Mumbai: Criticising the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) for the delay and slow progress in its probe, the special Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) court has recently ordered the agency to investigate the role of Edelweiss Custodial Services Ltd, Teji Mandi Analytics Pvt Ltd and its directors, National Stock Exchange (NSE) and chartered accountant Aayush Toshniwal in connection with the case registered against Anugrah Stock and Broking Pvt Ltd (ASBPL) for allegedly cheating at least 400 investors of Rs 450 crore.
The court order came on the plea of the original complainant Ashutosh Shah, a 35-year-old businessman from Kandivali. Shah claimed that he was persuaded by Toshniwal to invest through Anugrah and hence he invested huge money. He said that even after filing the chargesheet against Anugrah’s director, Paresh Kariya, in April 2021 and seeking further investigation, there has been no positive progress in the probe.
The special court in its order has noted, “There is a record in the form of documents which reflects the involvement of proposed accused Toshniwal, Edelweiss Custodial Services Ltd and Teji Mandi Analytics Pvt Ltd, etc. Even a report filed by the investigating officer found that these accused are the beneficiaries of the transaction.”
The special judge said that the material available before it is prima facie sufficient enough to take cognisance against these accused. However, the court said, “Considering the nature of the offence and investigation thereof, which is quite complicated one and the scope of the same is very vast, this court by way of abandoned precautions forbear to proceed with against proposed accused.”
Criticising the EOW, the court observed, “On the basis of documentary evidence produced on record prima facie involvement of all the proposed accused is established. Till now, some of them are arrayed as witnesses for the best reason known to the Investigating Officer.”
The court has now ordered the court staff to forward the order copy to the Mumbai Police Commissioner and Joint Police Commissioner to take action observing that, “This Court is not at all convinced for a reason put-forth by the Respondent no.1 (EOW unit 5) for the delay and sluggish progress in the investigation. This Court has considered prima facie involvement of the proposed accused in the commission of the offence. But if they were directly summoned, there would not be proper adjudication due to lack of sufficient material to be collected during the investigation.”
