The Bombay High Court Thursday rejected the petitions filed by businessman Mehul Choksi challenging the applications of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to declare him a fugitive economic offender (FEO). In relation to the Punjab National Bank (PNB) Scam case.
The multi-crore fraud was allegedly perpetrated by billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems. Choksi and Modi have been accused of getting letters of undertaking (LoU) and foreign letters of credit (FLC) of Rs 12,636 crore issued in favour of foreign branches of Indian banks based on fraudulent claims.
On 10.7.2018, the ED filed an application under section 4 read with Section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 praying that the Applicant be declared as a fugitive economic offender and his properties be confiscated under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act 2018 (FEO Act).
Mehul Choksi, the applicant, filed an application before the Special Judge praying for dismissal of the application filed under the FEO Act on the ground that the application under section 4 of the FEO Act was not accompanied by an affidavit as contemplated under section 297 of Cr.P.C.. The application filed was rejected by the impugned order and hence the present application was filed.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for Mehul Choksi submitted that the requirements of section 297 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Criminal Manual issued by the Bombay High Court for the guidance of the criminal courts are not complied with and hence the application was not maintainable.
The Counsel further submitted that the Applicant had left the country under suspicious circumstances in the first week of January 2018, whereas the FIR was filed in February 2018 against him and the Applicant could not have imagined about the future registration of the FIR. The Counsel also disputed the averment that the Applicant was the prime conspirator and that he was the mastermind behind the scam.
The Counsel for ED, H.S. Venegavkar, contended that section 4 of FEO Act refers to the reason to believe, for which the Director or the Deputy Director has to rely on the material in his possession that any individual is a fugitive economic offender. He can file an application in such form and manner as prescribed. In the present case, the application itself refers to the statement of reasons to believe that the applicant was a fugitive economic offender.
The Court of Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that “Firstly I do not find any infirmity in the verification and even otherwise I find that all the requirements under Section 4 of the FEO Act and under Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are properly complied with in this case. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the application is rejected.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
