MUMBAI, Dec. 28 -- A special court for cases under the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has allowed the National Stock Exchange (NSE) to intervene in proceedings against the former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), Madhabi Puri Buch, other Sebi officials and NSE functionaries. The order, passed by Special Judge Abhijeet A Nandgaonkar, permitted NSE to participate in the proceedings, holding that the exchange's involvement is necessary to place the "true and correct facts" before the court. The proceedings arise from a complaint filed by Dombivali resident Sapan Shrivastava, who has alleged that several senior individuals associated with market regulation and governance, including Buch, other SEBI officials, stock exchange executives and government functionarie were involved in stock market fraud and regulatory violations linked to the listing of a company in 1994. NSE, which is impleaded as a party in the complaint, had sought permission to intervene on the ground that it is necessary to place relevant facts and documents on record. Allowing the intervention application filed by NSE, the court observed that it was "necessary to permit the applicant to address the Court in order to bring on record the true and correct facts pertaining to the complaint." The judge added that permitting NSE to participate would be "essential for the ends of justice". The court invoked the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow any person to conduct or assist the prosecution where such participation is required in the interest of justice. The judge held that NSE "deserves to be permitted to intervene" in the pending proceedings. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and directed that the exchange would be entitled to "file the necessary documents and to address arguments, either through or on their behalf, through their learned advocate" in the matter. The special court recorded that notice of the intervention had been issued to the complainant and to the state. While the additional public prosecutor left the matter to the court's discretion, the complainant did not appear, nor was any response filed on his behalf....