2017 Supreme(SC) 769

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., Arun Mishra, J.
Securities and Exchange Board of India – Appellants
Versus
Classic Credit Ltd. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 68 to 73 of 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 102-103 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2013, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 67 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3593 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 10729 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21394 of 2011)
Decided On : 21-08-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
‘The 2002 Amendment Act’ changed the ‘forum’ of trial retrospectively to the Court of Session.
Therefore, the trials even in respect of offences allegedly committed before 29.10.2002 whether in respect whereof trial had or had not been initiated, would stand jurisdictionally vested in a Court of Session.
Trials of offences under the SEBI Act, consequent upon ‘the 2014 Amendment Act would stand jurisdictionally transferred for trial to a Special Court, irrespective of whether the offence under the SEBI Act was committed before 29.10.2002 and/or before 18.07.2013, and irrespective of the fact whether trial had or had not been initiated.

Headnote:(a) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 26 – Original provision mandating that offences under the Act shall not be tried by a Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class) – Provision not debarring any court superior to Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class) including court of Sessions – 2002 amendment designating court of Sessions as the proper court to try offences under the Act – Held, no conflict between original and amended provision – It has merely been curtailed – 2014 amendment creating special courts to try the offences – Specifically providing that only a court of Session could be designated as special court – No conflict between the original and amended provisions. (Para 33)

       (b) Interpretation of statute – Amendment – Whether retrospective –Change of ‘forum’ of trial by amendment being generally procedural would be presumed to be retrospective. (Para 34, 35)

       (1975) 2 SCC 840; (2010) 3 SCC 765; (2013) 4 SCC 696; (1994) 4 SCC 602; (1995) 4 SCC 392; (2013) 15 SCC 460 – Relied upon

       (c) Interpretation of statute – Amendment – Change of forum – Substantive or procedural – May be procedural when remedy yet to be availed – Will be procedural where remedy already availed – In case of remedy already availed the ‘forum’ as under unamended provision would continue to have jurisdiction – Where no cognizance is taken, no vested right can be claimed with reference to ‘forum’ as per unamended provision. (Para 36, 37, 38)

       AIR 1970 SC 1636; (2001) 8 SCC 397; (2003) 1 SCC 444; (2013) 14 SCC 696; (2015) 4 SCC 33 – Relied upon

       (d) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 26 – Change of forum by amendments 2002 and 2014 – Matters whereon cognizance was taken and even those in which cognizance was taken and trial commenced under prior provisions – Would stand transferred to the changed forum, i.e., Sessions court or special courts as the case may be. (Para 41)

       (e) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 26 r/w section 26, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Forum for trying offences under SEBI Act – Emanating from the Act itself – Provisions of CrPC inapplicable. (Para 48)

       (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Second Schedule, Part II – Referable to section 26 – Applicable only in cases where, the other laws (other than the Indian Penal Code) do not postulate adjudicatory court – Instantly, SEBI Act postulating adjudicating machinery of its own – Part II of Second Schedule not applicable. (Para 49)

       AIR 1966 SC 1206; AIR 1970 SC 1636; (1975) 2 SCC 840; (1994) 4 SCC 602; (1995) 4 SCC 392; (2013) 15 SCC 460; (2000) 8 SCC 99; 1994 Supp (1) SCC 257; (1996) 8 SCC 388; (1969) 2 SCC 74; (2005) 9 SCC 15; (2009) 10 SCC 552; (1977) 2 SCC 424 – Referred

       (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 260 – Authority for CJM or JMFC to try offences summarily – Has to be express (by the High Court) – Does not automatically from section 260 – Instantly no express provision for summary trial in SEBI Act – Summary proceedings, held, precluded in case of SEBI Act – In view of inapplicability of section 260 CrPC, contention that accused is prejudiced by change of forum cannot be accepted. (Para 50, 51)

       (h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 r/w Section 401– Contention that right of revision available to the accused before amendment to SEBI Act in 2002 having been taken away by the amendment – Amendment should be treated as prospective – Held, power of revision to a superior court does not confer or create a corresponding right in the litigant – Contention rejected . (Para 54)

       AIR 1959 SC 144 – Relied upon

       AIR 1952 SC 75; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (1997) 4 SCC 241 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The respondents contend that trial in the complaints filed u/s 26(2) prior to 29.10.2002, whether or not put to trial, could only be conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate (or, Judicial Magistrate of the first class).

       Findings of the Court:

       ‘The 2002 Amendment Act’ changed the ‘forum’ of trial retrospectively to the Court of Session.

       Therefore, the trials even in respect of offences allegedly committed before 29.10.2002 whether in respect whereof trial had or had not been initiated, would stand jurisdictionally vested in a Court of Session.

       Trials of offences under the SEBI Act, consequent upon ‘the 2014 Amendment Act would stand jurisdictionally transferred for trial to a Special Court, irrespective of whether the offence under the SEBI Act was committed before 29.10.2002 and/or before 18.07.2013, and irrespective of the fact whether trial had or had not been initiated.

       

       Result: Bunch of cases disposed of.