Back
AMIT SHARMA
Mohd. Iqbal – Appellant
Versus
Sebi & Anr – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC') seeks quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 343/2002 (renumbered as CC No. 66/5) pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom, including the order dated 23.04.2002 whereby the present petitioner was summoned for the offences under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('SEBI Act') and the order dated 07.10.2005 whereby non-bailable warrants were issued qua the petitioner and other accused persons.
2. A complaint bearing number 343/2002 (renumbered as CC No. 66/5) under Section 200 of CrPC read with Section 24(1) and Section 27 of SEBI Act, was filed against the company, Aim Plantation Ltd along with its directors, including the petitioner herein. As per the said complaint, it had been alleged by SEBI (the complainant therein) that the aforesaid company was running a Collective Investment Scheme (C.I.S.) and had raised an aggregate amount of Rs. 0.532 crores from the general public, but had not applied to the former for registration
The defense of the accused regarding their knowledge of the company's activity cannot be adjudicated at the time of framing of charge and should be considered during trial. The onus of proof on the a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments against accused directors and their active involvement in the alleged offenses, emphasizing the principle of....
Specific averments are necessary to establish the liability of a Director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere designation is insufficient.
Liability under Section 141 of NI Act depends on the role in the conduct of the company's affairs, not just the designation, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish lack of knowledge....
Independent directors cannot be held criminally liable under Section 138 of the NI Act without specific allegations demonstrating their responsibility for the company's conduct, as mere designation i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
