Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The appellant was found guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Special Court set up under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (referred to as, the "Act"). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for term of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Special Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) In the course of the hearing of the appeal before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary issue based on the language of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. It was contended that the jurisdiction of the Special Court was limited to offences committed between 1-4-1991 and on or before 6-6-1992 and the offence alleged having taken place after 6-6-1992, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try it. The Bench then hearing the appeal, recorded in its order dated 7-9-1999. ." ................. Prima facie we are not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on first principles but the learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a judgment of this Court in the case of Minoo Mehta vs. Shavak D. Mehta (1998) 2 SCC 418. In the aforesaid judgment on facts of that case this question possibly did not arise for consideration but even otherwise their Lordships in paragraph 12 have come to the conclusion : 'Therefore, every offence pertaining to any transaction in securities which is covered by the sweep of the Act that is if such transaction has taken place between 1-4-1991 and on or before 6-6-1992 would be subjected to the provisions of the Act regarding trial of such an offence.' Having held so in the later part of said paragraph the Lordships have come to the conclusion. 'The offence referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3 which is within the sweep of Section 7 of the Act must be on offence committed by any person and must have the following two characteristics: 1. Such offence must relate to transactions in securities; and 2. Such offence should be alleged to have been committed between 1-4-1991 and on or before 6-6-1992.' This statement of law is contrary to what their Lordships have said in the earlier paragraph as referred to earlier and we are not in agreement with the enunciation made in the second part of paragraph 12 quoted above. In this view of the matter, we think it appropriate that this appeal should be placed before a 3 Judge Bench."
(3.) The matter was thereafter placed before this Bench and heard.;