📅 Published on: May 24, 2025
✍️ By: Prashant Marathe

🕵️‍♂️ At a Glance:

Two men.
Four shady companies.
Fake auditors.
Two different annual reports for the same year.
And 13 years of chaos that finally ends with SEBI saying:
“Actually… maybe you weren’t guilty after all.”

Welcome to the SEBI Adjudication Order No. 31412 – 31413, where Chetan Sukhdev Pandit and Prahlad Vithaldas Panchal were accused of being the secret puppet masters behind a multi-company document-forging circus…

…and walked away without a fine.

🎬 Previously On: “Audit Report Chronicles”

Between 2011 and 2018, SEBI probed four “companies” you’ve probably never heard of:

• 🧵 ACIL Cotton Industries Ltd.
• 💳 Universal Credit & Securities Ltd. (UCSL)
• 🧠 Mindvision Capital Ltd. (MCL)
• 🌐 RFL International Ltd.

The investigation said:

Directors filed fraudulent audit reports, misused names of CAs, and ignored summons from SEBI.

So naturally, SEBI prepared to unleash penalties under every Act and Regulation known to Indian law — SEBI Act, PFUTP, LODR, SCRA, you name it.

But here’s the twist…

🧑‍⚖️ After All That Drama, SEBI Goes: “Actually, We’re Good.”

📜 The Verdict (May 23, 2025):

“Not guilty.”
– SEBI to Chetan & Prahlad

Why?

Because:

• 📬 The summons were never really served properly (one address didn’t exist, one was a 20-year-old rental, others were under redevelopment)
• ✍️ Their signatures were forged — even the name “Prahlad” became “Prahalal”
• 🧾 Different annual reports were filed with BSE and ROC, showing different signatories
• 🕴️ No concrete proof of active involvement in the fraud
• 🧘‍♂️ They were non-executive directors with no attendance, no records, no trail

🧪 Forensic Twist: Same Audit, Two Realities

One version had a balance sheet signed by the accused.
The other didn’t.

We’re not auditors, but that smells like document cloning.

📣 What The Accused Said

Both Chetan Pandit and Prahlad Panchal went full courtroom Bollywood:

🧓 “We were framed! Never even knew we were directors. That company used our names and addresses without consent.”
📜 “Summons went to ghost addresses.”
🖋️ “That’s not even my signature bro.”

And in Prahlad’s case, he said he only found out he was “Director of Mindvision” after SEBI froze his bank and Demat accounts in 2023. Surprise!

🚨 What SEBI Found

After years of inspection, SEBI finally admitted:

• Summons lacked proper proof of delivery
• Signatures didn’t match
• No evidence the two were involved in choosing fake auditors
• Actual MD (Abhishek Shah) mysteriously NOT on trial 🤔
• Documents show “fraudulent appointments” with forged PANs, DINs, and digital signatures

So the final conclusion?

✅ “We cannot prove they did anything.”

Verdict: No penalty. Case closed.

💸 How Much Did This Cost SEBI?

Let’s do rough math:

🧾 EduInvesting Verdict:

This wasn’t a financial fraud.
This was a bureaucratic time loop.

SEBI tried for over a decade to untangle this web of ghost directors, fake filings, reused CA names, and mismatched signatures, only to conclude:

“Wait, maybe these weren’t the guys.”

It’s like sending someone to jail for identity theft — and then realizing you had the wrong identity all along.

💬 What This Case Teaches Us

• 🏦 Even non-executive directors can land in hot water — unless they don’t attend any meetings for 3 years straight
• 🧾 Just because your name is on a document doesn’t mean you actually signed it
• 🕳️ India’s ROC system is so easy to hack, even random names can become “directors”
• 🔍 SEBI will take years, cross-check multiple addresses, and still miss the main culprit (where is Abhishek Shah?)

🪦 RIP Justice or RIP Time?

This wasn’t just about ACIL, UCSL, MCL, or RFL.
This was about how easy it is to game the corporate system — and how hard it is to un-game it later.

Final Order Summary:

• Case disposed without penalty
• Noticees freed of all charges
• SEBI still looking for the actual fraudsters
• Investors? Still confused.

🏷️ Tags: SEBI fraud, audit forgery India, UCSL scam, fake director appointment, SEBI Adjudication Order 2025, forgery case India, EduInvesting satirical analysis