 "Jignesh Shah")
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police on Thursday opposed the anticipatory bail plea of Jignesh Shah, founder of National Spot Exchange (NSEL), its largest trader, Jagmohan Garg and other accused at the high court, alleging they had committed 'economic genocide' on thousands of investors through forgery and criminal conspiracy. It pressed for custodial interrogation of the accused, saying the money trail was yet to be established.
Lawyers for Shah and Garg, who objected to the usage of 'big terms', submitted that they were cooperating with the EoW and since the matter was sub-judice before various competent authorities, there was no requirement for a separate investigation. Judge Pratibha Rani adjourned the hearing on bail applications to February 29.
She also scheduled the hearing for petitions to quash the complaint in July, saying these could not be taken up earlier in consideration of stiff opposition by the state.
Public prosecutor Rahul Mehra told the court Shah was summoned and came to EOW for interrogation several times but this can not be termed "cooperating." He said the petitioners were using the interim order in their favour and being "completely evasive and non-cooperative."
Claiming the total amount involved was around Rs 6,500 crore, Mehra said unless there was custodial interrogation, "real truth won't come out". The prosecution said it was found the money raised from NSEL investors was routed to about 150 bank accounts. "People who own these accounts have not been able to explain" the source and purpose of these receipts.
The prosecution also submitted it had recorded statements of 161 people connected with the NSEL matter, including the exchange's employees who have all corroborated to the finding that there were "no bills, no stocks and no godowns." Mehra added the bills were all computer-generated and existed only on paper and capacity of the godowns was nowhere close to the amount of stocks they are said to have contained. "Everything was a creation of figment of imagination of the accused."
The investigators also said they have evidence of Rs 150 crore being siphoned off and invested in personal properties of the accused. "If this is not a case of custodial interrogation, there cannot be any case for custodial interrogation," Mehra concluded.
Earlier, Shah's counsel argued that the "sub-stratum" of the allegations is already part of a prior complaint filed before EOW, Mumbai. They argued that Shah has already spent over 100 days in custody and that the findings of the Bombay High Court, while granting bail in August 2014, subsumed both the period and transactions mentioned in the present petition by Classone Exports. Saying that a special leave petition challenging that bail order was not allowed by the Supreme Court, the counsel listed out various suits pending before the courts.
"(There is) no question of the petitioner fleeing or tampering with evidence. Passport has been seized, assets are frozen. Everything they want to seize stands seized," Shah's counsel added. He said Shah was cooperating with investigators and that he appeared before EOW on 16 occasions, including last Wednesday.
It was also pointed out that Classone had made a gain of Rs 2 crore in NSEL before the Rs 5,600 crore payment crisis struck in July 2013. The judge, however, observed: "There is always a bait."
Counsel for Mohan India's Garg and his co-promoter Jaishankar Srivastava said the prosecution was trying to prejudice the case by focusing on the larger amount. Throughout the case, they have argued that they were concerned only about the Rs 22.6 crore loss to Classone.
Before arguments on merits commenced, Shah's lawyers raised a point of order, objecting to the complainant's submission, which made a remark about hiring of "expensive lawyers" by the petitioners, but ignoring settlement to investors. The judge took exception to the remark. The complainant apologised and withdrew his statements. The judge later sent him out of the court room for the duration of the hearing. She also refused to allow interventions by the complainant's counsel.
