The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Centre’s response on a plea by a Punjab National Bank (PNB) executive director, accused in the ₹13,000-crore bank fraud involving fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, challenging the sanction granted for his prosecution.
Justice Mukta Gupta issued a notice to the Centre and sought its response by January 7 on the plea of K.V. Brahmaji Rao, who has claimed that sanction for his prosecution was granted without application of mind.
‘No application of mind’
On the insistence of senior advocate Sanjay Jain, appearing for Mr. Rao, the court also called for the file related to grant of prosecution. Mr. Jain said a perusal of the records would show there was “no application of mind” while granting sanction for prosecution and urged the court to call for the records.
Mr. Rao has challenged the government’s October 12 decision granting sanction for his prosecution in the case, saying that he was not even remotely connected with day-to-day transactions.
Mr. Jain argued in court that the sanction would adversely affect Mr. Rao’s career as he will not be appointed as managing director of Vijaya Bank, for which he has been shortlisted. The senior lawyer added that his client’s tenure at PNB was set to end on January 21, 2019, and if sanction for prosecution remained in operation then his career will be ruined as he will be compulsorily retired after that.
“It is a case of gross miscarriage of justice. The order granting sanction suffers from illegality,” he argued.
Mr. Modi, his uncle Mehul Choksi and others are being investigated by multiple probe agencies after the scam came to light following a complaint by PNB that the duo had allegedly cheated it of ₹11,400 crore, with purported involvement of a few employees. The CBI chargesheet in the PNB fraud case names Mr. Rao as one of the accused employees who had through their acts facilitated issuance of fraudulent Letters of Understandings to companies owned by Mr. Modi.
Temporary posting
Mr. Rao, in his defence, has contended that he was in PNB’s international banking division, where the fraud took place, for only six months on a temporary basis.
“I was a domain executive director. I was not even remotely connected with the day-to-day transactions. There were eight other employees of the bank who were directly involved in the transaction,” his lawyer argued in court.
