Mumbai: A special court on Saturday rejected two separate pleas filed by absconding accused Mehul Choksi seeking to direct the Enforcement Directorate to recover trade receivables and conduct a revaluation of seized assets. In the first matter, Choksi had requested that the ED be directed to recover and secure assets of Gitanjali Gems Ltd, including trade receivables, claiming the company had assets worth over Rs 23,000 crore. In a second order passed on the same day, the court dismissed Choksi’s plea for the revaluation of seized jewellery and a specific property in Andhra Pradesh. Choksi had alleged that the ED’s valuation of Rs 500 crore for the Hardware Park property was arbitrary, claiming its market value exceeded Rs 1,500 crore.The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that Choksi was abusing the process of law to delay the trial while remaining abroad. Dismissing the application, special judge AV Gujarathi observed, “There is no provision in CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) which gives right to the accused to direct the investigating agency to investigate the matter in a particular way and that too after filing of the chargesheet in the court.”The order stated, “By no stage of imagination after filing of chargesheet an accused may file an application seeking direction to the investigating officer to conduct the investigation in a particular manner.” The judge agreed with the prosecution’s stance that Choksi was essentially trying to use a federal agency to recover his own outstanding business dues, which is legally impermissible.With respect to the Hyderabad property, Choksi expressed fears that seized goods might have been tampered with due to discrepancies in valuation reports.Rejecting this second application, the special court noted that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court’s powers to confiscate or release property are generally exercised at the conclusion of a trial. “The special court has no powers to pass orders directing the ED to revaluate the assets seized during the pendency of trial.” The court also took note of the fact that a liquidator had already been appointed for the company in 2024, making the application non-maintainable.
