Read the full story
Source: The Hindu BusinessLine

CBI court orders proclamation against Jatin Mehta in ₹146.35 crore Canara Bank fraud case
The court said the accused remained untraceable despite earlier warrants, while allowing the agency to pursue proclamation proceedings to secure their presence……
Important StoriesRetail inflation jumps to 21 months high of 5.54% in SeptemberRobert E. Hall, Michael Woodford win economics Nobel for work on economic shockNorth-Eastern Monsoon Nears: Heavy rain in TN, Kerala, Karnataka, Coastal Andhra PradeshCanadian Trade Minister leads biggest trade delegation to India in 30 years as FTA talks gather paceSEBI notifies common ad code for market intermediaries; allows celebrity endorsement for brandsFollow UsFOLLOW US ON WHATSAPPHomeGO BACK TO HOME THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. CBI court orders proclamation against Jatin Mehta in ₹146.35 crore Canara Bank fraud case The court said the accused remained untraceable despite earlier warrants, while allowing the agency to pursue proclamation proceedings to secure their presence By PTI Updated - October 12, 2026 at 07:54 PM. | Mumbai ×ShareWhatsAppXFacebookLinkedInMessengerRedditMailhttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/cbi-court-orders-proclamation-against-jatin-mehta-in-14635-crore-canara-bank-fraud-case/article71575724.eceCopy FILE PHOTO: Billionaire jeweller Jatin Mehta faces proclamation proceedings in a ₹146.35 crore Canara Bank fraud case, with a special CBI court declining immediate attachment of the accused’s properties. | Photo Credit: Ravi Choudhary
A special CBI court here on Monday ordered the issuance of proclamation against billionaire jeweller Jatin Mehta, his wife and another person in connection with a Rs 146.35 crore bank fraud case involving Canara Bank.
Special Judge Nitin V Jiwane allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s plea seeking issuance of proclamation under relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to secure the presence of the absconding accused but declined the request for simultaneously attaching their property.
The CBI had sought the simultaneous attachment of properties belonging to Jatin Mehta, his wife Sonia Mehta and two others, expressing apprehension that the accused might dispose of the assets.
The court was of the view that the CBI merely raised an apprehension without placing any material on record to substantiate the claim for subjective satisfaction required under Section 83 of the CrPC.
The CBI may file a fresh application for the attachment of properties in due course of the proceedings as per law, the court said.
The agency has alleged that Jatin Mehta’s company Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Ltd purchased gold from three bullion banks abroad - The Bank of Nova Scotia, Standard Bank and Standard Chartered Bank- on the basis of guarantees from the Indian bank.
Later, this gold was processed and sent to 13 buyers in the UAE, the CBI stated.
The company also failed to make the payment for the gold imported on the strength of guarantees, the agency said.
In this regard, the company has taken plea that export proceeds have not been received from foreign buyers, (which) resulted in invoking the SBLCs (guarantees) by bullion banks that cost wrongful loss of Rs 146.35 crore to Canara Bank.
The court noted that despite earlier efforts to execute non-bailable warrants issued in June 2018, the three accused were found untraceable and are concealing themselves. Further investigation revealed that the accused are currently residing in the United Kingdom.
The record shows that non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused and the same were not executed as the accused persons were not traced, the court noted.
“Therefore, prima facie it is brought on record that, in spite of issuance of non bailable warrants against the above named accused persons, they are concealing themselves for avoiding the execution of non-bailable warrants and have absconded. Therefore, the proclamation needs to be issued for securing presence of accused persons,” the court said.
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber
