Bombay High Court
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE OF INDIA- VIVEKANANDA SWAROOP SversusJAYESH HIMATLAL MEHTA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court held that the Sessions Court erred in ignoring the postal acknowledgment and drawing a presumption under Section 27, rendering the acquittal order erroneous, and therefore granted leave to appeal.
Summary
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) sought leave to appeal an order dated 30 March 2024 that acquitted Jayesh Himatlal Mehta of an offence under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992. The acquittal was based on the Sessions Court’s finding that SEBI had not proved service of the adjudication order, despite SEBI’s production of postal acknowledgment cards and a speed‑post booking list. SEBI argued that the acknowledgment cards established service, making the Court’s reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to draw a presumption of non‑service erroneous. The High Court, recalling its earlier observation on 3 December 2025, held that the acknowledgment was sufficient proof of service and that the Sessions Court’s reasoning was perverse. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application for leave to appeal, permitting SEBI to challenge the acquittal order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sessions Court erred in drawing a presumption of non‑service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act despite the presence of postal acknowledgment cards.
- Whether the order of acquittal dated 30 March 2024 is legally sustainable.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to SEBI.
Legislation cited
- General Clauses Act, 1897 — s. 27
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — s. 24(2)
Subjects
- SEBI
- service of adjudication order
- General Clauses Act
- presumption of service
- acquittal
- leave to appeal
- securities law
- procedural law
Judgment
32-ALP-179-2024 @.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 179 OF 2024
Securities And Exchange Of India- ...Applicant
Versus
Jayesh Himatlal Mehta ...Respondent
****
SNEHA
Mr. Ahmed Padela i/b The Law Point for the Applicant.
NITIN Ms. Dhanlaxmi Krishnaaiyar APP for Respondent/State.
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
****
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.09.10
19:42:58 +0530
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant/SEBI. Application is
filed seeking leave to file appeal against an order dated 30.03.2024
passed in SEBI Special Case No. 33/2019 acquitting the Respondent
No.1 from offence punishable under Section 24(2) of Security and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited the Court’s
attention to order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Court, which reads
as under.
“1) Heard Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
and perused the order of acquittal.
2) The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused
primarily on the ground that the Applicant-Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI) could not prove service of adjudication order
on the accused.
3) It appears that SEBI had placed on record and proved in
evidence postal acknowledgment cards to demonstrate service of
Sneha Chavan 1
32-ALP-179-2024 @.doc
adjudication order on the accused. The Sessions Court has
ignored the acknowledgment and has unnecessarily concentrated
on the aspect of non-production of postal receipt for the purpose of
drawal of presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897. The finding of non-production of postal receipt also
appears to be perverse in view of the fact that SEBI had produced
speed post booking list, by which bulk postal booking was made by
the SEBI. Thus, apparently there is postal receipt as well as
acknowledgment on the record showing due service of the
adjudication order on the accused. Once the postal
acknowledgment receipt itself is proved, there is no occasion for
drawal of any presumption under Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act. It is only in case where acknowledgment cannot be
produced that one may rely upon a mere postal receipt for the
purpose of drawal of presumption under Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act. Prima facie order of acquittal appears to be
erroneous.
4) Issue notice to Respondent No.1, returnable on 13 January
2026”
3. Office note indicates that Respondent is duly served and an
Advocate is engaged whose name is appearing on the cause list.
However, none appeared for Respondent No.1.
4. I have perused the impugned order as well as earlier order
passed by this Court.
5. In addition, learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited the
Court’s attention to the acknowledgments produced on record from
postal authorities, which according to the Applicant sufficiently
establish service of demand for penalties and reminder sent thereafter.
Sneha Chavan 2
32-ALP-179-2024 @.doc
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, case for leave is
made out. Application is allowed. Applicant is permitted to file appeal
challenging the order of acquittal dated 30.03.2024.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 3
Checking your session…