MUMBAI: A special PMLA court has rejected two applications by Priti Choksi, wife of fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi, seeking cancellation of a bailable warrant issued against her in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money-laundering case linked to the ₹ 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud. The court held that she was aware of the proceedings and that the ED had neither suppressed facts nor misled it while obtaining the warrant.
The warrant was issued on August 9, 2023. Opposing the applications, special public prosecutor Kavita Patil, appearing for the ED, said summons had been issued to Choksi at her last-known Indian address on December 14 and 22, 2021, and January 6, 2022, but she had failed to appear. It also pointed out that the memo of appearance, filed on August 22, 2023, and the vakalatnama had no embassy authentication. In her second application, Choksi sought recall of the August 2023 order, alleging that the ED had obtained it by suppressing material facts, including her claimed residence in Belgium and its alleged failure to follow the ministry’s guidelines.
The court noted that Choksi appeared through a lawyer only after the warrant was issued. The court held that the ministry’s guidelines were meant to assist investigating agencies in serving summons and pursuing extradition, but did not give an accused who had fled abroad the right to insist on service at an unauthorised foreign address. The judge also observed that Choksi was, prima facie, a wrongdoer who had fled the country and could not dictate where the ED should serve the summons. Her counsel argued that this amounted to fraud on the court.
Special judge Subhash K Karhale observed that Choksi had known about the case “since beginning” and could not insist that the agency serve summons at an overseas address that had not been duly established. The agency also told the court that the couple’s flat was found locked and there was no proof that she was still residing in Belgium. “This shows that the applicant-accused is watching this proceeding but hiding her existence in abroad,” the judge observed. Rejecting the plea, the judge said the judgments cited by her lawyers were distinguishable and that principles laid down in civil cases could not be applied to criminal proceedings in the manner argued.
