Plea of CFO of Nirav Modi’s company rejected by special court in Mumbai

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court on Thursday rejected a plea filed by former chief financial officer (CFO) of Nirav Modi’s company Firestar Diamonds International Private Limited for cancellation of a look-out-circular issued against him.

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court on Thursday rejected a plea filed by former chief financial officer (CFO) of Nirav Modi’s company Firestar Diamonds International Private Limited for cancellation of a look-out-circular issued against him. The court observed that the investigation is still ongoing, the agency has found the prima facie, role of the present applicant in committing huge fraud.

The court, while rejecting the plea observed that in this case, it appeared that the investigation was still ongoing.

The court said the look-out-circular in the matter is not issued by this court and has been issued by the investigating authority, so this court does not have any inherent jurisdiction to cancel the same.

Ravi Shankar Gupta, 53, a resident of Noida, Uttar Pradesh had approached the court in a plea to cancel the circular issued by CBI against him. However, special CBI judge AS Sayyad rejected the plea of Gupta and disposed of his application.

Sajal Yadav who argued for Gupta had told the court, “That the applicant is not related in any manner with Nirav Modi. He was appointed as the CFO of the accused company in August 2016. Prior to working with Firestar, he worked with another company. He terminated his employment with Firestar, the moment he came to know about the alleged PNB fraud and is a reputed professional for the past 26 years. He was shocked and surprised to learn about the look-out circular issued by the CBI against him, due to which he is prevented from travelling outside India and carry work.”

Yadav further told the court, “The CBI had registered a case for conspiracy, cheating and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the applicant was named as accused number 2. They alleged that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy pursuant to which the Punjab National Bank, Brady House branch, Mumbai was cheated to the tune of ₹321 crores. The agency has already carried out a search at my house on March, 7, 2018, and found nothing incriminating. I have cooperated with the investigators and have appeared before the agency more than 31 times, the CBI very fairly did not arrest me. It’s more than three years of investigations and they have not filed a charge sheet yet.”

The application was opposed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Counsel Sumedh Wankhade.

Wankhade told the court, “There was a criminal conspiracy pursuant to which PNB was cheated. The two companies Firestar International Limited and Firestar Diamonds International Private Limited has been sanctioned credit limits by banks under consortium arrangements. In the matter of limits sanctioned to Firestar International Limited, Punjab National Bank is the lead bank and in the matter of limits sanctioned to Firestar Diamond International Private Limited, Union Bank of India is the lead bank. The bank has found that there were fraudulent transactions with these companies and firms. As per allegations in these complaints shows the intention of the accused was to cheat a consortium of banks as a whole. Gupta was CFO of Firestar International Limited and was in a key position. The investigations are still on, there is every likelihood that the applicant might fly away if the LOC against him is cancelled. This court is not having jurisdiction to cancel LOC issued during investigations, the same is applicable only if LOC is issued during the trial. The issuance of LOC is purely an executive action, to secure the presence of a suspect. Since the court is not vested with any inherent powers the application cannot be entertained. The prosecution prays for rejection of the application.”

Wankhade further argued, “That the accused is a key person working for the main accused who defrauded the banks in multiple crores. The accused was working on a key post for the main accused, an investigation is still going on and in the investigations, there is the involvement of this accused.”

The court while rejecting the plea observed that in this case, it appeared that the investigation was still ongoing. While investigating the officer has found prima facie involvement of the present accused in committing huge fraud. In pursuant to the said involvement of the applicant the investigating officer has issued the LOC, the LOC is not issued by the court but it was issued by the officer. Charge-sheet against the accused is yet to be filed.