Bombay High Court
Arvind Kumar B ShahversusSecurities and Exchange Board of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision is partly allowed, the order rejecting the discharge application is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh hearing.
Summary
The applicant Arvind Kumar B Shah filed a discharge application in a criminal case before the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. The Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application on 16 November 2024 without addressing the applicant’s preliminary objection that Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the SEBI Act, as amended in 2019, could not be applied retrospectively to conduct alleged in 2016‑17. The applicant filed a criminal revision (CR No. 66 of 2025) before the Bombay High Court, contending that the failure to consider this objection rendered the order untenable. SEBI opposed the revision, asserting that the Sessions Judge’s order was well‑reasoned. Justice Shivkumar Dige held that the preliminary objection was not dealt with and therefore remanded the matter for fresh consideration, quashing the impugned order. The revision was partly allowed and the discharge application was ordered to be heard afresh on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, as amended in 2019, can be applied retrospectively to conduct occurring in 2016‑17.
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred by not considering the applicant’s preliminary objection, thereby justifying a revision.
Legislation cited
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — s. 24(1), 24(2)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- SEBI Act
- retrospective legislation
- quash order
- remand
- preliminary objection
- high court
Judgment
38-REVN-66-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2025
Arvind Kumar B Shah ...Applicant
VERSUS
Securities And Exchange Board Of India & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Bhushan J. Joshi a/w. A. Arokia Satheesh, for Applicant.
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SATISH
KILAJE
SONALI
SATISH
KILAJE
Date:
Mr. Rohan Chauhan i/b. Mr. Kushal Mor, Advocate for Respondent No.1 -
2026.09.03
10:34:33
+0530
SEBI.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and learned APP.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while deciding
the Discharge Application, the learned Sessions Judge has not considered
the issue raised by the applicant about non-maintainability of Section
24(1) and 24(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
( for short “SEBI Act”). As amendment in act was passed in the year 2019
and the impugned order was passed against the applicant in the year 2016-
17, so the applicant cannot be charged retrospectively. But these facts are
not considered by the learned Sessions Court and requested to remand the
matter.
Page 1 of 2
38-REVN-66-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that learned
Sessions Court has passed well reasoned order mentioning all the facts.
Hence, requested to reject the application.
4. I have heard both learned counsel. While passing the order, the
learned Sessions Judge has not dealt with the preliminary objection raised
by the applicant regarding applicability of Section 24(1) and 24(2) of SEBI
Act against the applicant. Hence, I find it a fit case to remand the matter
for fresh hearing and decide the Discharge Application of the applicant on
its own merit after considering the issues raised by the learned counsel for
the applicant. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
i. The Revision Application is partly allowed and disposed of.
ii. The impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed by Special
Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, in
Special Case (SEBI) No. 1089 of 2020 rejecting the
Discharge Application of the applicant is quashed and set
aside.
iii. The Discharge Application of the applicant be heard afresh
and decided on its own merit.
5. In view of disposal of Revision Application, pending Interim
Applications, if any, also disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…