SUNIL KUMAR GOYALversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANR

                                                 902-WP-4528-2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4528 OF 2026


Sunil Kumar Goyal                                   …Petitioner
      Versus
Securities and Exchange Board India & Anr.          …Respondents


Ms. Sneha Pandey a/w. Mr. Sukrut Mhatre and Mr. Jitendra
Sharda, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Anubha Rastogi, for Respondent No.1-SEBI
Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP, for Respondent No.2-State.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :     9th SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Ms. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, Ms. Rastogi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent

No.1 and Mrs. Tidke, learned APP appearing for Respondent No.2-

State.



2.       By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and

validity of the order dated 29th April 2026 passed by the learned

SEBI Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai

in Special Case (SEBI) No.302 of 2026. By the impugned order,

process has been issued against the Petitioner for the offence




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                  902-WP-4528-2026.DOC




punishable under Section 24(2) of the Securities and Exchange

Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”).



3.       It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner that before issuing process, an opportunity of hearing is

required to be given to the accused, as provided under Section

223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

To substantiate this contention, the Petitioner relies on the decision

of a learned Single Judge in the case of Neville Tuli vs. Securities

and Exchange Board of India & Anr.1



4.       On the other hand, Ms. Rastogi learned Counsel appearing

for Respondent No.1 and Mrs. Tidke, learned APP appearing for

Respondent No.2-State support the impugned order.



5.       Perusal of the impugned order dated 29 th April 2026 shows

that the learned Judge issued process against the Petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act on the

ground that, despite communication of the adjudication order

dated 24th June 2020, the Petitioner failed to deposit the penalty of



1        Criminal Writ Petition No.5242 of 2025




                                        Page 2
Sonali
                                                 902-WP-4528-2026.DOC




Rs.1 Crore within the stipulated period and thereby committed the

offence punishable under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act.



6.       The relevant portion of Section 223 of the BNSS on which

learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied, reads as under:



            “223. (1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while
            taking cognizance of an offence on complaint
            shall examine upon oath the complainant and the
            witnesses present, if any, and the substance of
            such examination shall be reduced to writing and
            shall be signed by the complainant and the
            witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

            Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall
            be taken by the Magistrate without giving the
            accused an opportunity of being heard: ”

                                          (Emphasis added)

Thus, the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS specifically

provides that the Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking

cognizance on complaint shall not take cognizance without giving

the accused an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the first proviso

to Section 223 of the BNSS specifically provides that no cognizance

of an offence on complaint shall be taken by the Magistrate

without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. Thus,

the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS specifically provides




                                Page 3
Sonali
                                                 902-WP-4528-2026.DOC




that before taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, the

Magistrate shall give the accused an opportunity of being heard.



7.       The question which is involved in this Writ Petition is

whether the provisions contained in Section 223 of the BNSS,

which is the general law governing the investigation, inquiry or

trial of the offences apply to and govern prosecutions under the

SEBI Act. The said question is considered in detail by a learned

Single Judge in Neville Tuli (supra) and the same is answered in

paragraph No.52 of the said decision, which reads as under:



            “52. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is
            that, the question framed above is required to be
            answered in the affirmative. The Special Court
            cannot take cognizance of the offences
            punishable under the SEBI Act, 1992, without
            compliance of the peremptory requirement of
            providing an opportunity of hearing to the
            accused, as provided under the first proviso to
            Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023.”

                                          (Emphasis added)

8.       Thus, the learned Single Judge has held that Special Court

cannot take cognizance of the offences punishable under the SEBI

Act, without compliance of the peremptory requirement of

providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused, as provided




                                Page 4
Sonali
                                                  902-WP-4528-2026.DOC




under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. Thus, the

impugned order issuing process against the Petitioner under

Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act without following mandatory

requirement of Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which specifically

provides that before taking cognizance of an offence, it is necessary

to give hearing to the accused i.e. Petitioner.



9.       Accordingly, the order dated 29th April 2026 passed by the

learned SEBI Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater

Mumbai, below Exhibit-1 in Special Case (SEBI) No.302 of 2026

(Exhibit-A, Pages 26 and 27 of the Writ Petition) is quashed and set

aside.



10.      Resultantly, the order dated 25th June 2026 issuing Non-

Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner is also quashed and set

aside.



11.      Ms. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

states that the next date before the learned SEBI Special Judge,

City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, is 4 th November




                                 Page 5
Sonali
                                                               902-WP-4528-2026.DOC




          2026 and the Petitioner will appear before the learned Special

          Judge on that date.



          12.      Learned SEBI Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court,

          Greater Mumbai, to pass an order regarding taking cognizance of

          the offence under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act in accordance with

          law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.



          13.      It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits

          and all contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open.



          14.      Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.




                                                       [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]


 SONALI
 MILIND
 PATIL
Digitally signed by
SONALI MILIND
PATIL
Date: 2026.09.10
10:25:32 +0530




                                             Page 6
          Sonali