Omission In Framing Of Charge Not Fatal By Itself Unless Prejudice Caused To Accused
Case: Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Coram: Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy
Case No.: Crl.A.No.626 of 2019
Court Observation: This is a case where, whether the charge is complaining of both Section 24(1) and 24(2) and the only error of the Trial Court was not to mention the Section 24(2) expressly. However, Section 24(2) being an offence of the same genus, no prejudice was caused to the appellants and I hold that the second act committed by the appellants after coming into force of the amendment, would amount to an offence under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act as amended and therefore, under the amended provision, the Sessions Court was right in trying the offence.
Previous Posts
Supreme Court Remands Appeal In 1964 Suit To High Court For Fresh Decision After 16 Years
GST – Provisional Attachment Power ‘Draconian’; Not Intended To Authorize Commissioners To Make Preemptive Strikes On Assessee’s Property Download Judgement
Keywords
Omission In Framing Of Charge, Prejudice Caused To Accused