“The progressive approach of the law” does not permit an individual to commit serious offences in India, flee abroad and then “dictate the investigating agency and to the court to record his/her statement through VC,” it said.
Considering her alleged role in the crime, Purvi’s physical appearance before the investigating officer was necessary, special CBI judge S K Karhale said in an order passed on Monday.
“An accused cannot dictate how the Investigating Officer should conduct the investigation,” the court stated.
Purvi Modi, a Belgian national, has filed a plea before the court for turning an approver or a prosecution witness in the case. But the Central Bureau of Investigation insisted that before her plea is decided, her statement needs to be recorded.
Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for the accused, submitted that she as well as her husband were cooperating with the Government of India.
The Bombay High Court’s video conference rules and the CBI’s own manual have provisions for the use of VC for recording statements of witnesses and accused, the lawyer said, adding, “The approach of the CBI is not fair and progressive.”Special public prosecutor A Limosin objected to Purvi Modi’s application, arguing that she is a beneficiary of the fraud. The court has the discretion to allow an accused to become an approver but “the decision will be swayed by the views of the prosecution”, he said.
The Central agency wanted to interrogate her but Purvi Modi was evading physical appearance, the prosecutor said.
Agreeing with the CBI’s submissions, the court stated that she cannot claim recording a statement through VC to be her right.
An accused can not be allowed to evade the investigation in a serious case like this where there is fraud, misappropriation and cheating of thousands of crores and “which is directly affecting the economy of the country,” the court said.
The court also pointed out that the pardon granted to Purvi Modi in a related Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case was upon condition that she will return to India.
Her initial plea of being unable to travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic ceased to be valid long ago, yet she made no effort to appear before the court for over five years, the judge noted.
“Such conduct reflects that she has no genuine intention of submitting herself to the jurisdiction of this court” and the present plea “is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the due process of law”, the court said.
Both Purvi and her husband Maiank Mehta have turned approver in the money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.
Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi are accused of committing a Rs 23,780 crore fraud in connivance with bank officials by obtaining fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) at the Brady House PNB branch in Mumbai.