted for the offence punishable U/S 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act, there was no legal infirmity in the said Judgment of Conviction dated 03.06.2014 whereby convicting the Accused No.2 to 4, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., in the absence of conviction of the Accused No.1 Company. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants on this count.
23. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that from the bare perusal of the Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. dated 4.7.2012 as framed by Ld. ACMM, it is clearly reflected that said Notice was defective as said Notice was framed only against the Accused No.2 Rakam Singh, Accused No.3 Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Accused No.4 Manjitinder Pal Singh, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company i.e. M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. and not against the prime Accused i.e. the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that despite the said defect in the Notice was brought to the notice of Ld. ACMM, he has not rectified the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that therefore, no order of conviction has been passed as against said CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 32 of 42 Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that in the absence of conviction of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., the conviction of other Accused/ Directors who are Appellants herein is not sustainable in view of the Judgment 2012 (5) SCC, 661 "Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd."
24. From the perusal of the Trial Court Record, it is reflected that as it was brought to the notice of Trial Court that the name of the Accused No.1 Company had already been struck off by the concerned Registrar of Companies and said Company was dissolved w.e.f. 1.10.2004 as per Gazette Notification of Registrar of Companies dated 1.10.2004 and therefore, no Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed as against the Accused No.1 Company and this fact also found mentioned even at Para 6 of the Impugned Judgment which reads as under: "After the service of the summons, all the accused persons appeared. Formal notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the accused No.2 to 4 vide order dated 04.07.2012 by Ld. Predecessor Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, no formal notice was framed against accused no.1 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 33 of 42 company which is now stated to have been dissolved."
25. From the perusal of the said Notice dated 04.07.2012 as framed by Ld. ACMM as against the remaining Accused persons i.e. Accused No.2, 3 and 4, it is clearly found that the relevant incriminating particulars are found mentioned therein. No doubt, some formal error are found in said Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C but same appears due to inadvertence and it has not resulted in any failure of justice as against the Accused No.2, 3 and 4 (Appellants herein) and therefore, the same cannot be over emphasized and the same cannot be a ground for setting aside of the aforesaid Impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 03.06.2014 as passed by Ld. ACMM and my said view is also found supported from Provisions U/S 464 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants in this respect.
26. During the course of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that Section 12 (1B) of SEBI Act is not applicable in the present case as the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was incorporated on dated 20.5.1997 and when it started its business w.e.f. 21.5.1997 as per Letter Ex.PW1/6, the activities of the Company were not considered to come under the CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 34 of 42 ambit of Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) and therefore, the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was not required to obtain any registration for commencement of the business. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that Regulations 5, 68, 73, 74 of SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations 1999 are not applicable in the present case as said Regulations 1999 came into force on 15.10.1999 and the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. has otherwise ceased its business activities related to CIS at the time of commencement of said Regulations and therefore, no culpability can accrue under said Regulations 5, 68, 73, 74 and hence, no case U/S 12 (1B) of SEBI Act is made out as against the Appellants, who were the Directors of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd.
27. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. was incorporated on 20.5.97 and it started its business w.e.f. 21.5.97 as per Memorandum and Article of Association of Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., which was sent along with the Letter dated 6.4.98 on behalf of the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. to SEBI. The Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. through its Directors was running a CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 35 of 42 Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) which is found reflected from the contents of the Letter dated 12.1.1998 Ex.PW1/1 as sent on behalf of Accused No.1 Company to SEBI with regard to the subject U/S 12 (1B) of SEBI Act in response to the Public Notice dated 22.12.97 as issued by the SEBI regarding the Agro Bonds, Plantation Bonds etc. by Agro Forest Company and the Accused Company has sent the requisite information along with the said Letter dated 12.1.1998 to the SEBI. Furthermore, it is further revealed from the record that the Accused No.1 Company has sent Letter dated 6.4.98 Ex.PW1/6 along with three documents as mentioned therein to SEBI and one of the said document is "Compliance Certificate" dated 6.4.98 wherein admitting regarding the running of the Collective Investment Scheme on behalf of the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. It is further revealed from the record that Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. had started its business of Collective Investment Scheme without obtaining the registration from the SEBI. As per Regulation 73 (1) of SEBI (CIS) Regulation 1999 an existing Collective Investment Scheme which has failed to make an application for registration to SEBI shall wind of the existing Scheme and repay the Investors. Further as per Regulation 74 an existing Collective Investment Scheme which is not desirous of obtaining provisional registration from SEBI shall formulate a scheme of repayment and CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 36 of 42 make such repayment to the existing Investors in the manner specified in Regulation 73. SEBI had sent Letter dated 29.12.99 Ex.PW1/18 to the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd., asking to ensure the compliance of the provision of SEBI Act 1992 and SEBI (CIS) Regulation 1999. It is further revealed from the record that vide Letter dated 31.7.2000 Ex.PW1/23, SEBI had sent format of "Winding of and Repayment Report" to the Accused No.1 Company to submit the requisite information in compliance with the Regulation 73 of SEBI (CIS) Regulation. But the Accused No.1 Company M/s Woodworth Plantations Ltd. has failed to do the needful.
28. During the course of the argument, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has referred and relied upon Judgment reported as "Ankur Forest and Project Development India & Others Vs. SEBI 2011 (III) AD DELHI 163" wherein at Para 11 it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under: "Thus from the testimony of witnesses and the documents exhibited on record, it is proved that, that the Company was incorporated on 20th September, 1995. Section 12(B) of the Act was inserted with effect from 21st January, 1995 wherein it was specifically provided that no person shall sponsor or cause to be CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 37 of 42 sponsored or carry on or cause to be carried on any venture capital funds or Collective Investment Schemes including mutual funds, unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the SEBI in accordance with the Regulations. Proviso to this subSection deals with the companies which were already carrying such business and they were also directed that they could continue the operation till such time Regulations are made under Clause (d) of subSection 2 of Section 30. Thus, as on the date of incorporation, there was a clear embargo on the Appellant to sponsor or cause to be sponsored or carry or cause to be carried on any collective investment scheme without obtaining certificate of registration from the SEBI in accordance with the regulations. Only companies which were already carrying on prior to the incorporation of Section 12 (1B) were permitted to continue the same till the Regulations were framed. Even those companies on the Regulations coming into operation were statutorily bound to comply them. Since the CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 38 of 42 Appellant was not a Company which were carrying on the collective investment scheme as on 21st January, 1995 it could not have started the same without the certificate of registration from the SEBI. Despite the embargo, the Appellant started the C.I.S and thus at this stage it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant to contend that the Regulations related to existing CIS and did not apply to it because when the Regulations came into force i.e. on 15th October, 1999 the Appellant was running a collective investment scheme and thus was running an existing collective investment scheme and could do so without any registration or without applying for the same. Moreover, Regulation 5(1) provides that prior to the date of coming into force of the Regulations, any person who was running an existing collective investment scheme should apply for grant of certificate within two months from such date. This Regulation was also not complied with by the Appellant. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that there is no CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 39 of 42 violation of Regulation 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74."
29. Considering the aforesaid submission from both sides and perusal of the relevant material as available on the record, I am of the considered view that the Impugned Judgment dated 03.06.2014 as passed by Sh.D.K.Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby convicting the Accused No.2 to 4 i.e. Rakam Singh, Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Manjitinder Pal Singh (Appellants herein) for offence punishable U/S 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore, said Judgment of Conviction is upheld.
30. However, considering the relevant material as available on record including the deposition of DW1 Yashinderjit Pal Singh with regard to return of the money to the Investors and to the effect that there was no complaint against the Company or its Directors by any of the Investors and a Certificate Ex.DW1/4 has been issued by the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Patiala in this respect and specifically keeping in mind that the offence had taken place in the year 1997 i.e. 17 years back and taking the cue from the Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as "(1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721 K.I.Pavunny Vs. Assistant Collector (HQ), CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 40 of 42 Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin", I deem it proper to impose total fine of Rs.3 Lacs each as against the Convict/Appellant Yashinderjit Pal Singh and Convict/Appellant Manjitinder Pal Singh and total fine of Rs.1.5 Lacs as against the Convict/Appellant Rakam Singh (who is 50% disabled) in pursuance of their conviction for the offence punishable U/S 24 (1) r/w Section 27 of SEBI Act. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the Convict/Appellants Manjitinder Pal Singh and Yashinderjit Pal Singh have already paid fine of Rs.2 Lacs each and the Convict/Appellant Rakam Singh had already paid fine of Rs.1 Lac before the Trial Court. Therefore, the Convict/Appellants Manjitinder Pal Singh and Yashinderjit Pal Singh will deposit the balance amount of fine of Rs.1 Lac each and the Convict/Appellant Rakam Singh will deposit the balance amount of fine of Rs.50,000/ and in case of default in payment of said fine amount, Convict/Appellants Manjitinder Pal Singh and Yashinderjit Pal Singh will undergo SI for 2 months each and Convict/Appellant Rakam Singh will undergo SI for 1 month and it is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014 as rendered by Sh.D.K.Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl.Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in this case stands modified accordingly.
31. The net result is that while uphelding the Impugned CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 41 of 42 Judgment dated 03.06.2014, the Impugned Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014 as passed by Sh.D.K.Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case bearing CC No. 11/2005 titled as "SEBI Vs. Woodworth Plantations & Ors.", stands modified accordingly and consequently, these three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No.3/14 are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Announced in the open court on this 26th day of November, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 42 of 42 CA No. 1/14 Manjitinder Pal Singh Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) 26.11.2014 Present: Appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
Vide common Judgment as pronounced in the court today in three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No. 3/14, while upholding the Impugned Judgment dated 03.06.2014, the Impugned Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014 as passed by Sh.D.K.Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case bearing CC No. 11/2005 titled as "SEBI Vs. Woodworth Plantations & Ors.", stands modified and consequently, these three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No.3/14 are allowed to the said extent.
Let signed copy of said Judgment be placed in CA No. 01/14 and an attested copy of said Judgment be kept in CA Nos. 02/14 and 03/14.
However, at the request of the Appellant that he is arranging the balance fine amount and hence, as per his request, matter is kept pending for today.
CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 43 of 42
(B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/26.11.14 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 44 of 42 CA No. 1/14 Manjitinder Pal Singh Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) 26.11.2014 This file is taken up once again.
Present: Appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
In compliance of common Judgment as passed today in three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No.2/14 and CA No.3/14, the Appellant Manjitinder Pal Singh has deposited the balance fine amount of Rs.1 Lac in the court today. Let an attested copy of said Judgment along with TCR and copy of today's Ordersheet relating to three Criminal Appeals be sent to the court of concerned Ld. ACMM. After doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this Criminal Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/26.11.14 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 45 of 42 CA No. 2/14 Yashinderjit Pal Singh Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) 26.11.2014 Present: Appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
Vide common Judgment as pronounced in the court today in three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No. 3/14, while upholding the Impugned Judgment dated 03.06.2014, the Impugned Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014 as passed by Sh.D.K.Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case bearing CC No. 11/2005 titled as "SEBI Vs. Woodworth Plantations & Ors.", stands modified and consequently, these three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No.3/14 are allowed to the said extent.
Let signed copy of said Judgment be placed in CA No. 01/14 and an attested copy of said Judgment be kept in CA Nos. 02/14 and 03/14.
However, at the request of the Appellant that he is arranging the balance fine amount and hence, as per his request, matter is kept pending for today.
CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 46 of 42
(B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/26.11.14 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 47 of 42 CA No. 2/14 Yashinderjit Pal Singh Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) 26.11.2014 This file is taken up once again.
Present: Appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
In compliance of common Judgment as passed today in three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No.2/14 and CA No.3/14, the Appellant Yashinderjit Pal Singh has deposited the balance fine amount of Rs.1 Lac in the court today. After doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this Criminal Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/26.11.14 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 48 of 42 CA No. 3/14 Rakam Singh Vs. State 26.11.2014 Present: Appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
Vide common Judgment as pronounced in the court today in three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No. 3/14, while upholding the Impugned Judgment dated 03.06.2014, the Impugned Order on Sentence dated 05.06.2014 as passed by Sh.D.K.Sharma, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case bearing CC No. 11/2005 titled as "SEBI Vs. Woodworth Plantations & Ors.", stands modified and consequently, these three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No. 2/14 and CA No.3/14 are allowed to the said extent.
Let signed copy of said Judgment be placed in CA No. 01/14 and an attested copy of said Judgment be kept in CA Nos. 02/14 and 03/14.
However, at the request of the Appellant that he is arranging the balance fine amount and hence, as per his request, matter is kept pending for today.
(B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 49 of 42 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/26.11.14 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 50 of 42 CA No. 3/14 Rakam Singh Vs. State 26.11.2014 This file is taken up once again.
Present: Appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
In compliance of common Judgment as passed today in three Criminal Appeals bearing CA No.1/14, CA No.2/14 and CA No.3/14, the Appellant Rakam Singh has deposited the balance fine amount of Rs.50,000/ in the court today. After doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this Criminal Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/26.11.14 CA No.1/14, 2/14 & 3/14 Page No. 51 of 42