The agency came out with a statement after reports that Crown Prosecution Service, which is representing India's case of Mallya's extradition, told a London court that it will require three-four weeks time to receive evidence from India.
The agency tried to defend itself by giving a detailed timeline of events leading to June 13 hearing where reported comments were made by Aaron Watkins of the Crown Prosecution Service.
"During the hearing on June 13, 2017, when the counsel of fugitive Mallya sought a date in March-April, 2018, Aaron Watkins of CPS opposed the same. To justify a later date, the defence counsel raised the issue of delay, which is nothing but a figment of his imagination," CBI Spokesperson R K Gaur said here today.
"The Specialist Prosecutor of CPS confirmed that during the proceedings on June 13 there was no criticism of the extradition request or of the Indian government. Senior district judge fixed next case management hearing on 6 July, 2017 when the dates for the extradition hearing will be decided," he said.
According to reports, Watkins told the court that Crown Prosecution Service required additional three-four weeks time to receive evidence from India.
Gaur said the charge sheet against Mallya was filed on January 24 before the Special Judge for the CBI cases, Mumbai which issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest on January 31.
He said as the fugitive Mallya has been in London since March 2016, the request for extradition of Mallya was forwarded on February 9 to the UK authorities through diplomatic channels.
On April 18, the Crown Prosecution Service sought a meeting with the officials of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate following which a team led by Additional Director CBI Rakesh Asthana visited London on May 2 and 3.
The team provided all the additional documents sought and also answered the queries raised, he said.
The agency in the meanwhile filed a supplementary charge sheet in a special court in Mumbai.
The charge sheet along with additional evidence were sent to the UK authorities on June 9, Gaur said.
Gaur said in some sections of media it is also reported that there was a delay of six months.
"Hence, it is hereby categorically affirmed that there was no delay whatsoever," he said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
