Vipin Sanghi, J.:— The petitioners are seeking the quashing of Complaint Case No. 1241/2003 pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled “SEBI v. Gaurav Agrigenetics Ltd.” as well as the order dated 15.12.2003, by which the learned Magistrate had summoned the petitioners. So far as the petitioner No. 4 is concerned the complaint and the summons stands quashed vide order dated 14.09.2009
2. The complaint case has been filed by SEBI under sections 24(1) and 27 of the sebi act complaining of breach of SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999. The petitioners have been named as accused on the basis that they were Directors of accused No. 1 company M/s. Gaurav Agrigenetics Ltd. at the relevant time of commission of the offence.
3. In relation to petitioner No. 1, respondent-SEBI has itself filed the Form-32 obtained by it from the Registrar of Companies (RoC). From the said document filed by the respondent along with its reply, it is evident that Gaurav Varshney-Petitioner No. 1 had resigned from his Directorship of the company w.e.f 10.05.1996 The Form-32 had been submitted in this regard on 30.07.1998
4. In relation to the petitioner No3, the position is similar. Copy of Form 32 filed by the respondent/SEBI shows that petitioner No. 3.Vinod Kumar Varshney had resigned from the Directorship of the Company on 15.09.1998 and Form 32 in this regard had been submitted on 23.12.1998
5. Even if, it were to be assumed that the resignation of these two directors had taken effect in the year 1998, just before the submission of the respective Form-32, the fact remains that the same were submitted with ROC well before the framing of SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999.
6. The complaint is premised on the breach of the said Regulations. The said Regulations are not retrospective. Moreover, an offence cannot be created retrospectively. Therefore, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 cannot be said to have committed any offence, in relation to the said Regulations. The aforesaid Regulations were framed in the year 1999, by when petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had already resigned from the Directorship of the Company.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, I am of the view that complaint preferred by the respondent/SEBI against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 cannot survive. The same are accordingly quashed, so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned.
8. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the ROC, in response to the respondent's queries, has not tendered any document, from which it could be said that the petitioner No. 2 had resigned prior to formulation of the aforesaid Scheme in the year 1999.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the rejoinder he has filed the certified copy of Form-32, inter alia, in relation to petitioner No. 2-Mrs. Parvesh Varshney, which shows that she had resigned from the Directorship of the Company on 06.04.1998 and Form-32 had been duly submitted on 15.04.1998
10. Let the respondent/SEBI verify the position with regard to the resignation of petitioner No. 2 as claimed by the petitioner. Adjourned to 12th August, 2010.