Mumbai: The special CBI court has rejected the discharge plea of a businessman, Premal Goragandhi, booked in connection with a case registered by the CBI for defrauding the Indian Overseas Bank to the tune of Rs 297.56 crore. The court observed that a man may lie, but circumstances do not.
About The Case
The CBI had registered the case in 2017 against M/s Parekh Aluminex Ltd (PAL) and others for obtaining credit facilities and not clearing the dues. Goragandhi is alleged to have played a pivotal role in this conspiracy by acting as a director in three shell companies, namely Suryakiran Ferro Alloys, Bhumika Foils, and Bhagyoday Ferro Alloys. The CBI said these shell firms were used to generate fictitious sales and purchase transactions with PAL.
The transactions were devoid of any actual movement of goods, and invoices were raised fraudulently to support the false narrative of business activity. The prosecution had claimed that Goragandhi and his wife received monthly remuneration of Rs 20,000 per company to lend names as directors. It relied on bank records demonstrating fund circulation between PAL and the aforementioned shell companies, documents such as signed blank cheques, RTGS forms, and account-opening forms bearing Goragandhi’s signatures.
Goragandhi claimed that he was neither a beneficiary nor played any role in the offence. His lawyer argued he never committed any dishonest act or benefited monetarily. He further submitted that prosecution witnesses confirmed that the fraud was executed by others. Noting that at this stage the court can’t conduct a roving inquiry into the evidence, but can take at face value the ingredients of the alleged offences.
The court noted that Goragandhi relied on a private forensic report to dispute the authenticity of his signature. However, the prosecution submitted that such a report, based on photocopies, lacks evidentiary value as the original documents are in court custody. On the money received by Goragandhi, the court said this is a question of fact requiring trial. “In the present case, which pertains to a bank fraud, documentary evidence would carry more weight than the statements of witnesses,” the court said.
