TREASURE HOLDINGS (P.) LTD. Vs. A.K. MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five applications can be disposed of by this common Order. All the applicants are notified parties. All of them have filed the main Petitions for de-Notification. In all these Applications, the Applicants pray that in the main Petitions the Custodian be summoned to appear in Court and they be permitted to cross-examine him. Arguments have been made only in M.A. No. 231 of 1996 in M.P. No. 46 of 1992. The parties are agreed that the same arguments would cover all the applications.

(2.) Mr. Jaisinghani on behalf of the applicants had pointed out that all the Petitions are for de-Notification. He submitted that for an effective adjudication and determination of the main Petition, it is absolutely essential that the Custodian, who issued the impugned Notifications and who thereafter filed an Affidavit in reply in the main Petition, be summoned as a witness.

(3.) Mr. Jaisinghani submitted that under section 3(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1962 ('the said Act'), the Custodian may, on being satisfied on information received that any person has been involved in any offence relating to transaction in securities after 1-4-1991 and before 6-6-1992, notify the name of such person. Mr. Jaisinghani submitted that before a person could be notified, the Custodian had to be satisfied that there was an involvement. He submitted that in all the main Petitions, the alleged satisfaction of the Custodian is in question. He submitted that since the alleged satisfaction is in question it is absolutely essential that the Custodian makes himself available for cross-examination. He submitted that unless this is allowed, there could not be any just and effective determination. He submitted that there would be serious miscarriage of justice if this is not permitted.