Rs.13,000 crore PNB Scam: Court says CBI did not Follow Proper Procedure in PNB Fraud Case

In a significant development in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case of Rs.13,000 crore, the special court hearing the case against fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi has found procedural lapses by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in serving summons to Sunil Varma, the international business head of Gitanjali Gems.
Court Findings
Proper Procedure Not Followed
Special Judge SM Menjoge observed that the CBI failed to follow the proper procedure for serving summons to Sunil Varma. The judge emphasized that for seeking custody, the accused must be arrested or detained, which was not the case here.
Custody Entitlement
The court noted that since Varma was neither arrested nor detained by the police or the CBI, the agency was not entitled to his custody. This decision was significant given Varma’s role and his close association with Mehul Choksi.
Proceedings and Arguments
Appearance and Custody Request
Sunil Varma appeared before the special court on Thursday. During the hearing, CBI prosecutor A Limosin sought Varma’s custody, arguing that Varma had never responded to summons or notices and had remained away from the investigation.
Chargesheet and Summons
The special judge pointed out that Varma was included as an accused in the supplementary chargesheet filed in 2021. The judge clarified that when Varma left India in May 2017, there was no chargesheet against him, so he could not be considered to have evaded criminal proceedings. The chargesheet was filed in his absence, and upon taking cognizance, the court ordered summons to be issued against him instead of a non-bailable warrant (NBW).
Summons Delivery Issues
Improper Service of Summons
The court further observed that the summons was served on Varma’s father, Bajranglal Varma, who resides in the same building in Mumbai but in a different flat. Bajranglal provided the CBI with Sunil Varma’s email address and phone number, as Varma was living in the United States. However, the CBI did not take steps to serve him according to the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the criminal manual.
Conclusion
Appearance and Custody
The court concluded that Sunil Varma’s appearance before the court, in response to the summons issued for his appearance after taking cognizance, did not amount to custody. This ruling underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures in high-profile cases and highlights procedural lapses that can affect the outcomes of judicial proceedings.
This development in the PNB fraud case raises questions about the handling of such high-stakes investigations and the need for strict adherence to legal protocols.