SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA versus CLASSIC CREDIT LTD.

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 21-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 13 S.C.R. 559 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
CLASSIC CREDIT LTD. 
(CriminalAppealNo. 67 of2011) 
AUGUST 21, 2017 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI AND ARUN MISHRA, J.] 
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: 
s.26(2) - Amendment causing change of forum of trial - Effect 
B 
of. on pending proceedings - Complaints filed u/s. 26(2) against 
C 
private parties for offences punishable under SEBI Act - Offences 
allegedly committed before SEBI Amendment Act, 2002 - Trial of 
accused by Metropolitan Magistrate or, Judicial Magistrate of the 
first class - Amendment to ss. 24 and 26 by the 2002 Amendment 
Act whereby change in forum of trial - All pending matters D 
transferred to the concerned court of session - Challenge· to - While 
matters pending, 2014 Amendment Act' came in, whereby offences 
arising under. 'SEBI Act' would be tried by a Special Court - Held: 
Change of 'forum' would operate retrospectively, and as such, 
pending proceedings would necessarily have to be transferred to 
the changed 'forum '-Special Court - 'Forum' of trial earlier vested E 
in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or, Judicial Magistrate of 
the first class after 'the 2002 Amendment Act', was retrospectively 
changed to the Court of Session - In view thereof. the trials even in 
respect of offences allegedly committed before '2002 Amendment 
Act' became operational, whether in respect whereof trial had or 
had not been initiated, would stand jurisdictionally vested in a Court 
F 
of Session - Similarly, trials of offences under SEBI Act, consequent 
upon '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 '2002 Amendment Act' became 
operational and/or before '2014 Amendment Act' became 
G 
operational, and irrespective of the fact whether trial had or had 
not been initiated - SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2002 - SEBI 
(Amendment) Act, 2014. 
Amendment causing change of forum of trial - Nature of -
Held: Change of 'forum' being procedural, the amendment of the H 
559 
 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
'forum' would operate retrospectively, irrespective of whether the 
offence allegedly committed by the accused, was committed prior to 
the amendment. 
B 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The adjudicatory 'forum' was not altered at all 
by 'the 2002 Amendment Act'. Section 26(2) of 'the Securities 
and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992', as it existed prior to the 
2002 amendment, mandated that no Court inferior to that of a 
Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first 
class) shall try an offence punishable under this Act. The 
c contemplated 'forum' of adjudication could be the Court of a 
Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the first 
class), or any other higher court. And not necessarily the Court 
of a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a Judicial Magistrate of the 
first class). The higher court which could have tried matters even 
before 'the 2002 Amendment Act', could well be the Court of 
D Session. And as such, in case of a determination, the trial of 
offences under 'the SEBI Act' could have been conducted by a 
Court of Session even prior to 'the 2002 Amendment Act', there 
would be nothing wrong about it. The provision, as it existed 
prior to 'the 2002 Amendment Act', clearly contemplated that 
E even a Court of Session could try offences postulated by the 
provisions of 'the SEBI Act'. As such, when 'the 2002 Amendment 
Act' provided that adjudication of offences under 'the SEBI Act' 
would be by a court not inferior to that of a Court of Session, the 
position postulated prior to the said amendment cannot be stated 
F 
to have been breached. It may well be said to be curtailed from 
the original position. But, it could not be said to be in conflict 
with the original position. In a similar manner of understanding, 
even after 'the 2014 Amendment Act', which provided that 
offences arising under 'the SEBI Act' would be tried by a Special 
Court (Section 26B), the position cannot be taken to be at variance 
G from the one, as it existed prior to the 2002 amendment, as also, 
the position as it existed after 'the 2002 Amendment Act'. The 
reason for the above inference is, that a Special Court (notified 
by the Central Government) was to be a court which, immediately 
before such notification, was the Court of Session or an Addi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.