1. The submission of Shri Jethmalani, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the meaning of the expression "any person has been involved in any offences" under Section 3, sub-section (2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 even if of wide import, cannot be so wide as to include within its ambit any person who has not committed any offence, as seems to appear from the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1547 of 1992 decided on 24th July, 1993 (Hitesh Shantilal Mehta vs Union of India & Ors.) This construction of the decision of the Division Bench made by the learned counsel is based on the manner in which that decision has been used in the impugned judgment. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into that question in the present case. Admittedly, atleast 95% of the Holding in the present case is of a person who is undoubtedly a notified person. That being so, we are of the opinion that even assuming there be any merit in this submission, the same cannot be of any practical significance in the present case. We find no merit in the appeals.
2. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.