In a shocking turn of events, ninety-six-year-old Anil Gosalia from Mumbai has been sentenced to one year in prison for his involvement in a bank fraud that took place 35 years ago. Despite his current bedridden state and various ailments, the special CBI judge, C G Mehta, issued a conviction warrant against him, showing no leniency.
Gosalia’s advocate, R G Ahuja, pleaded with the court to consider his client’s health and requested for a more compassionate approach. The court, acknowledging Gosalia’s condition, decided to show mercy and sentenced him to one year in jail, taking into account his inability to independently perform his daily activities.
However, the judge rejected the request for probation, stating that it is necessary to award appropriate deterrent punishment in such socio-economic offenses. The judge emphasized that misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency would send the wrong signal to society, potentially eroding faith in the justice system.
In addition to Gosalia, his son Dilip, aged 71, and nephew Vimal, aged 58, were also found guilty of bank fraud and received a harsher sentence of five years in jail. As they were present in court, they were immediately taken into custody.
Gosalia’s lawyer, however, managed to secure bail for him, sparing him from immediate imprisonment. This decision was made to accommodate Gosalia’s health condition and avoid exacerbating his physical ailments.
The accused, through their Bhavnagar-based firm Gosalia International, were implicated in a conspiracy with State Bank of Saurashtra officials to manipulate letter of credit limits back in 1989. The fraud only came to light in 1995, triggering a lengthy CBI investigation that lasted 26 years.
During the lengthy trial, two bank officials accused of corruption, managing director K Magabanthu and branch manager Rajnikant Shah, passed away. Additionally, two members of the Gosalia family who were charged in the case, Uday and Kantilal, also passed away, leading to the abatement of the charges against them.
This case serves as a reminder that even after several decades, justice can still be sought and served, regardless of the physical condition of the accused. It also highlights the importance of upholding the integrity of the justice system and ensuring that appropriate punishments are handed down to maintain public trust.
The judiciary fix time line for producing evidences or trial but after go through this legal matter, which has taken unexpected and inordinate time to proclaim decision.
in the age of 96 years give sentence for one year imprisonment is reveals that the lawyer of offender has taken a long time so as to linger on finalisation of case