Mumbai A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Mumbai on Monday ordered the issuance of a proclamation against billionaire diamond trader Jatin Mehta, his wife Sonia Mehta and another accused in an alleged ₹146.35 crore fraud case involving Canara Bank. The court took the step to secure the presence of the accused, who have been absconding for years. However, it declined the CBI’s request for the immediate attachment of their properties, observing that mere apprehension was insufficient and that concrete material was required to justify such action.
Special Judge Nitin V. Jiwane allowed the CBI’s application seeking a proclamation under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The investigating agency had also sought the attachment of properties belonging to the accused, expressing concern that they might sell or transfer their assets and thereby hamper further legal proceedings.
Concrete Grounds Required for Property Attachment
While considering the request for immediate property attachment, the court observed that the CBI had not placed sufficient evidence on record to substantiate its apprehension. The material presented did not provide adequate grounds for the court to reach the level of satisfaction required under Section 83 of the CrPC for ordering attachment.
Consequently, the court rejected the request for immediate attachment. However, it clarified that the investigating agency could file a fresh application at an appropriate stage of the proceedings in accordance with the law. For this, the CBI would have to present the necessary evidence and establish sufficient legal grounds concerning the properties in question.
Alleged Gold Transactions With Foreign Bullion Banks
According to the CBI, Jatin Mehta’s company, Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Ltd, purchased gold from three foreign bullion banks on the strength of guarantees issued by an Indian bank. The banks involved were the Bank of Nova Scotia, Standard Bank and Standard Chartered Bank.
The investigating agency alleged that the gold purchased from these banks was processed and subsequently supplied to 13 buyers in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). However, the company allegedly failed to make the payments due for the imported gold, despite the transactions being backed by guarantees provided by the Indian bank.
According to the CBI, the company maintained that it had not received payments from its overseas buyers for the exported goods. This reportedly led the bullion banks to invoke the guarantees issued by the Indian bank to recover their dues.
The invocation of these guarantees allegedly resulted in a wrongful loss of ₹146.35 crore to Canara Bank. The investigating agency has cited this loss as a key element of the alleged bank fraud case.
However, the allegations remain subject to judicial proceedings, and the criminal liability of the accused will be determined through the legal process.
Non-Bailable Warrants Issued in June 2018
According to court records, non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused in June 2018. Despite repeated efforts, the investigating agency was unable to locate them or execute the warrants.
The CBI informed the court that the accused could not be traced and that subsequent investigation indicated they were residing in the United Kingdom.
In its order, the court noted that the non-bailable warrants had remained unexecuted because the accused could not be located. The material placed on record prima facie indicated that they were concealing themselves to avoid the execution of the warrants and had absconded.
The court therefore concluded that issuing a proclamation was necessary to secure their presence in the proceedings.
A proclamation is a legal measure intended to require absconding accused persons to appear before the court in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The order does not amount to a finding of guilt but represents a procedural step in the ongoing case to bring the accused within the reach of the judicial process.
Further Legal Action Remains Possible
Following the court’s order, the process to secure the presence of the accused will proceed under the applicable legal provisions. Meanwhile, the CBI may revisit its request for property attachment by gathering additional evidence and filing a fresh application before the court.
The alleged ₹146.35 crore fraud case centres on gold purchases from foreign bullion banks, guarantees issued by an Indian bank, the reported failure to receive export payments and the resulting invocation of the guarantees.
The latest order marks a further step in the effort to bring the absconding accused before the court. At the same time, the court’s refusal to order immediate property attachment underscores the requirement for investigating agencies to establish adequate legal grounds and support their claims with relevant evidence.
