Incomplete, casual probe, no application of mind: Court pulls up CBI in bank fraud probe

“It appears that IO has filed the incomplete chargesheet in a casual and mechanical manner without completing the investigation, and the same has been forwarded by the concerned SP (Superintendent of Police) without any application of mind,” he added. The court also directed the IO to complete the probe and file the final report after completion.

The case was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed in October 2022 by Kamal Agarwal, Chief Manager, Zonal SASTRA Centre in Bhikaji. A Zonal SASTRA (Stressed Assets Targeted Resolution Action) Centre is a regional branch of the Punjab National Bank (PNB) focused on resolving distressed assets.

In the complaint, Agarwal alleged that a firm, J S Designer Ltd (Accused 1), its promoters and directors Mohan Singhal (Accused 2), and Anuradha Singhal (Accused 3), among other accused had caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the consortium of banks to the tune of Rs. 66.24 crore (Rs. 56.24 crores to Punjab National Bank) by allegedly siphoning off and diverting funds.

Among the accused, husband-wife duo Vikas Mohan Singhal and Anuradha Singhal allegedly committed an offence punishable with imprisonment and cheating, and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property. “At the threshold itself, this court fails to understand as to how and why the present chargesheet was filed when, as per Para 16.32 and 16.33 of the chargesheet, the (A2) and (A3) have been traced to Dubai and they were not made to join the investigation by the CBI. It is the case of the CBI itself that (A2) and (A3) left India on 21.08.2019 and 28.10.2020, respectively,” Judge Kumar said.

The Judge also asked the CBI why no steps were taken to secure the presence of the Singhals and make them join the investigation despite knowledge of their whereabouts. The chargesheet filed in this case stated that the ‘address was verified, but the accused is not available’.

“…it is clear that the role of (A2) and (A3) should have been investigated during the investigation but the IO, for the reasons best known to him did not do the same at all and filed the instant chargesheet arraying three persons including (A2), (A3) and (A1) company as accused,” said the court.