Key Points
A Mumbai special court dismissed Mehul Choksi’s plea seeking directions to the Enforcement Directorate to attach remaining assets of Gitanjali Gems Ltd.
The court held that an accused cannot instruct investigating officers on how to conduct a probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The ED opposed the plea, alleging Choksi was filing applications to delay proceedings while facing action as a fugitive economic offender.
A special court in Mumbai, on 7 February 2026, rejected a plea by absconding diamantaire Mehul Choksi seeking directions to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to attach and secure all remaining assets of Gitanjali Gems Ltd (GGL), including trade receivables, ruling that he has no right to dictate the course of investigation under money laundering law.
The plea was heard by a special court dealing with matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Choksi’s application had sought orders directing the ED to take action regarding assets of GGL that, according to him, remained unattached.
Through his lawyer, Choksi argued that the ED had already attached various movable and immovable assets of GGL. The plea referred to the company’s balance sheet as of 31 March 2017, which showed assets worth ₹23,539 crore.
The defence submitted that Choksi was unable to recover amounts from “trade receivables” because the entire business of GGL had shut down following the registration of a FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The application suggested that further attachment and securing of assets by the ED would address the issue of outstanding amounts linked to the company’s operations.
However, the ED strongly opposed the application. Special Public Prosecutor Kavita Patil argued that the agency had already initiated proceedings against Choksi under the Fugitive Economic Offenders framework for confiscation of his properties, citing his refusal to return to India to face prosecution.
The ED contended that the applicant was misusing legal processes by filing what it described as frivolous applications with the aim of delaying trial proceedings. The prosecutor submitted that the request was not legally tenable and sought dismissal of the plea.
After hearing both sides, the court agreed with the ED’s objections. In its order, the court observed that there was substance in the arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor that the accused was attempting to recover his outstanding amounts through the ED by filing the present application, which was not permissible under law.
The court noted that under the PMLA, investigating officers are guided by specific provisions and procedures. An officer can take action against properties only when there is reason to believe that such properties are linked to proceeds of crime. The decision to attach assets must be based on statutory criteria and investigative assessment, the court said.
The judge further stated that an accused person has no right to seek directions to an investigating officer to conduct an investigation in a particular manner or direction, especially after a charge sheet has already been filed in the case.
“The accused has no right at all to seek directions to the investigating officer to conduct an investigation in a specific direction, especially after the filing of the charge sheet,” the court said, holding that the plea was not maintainable.
The ruling effectively closes the door on Choksi’s attempt to use court directions to influence the scope or direction of the ED’s investigation into assets of GGL. It underscores the principle that investigative agencies must act within the framework of statutory powers and cannot be compelled by an accused to take particular steps unless supported by legal provisions.
The ED’s stand before the court highlighted that proceedings were already underway to deal with the properties of the accused under applicable legal mechanisms, and that the application did not fall within the permissible scope of judicial intervention at this stage.
With the plea dismissed, the matter now continues in the broader context of ongoing proceedings against Choksi under economic offences and money laundering laws. The court’s order reinforces that the conduct and direction of investigation remain within the domain of the authorised agency, subject to statutory safeguards and judicial review, but not at the instance of the accused seeking to shape investigative action.
[DS]
Suggested Reading: