Special Court Rejects Mehul Choksi's Plea Challenging CBI Chargesheet Cognisance
A special court in Mumbai has dismissed an appeal filed by diamond trader Mehul Choksi and two co-accused, challenging a magistrate court's order that took cognisance of a chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The ruling, delivered on February 2, 2026, underscores the court's stance that the magistrate's decision was legally sound and not rushed, as alleged by the defendants.
Background of the Case and Extradition Proceedings
Mehul Choksi, currently imprisoned in Belgium, faces extradition to India for his alleged involvement in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) cheating case. Along with Aniyath Nair and Vipul Chitalia, both linked to his firm Gitanjali Gems, Choksi filed a criminal revision against a 2025 magistrate court order. The CBI contended that this appeal was a strategic move to delay and derail the ongoing extradition proceedings initiated in Belgium.
Arguments Presented by the Defense and CBI
In their appeal, Choksi and his co-accused argued that the magistrate court had acted with lightning speed, taking cognisance on the same day the chargesheet was filed. They claimed that the order was passed without attributing specific roles to them and without thoroughly perusing the case records. However, special judge J P Darekar countered these claims, stating that the magistrate had indeed reviewed the chargesheet and supporting documents, finding sufficient material to proceed.
The CBI's special counsel, A Limosin, opposed the plea, labeling it an attempt to obstruct justice. The court accepted the CBI's argument that a magistrate taking cognisance does not need to read the entire chargesheet in depth, as long as there is adequate evidence on record.
Court's Detailed Ruling and Implications
The magistrate court had issued its order on April 17, 2025, taking cognisance of the chargesheet under sections of the Indian Penal Code related to cheating and criminal conspiracy. Notices were also issued against seven accused in the case. In its recent ruling, the special court emphasized that the challenged order was not mechanical, cryptic, or lacking in application of mind. It concluded that the order did not suffer from any impropriety, incorrectness, or illegality, thereby upholding the magistrate's decision.
This development marks a significant step in the legal proceedings against Choksi, as the trial in the CBI case against his co-accused has yet to commence. The rejection of the plea is expected to expedite the extradition process, bringing Choksi closer to facing trial in India for the alleged financial fraud.
