Legal experts question ex-Unity Foods CEO’s release

Former Unity Foods chief executive Muhammad Farrukh Amin Godil was released from custody after a Karachi court declined the Federal Investigation Agency’s request for his physical remand, citing a protective order previously issued by the Sindh High Court.

The XV Judicial Magistrate Karachi East passed the order on August 30 after the FIA sought Amin’s physical custody for interrogation and further investigation in a case involving alleged financial irregularities at Unity Foods Limited.

According to the court order, Amin was already a petitioner in a constitutional petition pending before the Sindh High Court. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), which later lodged the complaint that led to the FIA case, was also a respondent in that petition.

The Sindh High Court, in an order dated April 16, 2026, had directed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioners until further orders.

The magistrate said that, in view of the High Court’s protective order, the FIA’s request for Amin’s physical remand could not be granted.

Amin was discharged from custody after being directed to furnish a personal recognisance or surety bond of Rs100,000. The court also directed him to appear before the investigating officer whenever required and barred him from leaving the country without permission from the competent court.

However, four other accused — Jalees Edhi, Amir Shehzad, Safdar Sajjad and Abdul Majeed Ghaziani — were handed over to the FIA’s Corporate Crime Circle for one day of physical remand.

The court said their custody was required for interrogation, identification of other possible suspects, tracing of funds and further investigation into the alleged financial transactions.

The case was registered by the FIA Corporate Crime Circle, Karachi, following a referral from the SECP. The FIR, registered on August 29, names Amin and several former Unity Foods officials in connection with alleged financial irregularities.

The investigation includes an alleged Rs44.7 billion difference between the company’s published accounts and records maintained through its internal SAP system. The FIA is also examining an alleged Rs5.2 billion inventory shortfall and other discrepancies in the company’s financial records.

Other allegations being investigated include the alleged diversion of Rs5.318 billion through loan entries linked to Amin’s mother, questions over Rs2.873 billion raised through a rights issue, and transactions involving the company’s subsidiaries and former subsidiaries.

The FIR contains allegations, and the investigation remains ongoing. The court’s decision to release Amin does not amount to a decision on the merits of the allegations against him.

The case is expected to remain under close scrutiny as the FIA continues its investigation and future court proceedings determine the legal position of all those accused.

Legal experts, however, have questioned the interpretation of the Sindh High Court’s protective order. They said the restraining order referred to in paragraph three of the magistrate’s order was sought in connection with the SECP, which was a respondent in the constitutional petition, and was not specifically directed at the FIA or its independent criminal investigation.

According to these legal experts, applying the protective order to prevent the FIA from taking coercive action against Amin could therefore amount to a misapplication of the High Court’s order. They argued that the interpretation resulted in relief for the principal accused while other accused in the same case were sent into physical remand. The legal experts said the matter could raise serious questions about whether the judicial order correctly applied the scope of the protective relief.