Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Devendra Singh Chandel
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 31.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011079182025
+ CRL.L.P. 2/2026
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Anand
Aggarwal, Mr. Himanshu Singh, Ms.
Ishita and Mr. Chirag Goyal,
Advocates.
versus
DEVENDRA SINGH CHANDEL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Priyanshu Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This leave petition under Section 419 (3) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS) has been
filed on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI) seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated
13.05.2025 in Registration No. CC/734/2023 on the file of the
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
ASJ-03, Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, New
Delhi, by which the respondent/ accused no.2 has been acquitted of
the various offences charged against him.
2. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondent on the ground that, in view of the acquittal of the
respondent/accused, the principle of double presumption of
innocence operates in his favour. It was, therefore, contended that
leave to appeal ought not to be granted as a matter of course or
merely upon a prima facie consideration, but only after the Court
has considered the merits of the case.
2.1. It is further contended that the leave petition has not
been filed within the statutorily prescribed period of six months as
contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 419 of the BNSS
and that the delay has not been explained by the petitioner as the
onus lies on the petitioner to furnish a satisfactory explanation
justifying the delay in filing the petition.
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
3. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the leave petition has been filed within the
statutorily prescribed period of limitation after excluding the time
taken by the Registry in preparing and supplying the certified copy.
The attention of this court was drawn to the court record to canvass
the point that the application for the certified copy was made on
30.10.2025, while the certified copy was prepared and delivered on
23.12.2025/24.12.2025. Thus, the time elapsed in obtaining the
certified copy was around 54 days. It was submitted that after
taking into account the said 54 days also, the last date for filing the
petition was on 06.01.2026, whereas the petition had in fact been
filed on 30.12.2025. Accordingly, the petition was filed within the
prescribed period and, therefore, no application seeking
condonation of delay was required.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. While addressing the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent as to whether this Court ought to
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
undertake an extensive evaluation of the merits of the case at the
stage of considering the application for leave to appeal, it would be
apposite to refer to the dictum of the Apex Court in Manoj
Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja, 2025 KHC,
6204; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 451 . In the said case, the original
first informant, namely, the brother of the deceased, sought to
challenge the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, in an
appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of
acquittal, declining to grant leave under sub-section (3) of Section
378 Cr.P.C. The trial court acquitted the first respondent therein of
the charge of murder. The State preferred an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal before the High Court. The High Court
briefly discussed the evidence on record and concluded that there
was no infirmity or perversity in the judgment of acquittal by the
trial court and hence, the application for leave filed by the State
was dismissed. In appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disagreed
with the view of the High Court. Referring to the dictum in the
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarelar, ( 2008) 9
SCC 475 , it was held that in deciding the question whether
requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court has
to apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been
made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the
order of acquittal would or would not be set aside. It cannot be laid
down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application,
that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal
against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court must be
allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted
and decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that
stage, the court would not enter into minute details of the
prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment
of acquittal recorded by the trial court could not be said to be
perverse and hence no leave should be granted. The Apex Court
also hastened to clarify that it should not be understood to have
laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial
court. The appellate court must consider the relevant material,
sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons
why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the order
of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed.
Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and the
reasons given in brief support such view, the order of the Court
cannot be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time,
however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on
record discloses deeper scrutiny and re-appreciation, review or
reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as
sought for and decide the appeal on merits.
5.1. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court also refers to
the dictum in Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979)
2 SCC 656, wherein it was held thus: “31….. A Single right of
appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of
life and liberty rooted in the concept that men are fallible, judges
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
are men and that making assurance doubly sure, before
irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass, a full-scale
re- examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part of
fundamental fairness or procedure” . Though the said observations
were made in connection with an appeal at the instance of the
accused, it was held that the principle underlying the aforesaid rule
lies in the doctrine of human fallibility that ‘men are fallible’, and
‘Judges are also men’. It is keeping in view the said object that the
principle has to be understood and applied. Now, every crime is
considered as an offence against the Society as a whole and not
only against an individual even though it is an individual who is
the ultimate sufferer. It is, therefore, the duty of the State to take
appropriate steps when an offence has been committed.
6. In the case on hand, keeping the aforesaid principles in
mind, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the materials on record require deeper scrutiny,
reappreciation, review or reconsideration of the evidence merely
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
on the ground that the acquitted accused enjoys a double
presumption of innocence, cannot be accepted.The said aspects
will have to be decided on merits after hearing both the parties.
That being the position, the leave applied for cannot be declined.
7. Further, it is contended that the application filed under
Section 419(3) of the BNSS seeking leave to appeal is barred by
the statutorily prescribed period of six months contemplated under
Section 419(5) of the BNSS. A perusal of the court records,
however, reveal that the impugned judgment was pronounced by
the trial court on 13.05.2025. The application for obtaining the
certified copy was thereafter made on 30.10.2025, and the certified
copy was prepared and delivered on 23.12.2025. Eventually, the
petition was, in fact, filed on 30.12.2025, resulting in a total period
of 232 days from the date of pronouncement of the impugned
judgment, i.e., 13.05.2025. However, the record reveals that 54
days were consumed in processing and obtaining the certified copy
of the impugned judgment from the date of applying for the same.
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39
Upon excluding the said period, the effective period for
computation of limitation comes to 178 days (232 days – 54 days).
Since the statutorily prescribed period of limitation is 180 days, the
petition has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation
and, therefore, does not suffer from any delay requiring
condonation.
8. Hence, in these circumstances, the leave sought for is
granted.
CRL.A. No ....... /2026 (to be numbered)
9. The Registry is directed to register the present matter as
a criminal appeal and assign it a number accordingly.
10. Admit.
11. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 20.11.26.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026/ rs
CRL.L.P. 2/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:41:39