31cr bank fraud: Choksi plea against ‘cryptic’ order junked

Mumbai: A special CBI court rejected this week a plea filed by fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi challenging a magistrate's order to take cognisance of a Rs 31-crore cheating and criminal conspiracy case related to Canara Bank. It found no merit in the claim that the lower court had acted mechanically or without application of mind when issuing process against the accused persons in April 2025.The prosecution opposed Choksis plea and said this was his attempt to delay and derail ongoing extradition proceedings initiated against him in Belgium. The pleas of two other accused—Vipul Chitalia, a former executive of Gitanjali Group, and Aniyath Nair, director of Gili India Ltd—were also rejected by the court. Both companies were owned by Choksi.
Special CBI judge J P Darekar held that the magistrate's order was "not mechanical, cryptic or without application of mind or without perusing the material on record", adding that it did not suffer from "impropriety, incorrectness and illegality". "As such, no interference is required in the order passed by the... magistrate and, therefore, interference is not warranted," the judge said. The court noted that the magistrate had passed the order after perusing the chargesheet and finding sufficient material for taking cognisance. "As per the settled legal principle, the magistrate is not required to read the entire chargesheet in depth... The magistrate has formed prima facie opinion. Thus, it is clear that the magistrate has complied with the legal principles," it said, while referring to legal provisions laid down by Supreme Court and high courts. Choksi was arrested by Belgian authorities in April 2025 and is currently lodged in a prison in Antwerp. He moved the plea before the special CBI court in Mumbai on July 17, 2025, arguing that the magistrate's order was cryptic and non-reasoned. The case initiated by CBI involves allegations that Choksi, in connivance with Chitalia and others, cheated the Girgaum branch of Canara Bank of Rs 31 crore. The agency's special public prosecutor, A Limosin, said credit facilities and export proceeds were diverted to settle the liabilities of the parent company, Gitanjali Gems Ltd. Limosin opposed Choksi's plea and said the order passed by the magistrate was just and proper. He also said specific roles were attributed to each accused in the chargesheet. While evaluating the legality of the magistrate's decision, the judge noted that the lower court had explicitly said it had perused the final report and accompanying documents. The judge observed that the order reflected a "reasoned satisfaction" that sufficient material existed to proceed.