Did a CBI Court in Chennai Convict Four in a ₹4 Crore Bank Fraud Case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a landmark decision, a CBI court in Chennai convicted four individuals in a bank fraud case spanning 15 years, involving over ₹4 crore. This ruling highlights the ongoing battle against corruption and financial misconduct in India, shedding light on the fraudulent activities that exploited trust within the banking system.
Key Takeaways
- Significant conviction against bank fraud.
- Involvement of private firms and individuals.
- Long duration of the trial highlights legal complexities.
- CBI's role in combating financial corruption.
- Importance of transparency in banking operations.
New Delhi, Nov 22 (NationPress) A specialized CBI court in Chennai has found two private companies and two individuals guilty in a bank fraud case exceeding ₹4 crore, concluding a protracted 15-year trial that initiated after Canara Bank highlighted significant discrepancies in loan disbursement, as reported by an agency official on Saturday.
The CBI disclosed that on November 21, the court sentenced Afrina Steel Rolling Mills and Basheer & Co, both private entities, to pay fines of ₹20 lakh each.
The firms were represented by their proprietor, Nazeer Ahmed, who received a sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment in addition to a fine of ₹40 lakh.
Another defendant, Ashik Arafath, was awarded a one-year rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹20,000. In total, the court has levied fines totaling ₹80.2 lakh on the convicted individuals.
The origins of the case trace back to September 2010 when the CBI filed a First Information Report (FIR) based on a complaint from the Chief Vigilance Officer of Canara Bank.
According to the CBI, the allegation was that the accused private entities, M/s. Afrina Steel Rolling Mills (A-1) and M/s. Basheer and Co (A-2), were partnership firms operated by Nazeer Ahmed (A-3), his spouse Fathima Riswana (A-4), and Ashik Arafath (A-6).
Investigations revealed that the accused firms—managed by Nazeer Ahmed, his spouse Fathima Rizwana, and others—conspired with senior bank officials, including Chief Manager T. Rajendran and panel valuer K.S. Ashok, during the years 2007-08.
The accused allegedly exploited the bank’s trust, submitted falsified documents, and unlawfully acquired loans and bank guarantees amounting to ₹405.47 lakh from Canara Bank’s Kilpauk branch in Chennai.
These actions resulted in considerable financial loss to the bank while generating illicit profits for the accused.
A chargesheet was filed in May 2012 against seven individuals. During the trial, two of them—Rajendran and Ashok—passed away, leading to the cessation of proceedings against them.
After extensive hearings, the court has now convicted four defendants, while Fathima Rizwana, one of the partners in the firms, has been acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
This judgment represents a significant advancement in the lengthy investigation, reaffirming the CBI’s commitment to tackling corruption and loan fraud involving collusion between private entities and banking officials.
Point of View
It is crucial to recognize the implications of this conviction. The CBI's decisive action against fraudulent practices serves as a reminder of the need for transparency and accountability in banking operations. Such rulings reinforce public trust in financial institutions and pave the way for stricter regulations to prevent similar misconduct in the future.
NationPress
22/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main charge against the convicted parties?
The main charge was involvement in a bank fraud case that involved fraudulent activities leading to the misuse of trust and illegal financial gains from Canara Bank.
What penalties were imposed on the convicted firms and individuals?
The convicted firms were fined ₹20 lakh each, while Nazeer Ahmed received a seven-year prison term along with a ₹40 lakh fine, and Ashik Arafath was sentenced to one year in prison and fined ₹20,000.
How long did the trial last?
The trial lasted 15 years, beginning in 2010 when Canara Bank reported irregularities.
What does this case signify for future banking practices?
This case underscores the importance of vigilance against corruption and the necessity for stringent regulations to safeguard the integrity of banking operations.
What was the role of the CBI in this investigation?
The CBI conducted the investigation following a complaint from Canara Bank's Chief Vigilance Officer, leading to the eventual filing of charges against the accused.
