sebi:WTM/KMA/MIRSD/234/03/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Certificate of registration of the stock broker suspended for a period of three weeks
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 11B
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 200
- Reg. 27
- Reg. 21(1)
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 21(2)
Parties
- Jai Sharefin Limited (Registration Number INB 020919133)
Holding
The enquiry proceedings against the stock broker are not barred by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, and the stock broker's certificate of registration is suspended for three weeks for contravening the Code of Conduct, SEBI circulars, and Regulations 21(1), 21(2), 21(4) of the Broker Regulations.
Full text
Page 2 of 11 broker for a period of one month, found that the stock broker had contravened the following: i. Clause A (1), A (2), A (3) and A (5) of the Code of Conduct for the stock brokers specified in Schedule II of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Broker Regulations). ii. SEBI Circular No. SMDRP/Policy/Cir-6/2001 dated February 1, 2001 iii. SEBI Circular No. SMDRP/Policy/Cir-39/2001 dated July 18, 2001 iv. SEBI Circular No. SMD/Policy/IECG/1-97 dated February 11, 1997 v. SEBI Circular No. SMD/Policy/Circular/5-97 dated April 11, 1997 vi. Regulations 21(1), 21(2), 21(4), 27(ix) and 27(xvi) of the Broker Regulations.
Page 3 of 11 3. I have considered the Enquiry Report, the show cause notice issued to the stock broker, the oral as well as the written submissions made on its behalf and other material available on record. The preliminary submission made by the stock broker is that the present enquiry proceedings would be hit by the principles enshrined under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. I am unable to accept the said plea of the stock broker for the following reasons. As per Article 20(2) “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. Thus, what is prohibited under Article 20(2) is the prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once. Therefore, the plea of double jeopardy is not applicable in the present proceedings. Further, the enquiry proceedings and the adjudication proceeding are two distinct proceedings and the end result of both the proceedings are wholly different from each other. The said actions legally flow from the statutory powers vested with SEBI. Apart from the above, all the charges leveled against the stock broker under the enquiry proceedings and in the adjudication proceedings were not the same. The allegations leveled against the stock broker, as per the Enquiry Report and in the Order of the Adjudicating Officer are given below:
Page 4 of 11 client registration forms. However, both the Enquiry Officer and the Adjudicating Officer found the stock broker not guilty of the first charge (dealing with unregistered sub broker), in the absence of supporting evidence. The remaining
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/KMA/MIRSD/234/03/2010. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.