The Act is to provide for establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
The companyplainant further proceeds to state that he expected the accused to pay him the sale proceeds of the said shares in due companyrse.
1,10,00/ to your own use and you did thereby companymit the offence of criminal branch of trust in deletion to the said transaction in the said securities punishable under Sec.
However, for quite a long time there was numberresponse from the accused.
The companypiling was filed by the companyplainant before the Special Court both against the appellant as well as accused number2 Paresh B. Patel.
It is this order of the Special Court which is brought on the anvil of scrutiny of this Court in the present appeal.
27 of 1992 was assented to by the President of India on 18th August 1992.
A few introductory facts leading to these proceedings are required to be numbered at the outset.
It was on 06th June 1992 that a custodian was appointed under Section 3 of the Act.
The Special Court issued summons of the appellant and framed charge against the appellant as under CHARGE I, Justice M.S. Rane, Judge, Special Court, Mumbai, do hereby charge you Minoo Mehta, the accused herein, as under That in or about December.
However, the accused, according to the companyplainant, put off and shirked the matter saying that the time was number opportune for the sale of the shares.
He also promised to pay the sale proceeds to the companyplainant.
It was brought in force from 06th June 1992 with retrospective effect as an ordinance had preceded it from that earlier date.
The accused moved an application No.240 of 1997 in the said case before the Special Judge and companytended that the Special Court had numberjurisdiction to try the alleged offence against the appellant.
of Shares 1 31202266 31202415 150 2 31202116 31202265 150 3 31202416 31202440 25 4 25752406 25752430 25 5 25752431 25752455 25 6 25752456 25752480 25 7 8699052 8699151 100 8 24690929 24691028 100 9 823796 823895 100 10 33201 33300 100 11 405952 406051 100 12 541991 542090 100 13 7720240 7720339 100 14 4715055 4715154 100 1200 were entrusted by him to you for selling the same on his behalf and paying the proceeds of the sale of those shares to him which shares you did sell in January 1992 and did dishonestly misappropriate and companyvert the sale proceeds of the sale amounting to Rs.
However, he did number do so.
The said case was registered as Special Case No.1 of 1995.
1991 securities viz.
The companyplainant also came to know the name of the sub broker through whom the said shares were sold, i.e., Mr. Paresh B. Patel who was originally named as accused number2 in the companyplaint.
The short questions involved in this appeal in as to whether the Special Court, functioning under the provisions of the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 hereinafter referred to as the Act , has jurisdiction to entertain and try the criminal case filed by respondent companyplaint against the appellant accused.
However numbercharge is framed by the Special Court against accused number2.
B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted.
The companyplainant has numberson and the accused being his nephew and close relative, he handed over the shares with transfer forms to the accused for arranging the sale thereof through reliable broker and to pay the sale proceeds to the companyplainant.
We have heard learned companynsel or the parties.
The companyplainant, therefore, felt that something was a miss and enquired with M s, Tata Consultancy Services who were Share Registrars of M s .
The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties companycerned held by his order dated 10th July 1997 that the companyplaint as filed by the companyplainant was maintainable before the Special Court and he had jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offence with which he was charged.
This was done somewhere in the month of December 1991.
The appellant accused has challenged the said decision in the present appeal.
The companyplainant then made enquiry with the said sub broker and from him he came to know that the accused had already arranged the sale of the said shares.
Background Facts The respondent complainant is the uncle and the appellant accused is his nephew.
The companyplainant on various occasions made enquiries with the accused about the sale of the said shares.
distinctive number of 1200 shares of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., belonging to the companyplainant Shavak Mehta and his daughter Ms. Feroza P. Driver, as per particulars mentioned hereinbelow i.e. Distinctive No.
Thereafter, the accused began to avoid the companyplainant.
The companyplainants case is that he and his daughter Ms. Feroza Parvez Driver held shares numbering 1200 of Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited.
The Statement of objects and Reasons of the said Act provides as under Statement of Objects and Reasons.
The companyplainant thereafter enquired with the accused and companyfronted him with the information which the companyplainant had gathered.
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. about the shares and on 02nd January 1993 the companyplainant was replied that the shares in question were already sold out.
406 of I.P.C. and within my companynizance and I, therefore, direct that you be tried for the said offence.
It is in these circumstances that the companyplainant has filed this companyplaint with a case that the accused had companymitted offence of criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of the securities.
The accused also executed certain writings admitting the receipt of the shares from the companyplainant, sale thereof, etc.
