As the Act only gave power to control the establishment, maintenance and working of wireless apparatus, in practice it was found that the detection of unlicenced apparatus and the successful prosecution of the offenders were difficult, with the result that the State was losing revenue. Any such initiative taken by any entrepreneur would develop an appreciable trend in the share market which would draw the attention of the local investors to stake their claim in such well established, well grown business ventures with a view to earn better profits on whatever investments they wish to make.

It would be pertinent to mention here that even PW- 9 Sushil Kumar had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr. nTherefore, it is for the respondents as well as the Indian issuing company to demonstrate that any of the allegations made by the appellant in relation to the so called fraud or fictitious creation of GDRs at the global level to mislead the local investors was totally baseless and that therefore no action was called for.

6, the penalty for such illegal possession of a wireless telegraphy apparatus was made an offence, but the sentence prescribed was rather lenient. However, this was not so recorded specifically in her statement under Section 161 Cr. She has also stated that a day prior to the occurrence, both of them had teased Sunita and Sunita had informed her about this. 6(1-A), inserted in the Act XVII of 1933 by the amending Act of 1949, is either covered by the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, or a surplusage not serving any definite purpose.

As it has come in the testimony of PW-8 that appellant was having an evil eye on the deceased which deceased had told her, we would first look into the deposition of PW-8 to find out as to whether the aforesaid fact stands established. Whoever does business as a trader or a general commission agent in agricultural produce in any market area without a licence granted under this rule or otherwise contravenes any of the provisions of this rule shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.

That by itself is not sufficient to discredit the version of PW-8 on the conduct of the appellant who was having an evil eye on the deceased, inasmuch as, on this aspect this witness is consistent. But the question is whether these two reasons are strong enough to discard the testimony of the eye witness in toto. Though the words are comprehensive enough to take in a wireless transmitter, the section does not prohibit the possession of a wireless apparatus. It will be appropriate at this stage to note that under the 2000 Regulations as well as the 1993 Scheme, one of the main reasons for creating GDRs by the issuing company is in fulfilment of its desire to gain foreign investments.

Therefore, if there is going to be a false pretext or misleading information circulated with a view to lure both the foreign investors as well as Indian investors and in that process the very purpose of creation and trading in GDRs are found to be not true or bona fide, it cannot be said that simply because creation of such GDRs and its trading is in global market, SEBI should keep its mouth shut on the ground that it cannot extend its long statutory arm beyond Indian territory to control any such misdeeds deliberately committed with a view to defraud the Indian investors and thereby their interest in the investment of securities and its protection is at great stake It is common knowledge that in the commercial sector, companies which are in the field of manufacturing or any other business activity are able to gain the confidence of the investors by virtue of their appreciable performance in the respective manufacturing or other business activities and while controlling and developing the growth in their respective field of business, aspire to make further excellence by drawing the attention of foreign investors to make investments and thereby broad base their business venture also endeavour to sustain their development in the concerned business in which they are involved.

Subsequently, the legislature thought that the possession of a wireless transmitter 764 was a graver offence; sometimes involving the security of the State, and so an amendment was introduced in 1949 constituting the possession of such apparatus a graver offence and imposing a more severe punishment. She has stated in her examination in chief about this fact, accusing appellant as well as Balraj. as well as in his deposition in the Court that the appellant had teased Sunita a day prior to occurrence and she has disclosed this fact to this witness.

6-A of the General Clauses Act. In the cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement under Section 161 of Cr. At the same time, it is specifically recorded in the earlier statement as well that deceased had complained to her about the misbehaviour of the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that s. However, they kept mum on account of the family pride and also feared that it may not lead to fight between the two families. Thus, the only thing which is not recorded in the statement made by her during investigation is that she and Sunita kept quiet and did not inform the family members about the behaviour of Prem Singh in order to save family pride or the possible fight.

Even from the history of the legislation we find it not possible to say that it disclosed an intention different from that envisaged in s. In our view, even if there were some improvements on part of PW1, these matters are not so fundamental affecting the very core to such an extent that his testimony needs to be discarded completely. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v.

It is stated that both appellant and Balraj had misbehaved with Sunita as well as this witness (PW-8). To remove this defect, Act XVII of 1933 was passed to prohibit the possession without licence of a wireless apparatus. She stated that though she had told the police that appellant and Balraj had teased Sunita as told by her earlier and these facts were not disclosed to anyone in the family as it would result in fight between the two families.