Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ms Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt Ltd ., … on 6 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)
(COAL BLOCK CASES)-02:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT-001156-2019
New CC No. CBI/297/2019 (Old CC No. 05/15)
RC No. 219 2012 E 0008
Branch : CBI/EOU-IV, New Delhi
CBI Vs. JAS Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
U/S. 120-B/409/420 IPC
& Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
Date of order on cognizance : 31.07.2015
Date of framing of charge : 22.12.2016
Date on which judgment
was reserved : 30.05.2025
Date of judgment : 06.06.2025
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Vs.
(1) M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.
39, Ambazari Layout, Nagpur,
Maharashtra - 440010 (Convicted)
(2) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal
S/o Sh. Basant Lal Shaw
8th Floor, JP Heights,
Byramji Town, Nagpur,
Maharashtra - 440013 (Convicted)
(3) Harish Chandra Gupta
S/o Late Shri Kisan Lal Gupta
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 1 of 343
R/o 377, Sector 15-A,
NOIDA-201301, U.P. (Acquitted)
(4) K.S. Kropha
S/o Late Sh. Sukh Das Kropha
R/o 258, Gulmohar Enclave,
New Delhi - 110049. (Acquitted)
(5) K.C. Samria
S/o Sh. G.L. Samria
R/o E-3, Senior Officers Colony,
Khanapara, Guwahati-781022. (Acquitted)
APPEARANCES
Present : Advocate Sh. Akshay Nagrajan for Learned Special
PP Sh. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate for CBI
(through VC).
Learned DLA Sh. A.P. Singh alongwith learned
DLA Sh. N.P. Srivastava and learned Senior PP
Sh. V.K. Pathak and for CBI in person.
IO/Addl. SP (Retired) Sh. Himanshu Bahuguna in
person.
Ld. Counsel Sh.Umang Katariya for Sh. Kannan
Tiruvengadam, Liquidator of A-1 M/s JICPL.
A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (through VC).
Ld. Counsels Sh. Mudit Jain and Ms. Kanishka
Bhati for A-2.
Ld. Counsels Ms. Garima Singh and Ms. Khonisha
for A-2 (through VC).
A-3 H.C. Gupta in person.
A-4 K.S. Kropha in person.
A-5 K.C. Samria in person.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Mathew M. Philip for A-3, A-4 &
A-5 (through VC).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 2 of 343
J U D G M E N T:
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
PA RT I C U L A R S PA R A G R A P H PA G E S
NUMBERS
PART-A
1 to 34 4 to 20
THE ALLEGATIONS
PART-B
35 to 38 21 to 29
THE CHARGE
PART-C
39 to 470 29 to 166
THE PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE
PART-D
471 166 to 167
STATEMENTS OF
ACCUSED PERSONS
U/S 313 CRPC
PART-E
472 to 550 167 to 187
THE DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
PART-F
551 to 600 188 to 200
THE ARGUMENTS
PART-G
601 to 987 200 to 343
THE ANALYSIS AND
DECISION OF THE
COURT
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 3 of 343
PA RT – A
THE ALLEGATIONS
1. The present case pertains to allocation of
“Mahuagarhi Coal Block”, situated in the State of Jharkhand to
M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. by the 35 th Screening
Committee, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India.
2. A Preliminary Enquiry No. 219 2012 E0002 was
initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) on the
reference of Central Vigilance Commission. Subsequently, upon
finding sufficient and cogent reasons to investigate the matter
further, CBI chose to register a regular case vide FIR No. RC 219
2012 E0008 against M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.
(“JICPL”) and its directors namely Manoj Kumar Jayaswal,
Abhishek Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal and other unknown persons
for the offences u/s 120-B/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC“) and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (“PC Act“).
3. However, upon completion of investigation, CBI
filed a final report dated 15.04.2014 recommending closure of
the case opining that no offence was found to have been
committed by any of the aforesaid accused persons or by any
public servant involved in the entire coal block allocation
process. Subsequently, a revised final report dated 14.10.2014
was also filed in the Court. In the said revised final report also,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 4 of 343
closure of the case was recommended. It was, however,
mentioned that though some incriminating evidence had come on
record against the accused persons but the same was not found to
be sufficient and cogent to warrant their prosecution. It was
further mentioned that dishonest intention or mens rea could not
be established.
4. It may be mentioned herein that M/s JICPL is now
known as M/s Jas Infrastructure & Power Ltd. However, as the
name of the company has been mentioned as M/s Jas
Infrastructure & Capital Pvt. Ltd. in various documents,
correspondences, notings etc., therefore, for the purpose of
convenience, the name of company will be mentioned as JICPL.
5. The allegations of the prosecution, as disclosed from
the two final reports, are as under:
6. Pursuant to amendments in Coal Mines
Nationalisation Act, 1973 (“CMN Act“), as brought by Govt. of
India in the year 1993, the coal sector was opened for allotment
to private sector companies engaged in generation of power,
production of iron and steel, production of cement etc. A
Screening Committee was accordingly constituted in MoC in
order to process all such applications as and when received from
companies desirous of obtaining allotment of a captive coal
block. Initially, the Screening Committee used to be headed by
Additional Secretary (Coal), MoC, Govt. of India but
subsequently Secretary (Coal) became Chairman of the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 5 of 343
Screening Committee. Joint Secretary (Coal) was Member
Convener of the said Screening Committee. Representatives of
various Administrative Ministries such as Ministry of Power
(“MoP”) with respect to coal blocks reserved for allotment to
power sector or Ministry of Steel (“MoS”) or DIPP qua allotment
of coal blocks reserved for other end users were members of said
Screening Committee. Various State Governments where either
the coal blocks proposed to be allotted were situated or the
proposed end use project was to be established were also
represented in the said Screening Committee besides
representation from Coal India Ltd. (“CIL”), Central Mine
Planning & Design Institute Limited, (“CMPDIL”) and its
subsidiary companies.
7. In the month of November 2006, an advertisement
was issued by MoC inviting applications from companies which
were engaged in the generation of power, production of iron and
steel and production of cement. In all, 38 Coal Blocks (15 Coal
Blocks were earmarked for power generation and 23 for other
specified end users) were sought to be allotted. In the
advertisement, it was also specified that within the power sector
preference would be accorded to projects with more than 500
MW capacity and in the steel sector priority should be given to
projects with more than 1 million ton per annum capacity. Five
sets of the applications were to be submitted with Director, CA-I,
MoC latest by 12.01.2007. The further details of the process such
as application format, how to apply, documents to be enclosed,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 6 of 343
details regarding coal blocks on offer, processing of applications
and other guidelines governing allocation of captive coal blocks
were made available on the website of MoC i.e. www.coal.nic.in.
8. The procedure to be followed in applying for
allotment of a captive coal block and the documents which were
required to be annexed with the applications were stated as
follows:
“How to apply?
I. Application in the prescribed format (five copies)
should be filled up. Please note that separate application
is to be submitted for each block in case application is
made for more than one block. Similarly, separate
application is to be submitted in case application is made
for more than one end use plant. The details in the format
should be filled up in respect of the specific end use plant
for which application is made. The details of experience
in respect of other plants may be provided in separate
sheets.
(i) If the applicant is an end user, the details of the
company alongwith the relevant details of the end use
plant (for which block is being applied) are to be filled
up at relevant places.
(ii) In case the applicant is a JV Mining company
(consortium of end user companies) or an Independent
Mining company (with firm back-to-back tie up with
permitted end users) list of promoter companies or the
list of companies with whom tie up for supply of coal has
been finalized, quantities to be shared/supplied, and
certified copies of agreement/contract etc. are to be
provided. The details in respect of finances, end use plant
and previous allocation of blocks i.e. SI. No. 8 to 25 and
28, 29 of the application for are to be provided in respect
of all the companies with whom the supply agreement is
executed. Such details may be provided on separate
sheets, in the proforma as given in Form A, with suitable
explanation. (Refer Form A)CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 7 of 343
II The following documents should be enclosed along
with the application form:
Certificate of registration showing that the
applicant is a company registered under Section-3
of the Indian Companies Act. This document
should be duly signed and stamped by the
Company Secretary of the Company. (1 copy)
Document showing the person/s who has/have
been authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant
company while dealing with any or all matters
connected with allocation of the sought coal
block/s for captive mining with the
Government/its agencies. This document should
be duly signed and stamped by the Company
Secretary of the Company. (5 copies)
Certified copy of the Memorandum and Articles
of Association of the applicant Company. (5
copies.)
Audited Annual Accounts/reports of last 3 years.
(5 copies)
Project report in respect of the end use plant. If
the project report is appraised by a lender, the
appraisal report shall also be submitted. (5 copies)
Detailed Schedule of implementation for the
proposed end use project and the proposed coal
mining development project including
Exploration programme (in respect of regionally
explored blocks) in the form of Bar Charts. (5
copies)
Scheme of disposal of unuseables containing
carbon obtained during mining of coal or at any
stage thereafter including washing. This scheme
must include the disposal/use to which the
middlings, tailings, rejects etc from the washery
are proposed to be put. (5 copies)
The above details are required to be submitted in
respect of all the concerned companies in case of
SPV/JV or Mining company.
Demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of PAO,
Ministry of Coal payable at New Delhi
A soft copy of details, as filled in the ApplicationCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 8 of 343
Form, is also to be furnished in the specified
Database Form (in MS-Excel format) in a CD
along with the Application.
III Applications without the above accompaniments
would be treated as incomplete and shall be rejected.”
9. Further for ascertaining inter se priority of various
applicants for allocation of coal blocks for captive use, the
following guidelines were uploaded on the website:
“9. Inter-se priority for allocation of a coal block among
competing applicants for a captive block may be decided
as per the following guidelines:
Status (stage) level of progress and state of preparedness
of the projects;
networth of the applicant company (or in the case of a
new SP/JV, the networth of their principles);
Production capacity as proposed in the application;
Maximum recoverable reserve as proposed in the
application;
Date of commissioning of captive mine as proposed in
the application;
Date of completion of detailed exploration (in respect of
unexplored blocks only) as proposed in the application;
Technical experience (in terms of existing capacities in
coal/lignite mining and specified end use);
Recommendation of the Administrative Ministry
concerned;
Recommendation of the State Government concerned
(i.e. where the captive block is located);
Track record and financial strength of the company.
Preference will be accorded to the power and the steel
sectors. Within the power sector also, priority shall be
accorded to projects with more than 500MW capacity.
Similarly, in steel sector, priority shall be given to steel
plants with more than 1 million tonne per annum
capacity.”
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 9 of 343
10. As regard the procedure for processing the
applications, the following guidelines were also put up on the
website:
“PROCESSING OF APPLICATION
The applications received in the Ministry of
Coal in five copies, after being checked for
eligibility and completeness, would be sent to
the administrative Ministry/State Government
concerned for their evaluation and
recommendations. After receipt of
recommendations of the administrative
Ministry/ State Government concerned, the
Screening Committee would consider the
applications and make its recommendations.
Based on the recommendations of the Screening
Committee, Ministry of Coal will determine the
allotment.”
11. Pursuant to the said advertisement and guidelines so
issued by MoC, M/s JICPL also applied for allotment of a
number of coal blocks situated in various States for captive use in
their proposed power generation project. As regard “Mahuagarhi
coal block” situated in the State of Jharkhand, the end use plant
i.e. 1215 MW power project was proposed to be established in
“Mirzapur, District Burdwan, West Bengal”. It was further stated
in the application for “Mahuagarhi coal block” that company M/s
JICPL was a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’ (“SPV”) managed by M/s
Inertia Iron & Steel Industries Private Limited (“IISIPL”) and
IL&FS Group. Accordingly networth of IL&FS Group, IISIPL
and that of M/s JICPL was mentioned in the application as Rs.
812.03 crores, 206.48 crores and Rs. 0.01 crores respectively. As
per the procedure to be followed for processing of applications,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 10 of 343
four out of five sets of each of the applications were sent to the
concerned Administrative Ministries i.e. MoP in the present case,
the State Governments where the impugned coal blocks were
situated or the end use projects were proposed to be established
and to CMPDIL. One set was, however, retained in MoC itself.
12. Upon receipt of one set of applications, MoP
entrusted the work of analyzing the claims of various applicant
companies to Central Electricity Authority (“CEA”). MoP also
undertook a number of correspondences with MoC. In one such
communication dated 20.06.2007, it was informed by Sh. Anil
Razdan, Secretary (Power) to Sh. H.C. Gupta, Secretary (Coal)
that the official recommendation on behalf of MoP would be
made only after presentation was made by the applicant
companies before the Screening Committee and feedback form,
if any, were submitted and the same were thereafter analyzed by
CEA and thereafter processed in the MoP.
13. On 20.06.2007 itself, as per the schedule issued by
MoC, a presentation was made on behalf of M/s JICPL before the
Screening Committee and a feedback form was also submitted.
However, in the said feedback form and the presentation so
made, the location of the proposed end use project was stated to
be “Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur, Bihar” as different from
“Mirzapur, District Burdwan, West Bengal” as was stated in the
application earlier submitted qua allocation of “Mahuagarhi coal
block”. Subsequently, CEA examined the matter at their own end.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 11 of 343
However as MoC had not issued any guidelines either to the
Administrative Ministry or to the State Governments while
seeking their views/comments on the applications of various
applicant companies so sent to them, so CEA at the instance of
MoP laid down its own criteria for short-listing the companies to
be recommended by MoP for allocation of coal blocks.
14. Initially, 187 number of applicants who had made
presentation before the Screening Committee were screened by
CEA for pre-qualification on the basis of (a) Networth and (b)
Project capacity. For the purpose of assessing the networth of the
company, CEA used the criteria of Ultra Mega Power Projects
(UMPP). It broadly stipulated requirement of Rs. 0.50 crore
networth per MW in case the capacity does not exceed 2000
MW. In case the capacity of the projects exceeded 2000 MW, the
networth requirement was Rs. 1000 crore or Rs. 0.25 crore per
MW. The CEA in this regard relied on the figures of networth
supplied by the companies in their feedback forms/presentations
made before the Screening Committee.
As regard the project capacity, CEA decided on a
minimum limit of 500 MW as the pre-qualification criteria. In
fact MoC had also stated in the initial advertisement that priority
would be accorded to the projects with 500 MW capacity or
more.
15. Thus out of a total of 187 applicants, only 115
applicant companies pre-qualified. Thereafter, CEA shortlisted
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 12 of 343
44 applicant companies from out of the said 115 pre-qualified
applicant companies on the basis of their preparedness to execute
the projects. The criteria followed in this regard was as follows:
a) Land acquisition (fully acquired, partially acquired,
process initiated),
b) Water allocation (fully allotted, partially allotted) and
c) Award i.e. status of placement of order for main plant
equipment.
16. The recommendation of CEA were sent to MoP with
the rider that the details/data submitted by the applicant
companies might be got verified before allocation of coal blocks.
The recommendations of CEA were accordingly communicated
by MoP to MoC and requested it to verify the claims/particulars
of the applicant companies before allocation of coal blocks vide
its letter dated 30.07.2007.
17. Accordingly, pursuant to directions of Screening
Committee as given in its meeting dated 30.07.2007, MoC
proceeded to get financial strength of the applicant companies
scrutinized independently with the help of Financial Experts
from Coal India Ltd. (“CIL”). Two officers of CIL i.e. Sh.
Samiran Dutta, Senior Manager (Finance) and Ms. Sushmita Sen
Gupta, Chief Manager (Finance), CIL were entrusted with the job
of cross-tallying the networth of the companies as stated in their
application forms vis-a-vis the respective balancesheets which
were annexed with the application forms.
18. The 35th Screening Committee, however, deliberated
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 13 of 343
the issue of allotment of coal blocks to different companies in a
number of its meetings and finally vide its meeting as held on
13.09.2007 recommended allotment of “Mahuagarhi Coal Block”
in Jharkhand jointly to M/s JICPL and M/s CESC. The said
recommendation of the Screening Committee thereafter came to
be approved by the Prime Minister as Minister of Coal. After
undertaking all necessary proceedings, a joint allocation letter
dated 09.01.2008 came to be finally issued by MoC in favour of
the two companies.
19. During the course of investigation, the IO collected
two Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 15.11.2006
and 08.01.2007 from the accused persons. The MoU dated
15.11.2006 was executed between M/s IISIPL and M/s JICPL.
The second MoU dated 08.01.2007 was executed between M/s
IISIPL and IL&FS. By virtue of MoU dated 15.11.2006, M/s
IISIPL had expressed its desire to develop an Integrated Energy
Project of 1215 MW capacity based on a captive coal mine and to
be located in the State of Jharkhand/Orissa/West Bengal
(“Project”). It also stated that M/s IISIPL desired to partner with
IL&FS in this regard. M/s JICPL had further agreed to be
appointed as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the said power
project and IISIPL had agreed to approach M/s IL&FS IDC to
join the SPV and the SPV in turn was to apply to MoC for
allotment of a captive coal block.
20. The MoU dated 08.01.07, however, talked of an
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 14 of 343
agreement between M/s IISIPL and IL&FS to jointly invest in the
SPV i.e. M/s JICPL for the establishment of the Integrated
Energy Project of 1215 MW capacity based on a captive coal
mine and to be located in the State of Jharkhand/Orissa/West
Bengal.
21. During the course of investigation, it was found that
as networth was an important factor governing allocation of coal
blocks to an applicant company, so the networth of IL&FS was
consciously used by the accused persons so as to inflate the
networth of M/s JICPL. Independent of the networth of IL&FS,
the networth of IISIPL and M/s JICPL was only Rs. 206.48
crores and Rs. 0.01 crores respectively. Accordingly, in view of
the criteria laid down by CEA to short-list the companies which
were to be recommended by MoP for allotment of coal blocks,
M/s JICPL would have certainly failed to meet the requisite
criteria. The minimum networth which was required as per the
criteria laid down by CEA for establishing a power project of
1215 MW was Rs. 607.5 crores i.e. @ of Rs. 0.50 crores per
MW.
22. Apart from the aforesaid material misrepresentation
made by M/s JICPL regarding its networth, it was also found that
it had deliberately withheld information about allocation of
previous coal blocks to its group companies both in the
application form and in the feedback form by stating that no coal
block had been previously allocated. It was however foundCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 15 of 343
during the course of investigation that four other coal blocks
were earlier allocated to Abhijeet group of companies of which
M/s JICPL was a group company. It is alleged that the said
information was deliberately withheld as the performance of the
group companies qua the development of said earlier four coal
blocks allocated was unsatisfactory.
23. During the course of investigation, IO collected yet
another MoU dated 31.03.06, executed between the family
members of Jayaswal family namely Basant Lall Shaw, Arbind
Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal (Jointly first party) and Manoj
Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal, Abhishek Jayaswal and Avneesh
Jayaswal (Jointly second party). As per the said MoU, the
companies which fell to the share of the second party to the said
MoU formed part of “Abhijeet Group of Companies”. The
companies falling to the share of first party to the MoU fell in the
share of “NECO group of companies”. The said MoU mentioned
the principle operating companies of both groups as under :
Neco Group of Companies Abhijeet Group of Companies
1. Jayaswals Neco Limited 1. Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited
2. Neco Castings Limited 2. Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited
3. Jayaswal Holdings 3. JAS Toll Road Company
Private Limited Limited
4. Neco Ceramics Limited 4. Jayaswals Ashoka
Infrastructure Private Limited
5. NSSL Limited 5. Chitarpur Coal and Power
6. Maa Usha Urja Limited Limited
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 16 of 343
24. Thus beside M/s IISIPL which was part of “Abhijeet
Group of Companies”, there were five other group companies as
mentioned above under the “Abhijeet Group of Companies”.
During investigation, it also transpired that three Coal Blocks
namely “Brinda”, “Sisai” and “Meral” at Jharkhand were earlier
allotted to M/s Abhijeeet Infrastructure Limited and one Coal
Block namely “Chitarpur” at Jharkhand was allotted to M/s
Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited.
25. From the statement of Sudhir Gupta who was
working as Chief Executive Officer with M/s Abhijeet Group of
Industries and had signed the application form coupled with the
statement of Harshad Pophali, Manager, Mining Department in
the Abhijeet Group of Industries and that of Dr. Vidya Sagar
Garg who was a Director of M/s Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd., it
also became clear that the information submitted in the
application form was provided by accused Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal, i.e. the promoter of Abhijeet Group of companies.
26. However, despite having garnered sufficient
incriminating evidence against the accused persons which could
have warranted filing of a charge-sheet against them, as is
evident from the aforesaid circumstances, CBI chose to file a
closure report.
27. The conclusion of the investigation was thus that
M/s JIPCL had not obtained any undue benefit from MoC by not
declaring previous allocation. Further no material was found to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 17 of 343
show commission of any offence of criminal conspiracy or
cheating.
28. As such a closure report was filed by the CBI on
15.04.2014.
29. My Learned Predecessor considered the closure
report. On 09.09.2014, it was stated on behalf of CBI that they
would be filing a revised closure report which would be detailed
and explanatory in nature. As such revised closure report was
filed on 14.10.2014.
30. Vide detailed order dated 20.11.2014, my Learned
Predecessor disagreed with the closure report and observed that
the private parties i.e. the company and its directors appeared to
have committed offence of cheating by obtaining allocation of
coal block on the basis of false representations and that there was
active connivance between them and public servants i.e. officials
of MoC. He also observed that offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act“) were also revealed. In para No.
53 and 54 of the order dated 20.11.2014 it was observed as
under:
“53. In view of my above discussion the conclusion
drawn by the investigating agency to close the case
thus cannot be accepted. Prima facie offence of
cheating i.e. u/s 420 IPC by the private parties
involved has been committed in furtherance of a
criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B IPC hatched
between them and the officers of MOC and
Screening Committee. At the same time the MOC
Officers and the Screening Committee have prima
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 18 of 343
facie committed offences of criminal breach of trust
and of criminal mis-conduct i.e. u/s 409 IPC and
Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) (iii) PC Act in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B
IPC entered into by them with the private parties
involved. The crucial question which now arises is
as to against which of the persons, be the private
parties or the public servants the cognizance of
various offences needs to be taken.
54. Besides M/s JICPL, the company which applied
for allocation of Coal Block, its director M.K.
Jayaswal at whose instance the false information
was submitted or the misrepresentation was made
are prima facie liable to be proceeded against. It is
also prima facie clear that Sh. H.C. Gupta, who was
Secretary, MOC and was also the Chairman of
Screening Committee, Sh. K.S. Kropha, the then
Joint Secretary, MOC and who was also the
Member Convener beside Sh. K.C. Samaria, the
then Director, CA-I, MOC (all the applications were
received in the office of Director CA-I, and his
office supervised the entire process of processing
the applications right through the entire process of
allocation of Coal Blocks) were the persons
responsible to take all those necessary safeguards
which were necessary to protect the public interest
and thus they ought to be proceeded against. Their
conduct clearly falls within the four corners of the
offence of criminal mis-conduct as defined in
Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) (iii) PC Act besides
offence u/s 409 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC.”
31. Thereafter my Learned Predecessor observed that
sanction was required for prosecution of K.S. Kropha and K.C.
Samria as they were in service whereas no sanction was required
against accused H.C. Gupta as he had retired. As such he sent the
matter for further investigation for obtaining sanction.
32. Thereafter, the matter was going on awaiting
sanction. However, the sanction did not come. As such on
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 19 of 343
22.07.2015, vide a detailed order, my Learned Predecessor held
that in the given facts and circumstances, and as the competent
sanctioning authority had failed to take any decision on the
request of CBI for according sanction to prosecute public
servants u/s 19 PC Act, the sanction should be deemed to have
been granted. Thus, sanction against K.S. Kropha and K.C.
Samria u/s 19 PC Act was deemed to have been granted.
33. Thereafter vide another detailed order dated
31.07.2015, my Learned Predecessor took cognizance of the
offences u/s.120-B IPC and that of offences u/s. 120-B IPC, r/w
Section 409/420 IPC and Section 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
against all the accused persons i.e. M/s. Jas Infrastructure Capital
Pvt. Ltd., its Director Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, H.C. Gupta, the
then Secretary, Ministry of Coal, K.S. Kropha, the then Joint
Secretary, Ministry of Coal and K.C. Samria, the then Director,
Ministry of Coal. He also took cognizance of the offence u/s.
13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988 and section 409 IPC against
accused H.C. Gupta, K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria. He also took
cognizance of the offence u/s. 420 IPC against accused M/s. Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd., and its Director Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal.
34. All the accused persons appeared and were admitted
to bail. Company M/s JICPL appointed Sh. Sanjeev Kumar as
its AR u/s 305 CrPC. Copies of the chargesheet were supplied to
the accused persons as per Section 207 CrPC.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 20 of 343
PART – B
THE CHARGE
35. Thereafter my Learned Predecessor heard parties on
the point of charge and vide detailed order dated 07.12.2016,
charge for the offences u/s 120-B IPC; 120-B/409/420 IPC &
Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) P.C. Act 1988 was ordered to be
framed against all the accused persons i.e. company M/s JICPL,
its director Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, and the three public servants
i.e. accused H.C. Gupta, K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria. Charge
for the substantive offence i.e. u/s 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(c)
and 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 was also ordered to be framed
against accused H.C. Gupta; Charge for the substantive offence
of cheating i.e. u/s 420 IPC was ordered to be framed against
company M/s JICPL and its director Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
Charge for the substantive offence u/s 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988
was also ordered to be framed against the two public servants i.e.
accused K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria.
36. All the accused persons, however, pleaded not guilty
to all the charges so framed against them and claimed trial.
37. The charges so framed are being reproduced here for
ready reference, as follows:
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 21 of 343
CHARGEA-1 to A-5
“That during the year 2006-09 at Maharashtra, West
Bengal, Bihar, New Delhi and other places, you all i.e.
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital
Pvt. Ltd., H.C. Gupta, K.S. Kropha, and K.C. Samria
entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Ministry of
Coal, Government of India so as to procure allocation
of a captive Coal Block, in favour of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. by adopting various
illegal means viz by making false claims about the net
worth of M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.,
appraisal and syndication of debt, promoters of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. and also concealed
information about previous allocation of coal blocks to
the group or associate companies of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the application form
and the feedback form and by way of various acts of
omission and commission amounting to criminal
misconduct/criminal breach of trust/criminal
misappropriation by the public servants i.e. MOC
officers, the details of which have been described in the
detailed order on charge dated 07.12.2016 passed
separately and you all thereby committed the offence of
criminal conspiracy being punishable u/s 120-B IPC
and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the aforesaid period and in
furtherance of the common object of the criminal
conspiracy as described above you all did various acts
of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 22 of 343
misconduct by public servants as described above and
qua which substantive charges have been framed
separately and you all thereby committed offences
punishable u/s 120-B r/w 409, 420 IPC and 13(1)(c) &
13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.”
CHARGE
A-1 & A-2
“That you all i.e. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2006-09 at
Maharashtra, West Bengal, Bihar, New Delhi and other
places in furtherance of the common object of the criminal
conspiracy (as described in the charge separately framed)
hatched by you all with your other co-accused persons i.e.
HC Gupta, KS Kropha and KC Samria, officers of MoC
cheated Ministry of Coal, Government of India by
dishonestly or fraudulently making false claims about the
net worth of M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.,
appraisal and syndication of debt, promoters of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. and also concealed
information about previous allocation of coal blocks to the
group or associate complanies of M/s Jas Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the application form and feedback
form, and thereby induced Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India
to allocate “Mahuagarhi coal block” in favour of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd., and you both thereby
committed an offence u/s 420 IPC and within my
cognizance.”
CHARGE
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 23 of 343
A-3
“That you being the Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Government of India and Chairman, 35th Screening
Committee, Ministry of Coal, in the year 2006-09 at New
Delhi and while working as such public servant showed
undue favour in furtherance of the common object of the
criminal conspiracy (as described in the charge separately
framed) as hatched with your co-accused persons i.e.
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt.
Ltd., KS Kropha and KC Samria in order to procure
allocation of a captive coal block in favour of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd., in as much as you being
Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India and Chairman
35th Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal did not ensure
the checking of applications to see their completeness and
eligibility and that the application of M/s Jas Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd. was liable to be rejected out rightly, as
beside being incomplete the company M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. had also dishonestly used
net worth of M/s. Inertia Iron & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
and IL&FS in the application form and feedback form and
in the presentation and you also did not ensure the
checking/scrutiny of applications either before the
applications were considered by the Screening Committee
or even after recommendations were made by the
Screening Committee, when limited applications were only
left to be scrutinised and that you also did not follow the
guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Coal for making
final recommendations for allotment of coal blocks and
thereby committed various acts of omission and
commission as also described in detail in the order onCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 24 of 343
charge dated 07.12.2016 passed separately, and the said
acts of omission and commission committed by you
amounted to acts of criminal misconduct by a public
servant with a view to secure allocation of “Mahuagarhi”
Coal Block situated in state of Jharkhand in favour of M/s
Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd from MoC and you
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) PC
Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
Secondly you in your capacity as the Secretary Ministry
of Coal, Government of India and Chairman, 35th Screening
Committee, Ministry of Coal, during the aforesaid period
were having dominion over the nationalized natural
resources of the country i.e. “coal” as available in various
coal blocks including that of “Mahuagarhi” situated in the
state of Jharkhand and which coal blocks were to be
allocated to the eligible companies on the recommendation
of the Screening Committee (as constituted by MOC) to be
made in accordance with the guidelines for allocation
issued in this regard by Ministry of Coal and knowing fully
well that the allocation of various coal blocks to different
applicant companies shall be on the basis of
recommendation of the Screening Committee headed by
you but you in furtherance of the common object of the
criminal conspiracy (as mentioned in the charge separately
framed) as hatched with the other co-accused persons
dishonestly and fraudulently recommended part allocation
of “Mahuagarhi” in violation of the guidelines issued in
this regard governing such allocation of coal blocks and in
violation of the trust so imposed in you by law and thereby
facilitated M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. and its
directors to misappropriate and convert to their own use the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 25 of 343
impugned coal block i.e. “Mahuagarhi coal block” and you
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(c) PC
Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
Thirdly you in your capacity as Secretary Ministry of
Coal, Government of India and Chairman, 35 th Screening
Committee, Ministry of Coal, during the aforesaid period
were having dominion over the nationalized natural
resources of the country i.e. “coal” as available in various
coal blocks including that of “Mahuagarhi coal block”,
situated in the State of Jharkhand and which coal blocks
were to be allocated to the eligible companies on the
recommendation of the Screening Committee (as
constituted by MOC) to be made in accordance with the
guidelines for allocation issued in this regard by Ministry
of Coal and knowing fully well that the allocation of
various coal blocks to different applicant companies shall
be on the basis of recommendation of the Screening
Committee headed by you but you dishonestly in
furtherance of the common object of the criminal
conspiracy (as mentioned in the charge separately framed)
hatched with your co-accused persons recommended part
allocation of “Mahuagarhi coal block”, in favour of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. in violation of the
guidelines issued in this regard governing such allocation
of coal blocks and the mode in which the trust so imposed
in you by law was to be discharged and thereby facilitated
allocation of impugned coal block i.e. “Mahuagarhi coal
block” in favour of M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.
and thus disposed of the said property i.e. coal block as
above and you thereby committed an offence punishable
u/s 409 IPC and within my cognizance.”
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 26 of 343
CHARGEA-4
“That you being Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Government of India and Member Convener, 35 th
Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal, in the year 2006-
09 at New Delhi and while working as such public servant
showed undue favour in furtherance of the common object
of the criminal conspiracy (as described in the charge
separately framed) and as hatched with your co-accused
persons i.e. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, M/s Jas Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd., H.C. Gupta and K.C. Samria in order to
procure allocation of a captive coal block in favour of M/s
Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.in as much as you being
Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India and Member
Convener, 35th Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal did
not ensure the checking of applications to see their
completeness and eligibility and that the application of M/s
Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. was liable to be rejected
out rightly, as beside being incomplete the company M/s
Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. had also dishonestly
used net worth of M/s. Inertial Iron & Steel Industries Pvt.
Ltd. and IL&FS in the application and feedback form and
you also did not ensure the checking of applications either
before the time when applications were considered by the
Screening Committee or even after recommendations were
made by the Screening Committee, when limited
applications were only left and that you also did not ensure
that the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Coal for
making final recommendations for allotment of coal blocks
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 27 of 343
are followed and thereby committed various acts of
omission and commission as described in detail in the order
on charge dated 07.12.2016 passed separately, and the said
acts of omission and commission committed by you
amount to acts of criminal misconduct by a public servant
with a view to secure allocation of “Mahuagarhi” situated
in state of Jharkhand, in favour of M/s Jas Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd. from MoC and you thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988 and within
my cognizance.”
CHARGE
A-5
“That you being Director, CA-I, Ministry of Coal,
Government of India in the year 2006-09 at New Delhi
and while working as such public servant showed undue
favour in furtherance of the common object of the criminal
conspiracy (as described in the charge separately framed)
as hatched with your co-accused persons i.e. Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal, M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.,
H.C. Gupta and K.S. Kropha in order to procure allocation
of a captive coal block in favour of M/s Jas Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd., in as much as you being Director, CA-I,
Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India did not ensure the
checking of applications qua their completeness and
eligibility and that the application of M/s Jas Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd. was liable to be rejected out rightly, as
beside being incomplete the company M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. had also dishonestly used
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 28 of 343
net worth of M/s. Inertia Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. and
IL&FS in the application and feedback form and you also
did not ensure the checking of applications either before
the time when applications were considered by the
Screening Committee or even after recommendations were
made by the Screening Committee, when limited
applications were only left and thereby committed various
acts of omission and commission as described in detail in
the order on charge dated 07.12.2016 passed separately
and the said acts of omission and commission committed
by you amount to acts of criminal misconduct by a public
servant with a view to secure allocation of “Mahuagarhi”
situated in state of Jharkhand, in favour of M/s Jas
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd., from MoC and you
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) PC
Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.”
38. Admission/denial of the documents u/s 294 CrPC
was carried out by all the accused persons. Various documents
were admitted and thus exhibited. Thereafter, prosecution
examined its witnesses.
PART – C
THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
39. Prosecution, thereafter, in order to prove the charges,
examined 18 witnesses. However, examination-in-chief of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 29 of 343
witnesses namely Sh. Piyush Goyal, Sh. S.P. Rana, Sh. Ved
Prakash Sharma, Sh. Ram Naresh, Sh. A. Sanjay Sahay, Sh. K.P
Singh and Sh. Gordhan Singh was led by way of affidavits u/s
296 CrPC as their evidence was of formal character only. Though
all the said witnesses were also tendered for cross-examination
but accused persons chose not to cross-examine them.
40. For the purpose of clear understanding, the
witnesses can be grouped as follows:
Witness(es) from: PW's Number & Name
From NECO Group of PW-1 Sh. Harshad Pophali
Companies and Abhijeet
PW-2 Sh. Murli Lahoti
Group of Companies
including JICPL PW-3 Sh. Sanjay Dey
PW-6 Sh. Sudhir Gupta
PW-10 Sh. P.N. Krishnan
IL&FS IDC PW-7 Sh. S. Baskaran
PW-8 Sh. Sanjay Mundley
PW-9 Sh. Pankaj Sakhuja
Office of Coal Controller PW-4 Sh. R.K Sutradhar
Ministry of Coal PW-11 Sh. V.S. Rana
PW-18 Sh. S.K. Shahi
Ministry of Power or CEA PW-14 Sh. Anil Kumar Kutty
PW-15 Sh. Manjit Singh Puri
Govt. of WB PW-12 Sh. Bhaskar Khulbe
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 30 of 343
Coal India Ltd. PW-13 Ms. Sushmita Sengupta
CBI PW-5 Dy. SP Tej Pal Singh
PW-16 Dy. SP K.L. Moses
PW-17 Dy. SP Himanshu
Bahuguna
From NECO Group of Companies and Abhijeet Group of
Companies including JICPL
41. PW-1 Harshad Pophali was working as General
Manager in M/s Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. (“CIAL”). He had
joined the said company in 2005 and resigned in January 2014.
He told that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 was the Chairman of
the company and Sh. Abhishek Jayaswal was the Group
Managing Director. He told that he was working in the Mining
Division so he used to report to Dr. V.S. Garg who was heading
the Mining Division in the company and was also a director
therein.
42. PW-1 told that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 and his
elder brother Sh. Arbind Jayaswal were directors in JICPL/A-1
company. However, he himself was never an employee of JICPL.
43. He deposed that a number of applications were
prepared for seeking allocation of different coal blocks and
which were to be submitted to MoC qua various companies such
as M/s AMR Iron & Steel Ltd., M/s JLD Yavatmal and M/S
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 31 of 343
JICPL. He told that the application of JICPL was prepared in the
mining department of M/s CIAL itself where he was working. He
told that he was the only mining engineer working there. He told
that the application was signed by Sh. Sudhir Gupta, Chief
Executive Officer.
44. He told that various applications were prepared in
their department for different coal blocks and the same were
prepared as per the instructions which used to be given by Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 and Dr. V.S. Garg. Accordingly, he used to
get the applications prepared. The application of M/s JICPL
alongwith covering letter and authority letter is Ex. PW 1/A
(Colly.) (D-3). He told that the different annexures numbering
twelve as annexed with the application form Ex. PW 1/A (Colly.)
were received from various departments working at the said
office. He told that documents related to accounts / balance
sheets were received from the office of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
He told that all the information was filled up upon instructions of
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal/A-2. He particularly referred to the
information at point 8, 9 and 10 in the application form in this
regard.
45. PW-1 further deposed about previous allocations to
companies of the group. He told that prior to the submission of
the present application, four coal blocks were already allotted to
two group companies of “Abhijeet Group”. He gave details that
“Chitarpur Coal Block” was already alloted to M/s CIAL and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 32 of 343
“Brinda”, “Sisai” and “Meral” Coal Blocks were already allotted
to M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. (“AIL”). He further told that
“Moitra” and “Gare Palma IV /4” Coal Blocks were already
allotted to M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. He told that Sh. Basant Lal
Shaw, father of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, used to look after the
work of M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. along with his two other sons
namely Sh. Ramesh Jayaswal and Sh. Arbind Jayaswal.
46. He told that the information regarding earlier
allocation of blocks to applicant company or to group or
associated company at point 29 and 30 in the application of M/s
JICPL was mentioned as “NO” as per the instructions of Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal.
47. He identified signatures of Dr. V.S. Garg on letter
dated 13.07.2007 addressed to the Director, Office of the Coal
Controller, Kolkata submitting status report for the period ending
31.06.2007 for Chitarpur Coal Block allotted to M/s CIAL. The
letter is Ex. PW1/B (Colly.) (D-49). He further identified
signature of Dr. V.S. Garg on another letter dated 02.10.2007
whereby status report for the period ending 30.09.2007 for
Chitarpur Coal Block allotted to M/s CIAL was sent to Deputy
Assistant, Coal Controller, Office of Coal Controller. The letter is
Ex. PW1/C (Colly.)(D-50).
48. He deposed that he had also attended Screening
Committee meeting of MoC in connection with the aforesaid
application of M/s JICPL seeking allocation of Mahuagarhi Coal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 33 of 343
Block. He told that in fact Sh. P.N. Krishanan who was a
Director in one of the Company was to attend the Screening
Committee Meeting but Manoj Kumar Jayaswal directed him to
accompany Sh. Krishanan as copies of the presentation were to
be distributed to the members of Screening Committee and he
was to distribute the copies. Along with the presentation, a
feedback form was also submitted to the Screening Committee.
He told that the presentation and the feedback form were
prepared in their department/office at Nagpur itself and the same
were prepared as per the instructions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
He told that two officers of IL&FS were also present along with
them at the Screening Committee Meeting.
49. He identified his signature on attendance sheet of
Screening Committee meeting as held on 20.06.2007 (available
from page 60 to 66 in D-29). The attendance sheet is Ex. PW1/D.
He identified signature of Sh. P.N. Krishanan on feedback
form (available on page 1383 to 1384 in D-34). The feedback
form is Ex. PW1/E. He told that the presentation before the
Screening Committee on behalf of M/s JICPL was made by Sh.
P.N. Krishanan himself. The copy of presentation of M/s JICPL
is Ex. PW1/F (D-34, Pg. 68 onwards).
50. He identified signature of Sh. Vivek Kumar on
search list dated 04.09.2012 which is Ex. PW1/G (D-15).
According to PW-1, no one from IL&FS was a Director in M/s
JICPL.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 34 of 343
51. He told that the information furnished at point 6
regarding Core business of the company was also furnished at
instance of A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal which was to the
following effect:
” JICPL is an SPV managed by Intertia Iron & Steel
Industries Private Limited and IL&FS Group and
the core business includes Steel Making and
providing finances for development of
infrastructure. The company has now decided to
diversify into Coal Mining & Power Generation”
52. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, he
denied that at the time of preparation of application Ex. PW1/A
(Colly.), he used to report to Sh. A.K. Srivastava as he was Head
of Mining Department.
53. He told that Sh. Sudhir Gupta signed the application
after first confirming from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He told that
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 used to give verbal instructions. He
told that when he took the application Ex. PW1/A (Colly.) to Sh.
Sudhir Gupta for signing then at that time he was not aware that
any information mentioned in the application was false.
54. He told that during the course of investigation, his
statement U/s 161 CrPC had been recorded in various cases. It
has come that at the time when he took the application Ex.
PW1/A (Colly.) to Sh. Sudhir Gupta for getting it signed, then at
that time also he was aware that no Mining Division of M/s
JICPL had been established till then. At that time he was also
aware that four coal blocks had already been allocated to two
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 35 of 343
other group companies of Abhijeet Group. He denied the
suggestion that at the time of filing of application Ex. PW1/A
(Colly.) with MoC, the Mining Division of M/s JICPL was
already established.
55. He told that he did not understand the meaning of
the term “Group or Associated Company”. He admitted that he
did not understand the meaning of the term “Group or
Associated Company”. He denied that being in Mining
Department, he had filled up all the information in the
application on his own volition or that no instructions were ever
given to him in this regard by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He was
confronted with his statement U/s 161 CrPC Ex. PW1/DX-1,
wherein he had stated that he was not associated with the
preparation of feedback form. He was further confronted
regarding various portions of his examination-in-chief.
56. PW-2 is Murli Lahoti. He is from M/s. Jayaswal
Neco Industries Ltd., Nagpur. He had handed over some
documents to CBI.
57. The production-cum-seizure memo dated
02.05.2013 is Ex. PW-2/A (D-23). He had handed over one MoU
dated 31.03.2006, executed between Sh. Basant Lal Shaw and his
family members. The copy of MoU dated 31.03.2006 is Ex.
PW2/B (D-24).
58. PW-3 is Sh. Sanjay Dey. He told that he had joined
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 36 of 343
M/s Abhijeet Power Ltd. in 2010. He told that A-2 Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal was the Chairman of the said company. He had also
worked in CIAL and M/s Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. prior to
joining M/s Abhijeet Power Ltd. He told that all these companies
were part of same group.
59. He told that earlier all the companies were part of
one group of family companies headed by Sh. Basant Lal Shaw
and the said companies were commonly known as “NECO Group
of Industries”. He told that during the period 2006-08, a split in
the Basant Lal Shaw family took place and the various
companies came to be categorised under two separate heads i.e.
“NECO Group of Industries” and “Abhijeet Group of Industries”.
He further told that “Abhijeet Group of Industries” had come into
existence prior to the said formal split in the family.
60. He was aware of documents related to the split. One
such document was called “Vyavastha Patra” and another one
was “Indenture of Family Settlement”. He told that as per
MoU dated 31.03.2006 [Ex. PW2/B, D-24], the various family
companies were divided under NECO Group of Companies and
Abhijeet Group of Companies as under:
Neco Group of Companies Abhijeet Group of Companies
1. Jayaswals Neco Limited 1. Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited
2. Neco Castings Limited 2. Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited
3.Jayaswal Holdings 3. JAS Toll Road Company Limited
Private LimitedCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 37 of 343
4. Neco Ceramics Limited 4. Jayaswals Ashoka Infrastructure
Private limited
5. NSSL Limited 5. Chitarpur Coal and Power Limited
6. Maa Usha Urja Limited
61. He knew about IISIPL and JICPL. He identified his
signature on MoU executed between IISIPL and JICPL dated
15.11.2006 which is Ex. PW3/A (D-17, Pg. 1 to 3). He identified
signature of H.C. Joshi on MoU executed between IISIPL and
IL&FS IDC dated 08.01.2007 which is Ex. PW3/B (D-17, PG. 5
to 12) regarding submission of application to MoC for seeking
allocation of coal block and for working together for establishing
steel and power projects. He deposed that he had participated in
meetings where talks between Abhijeet Group and IL&FS
regarding partnering together were held. He told that on behalf
of Abhijeet Group, A-2 Manoj Jayaswal, Abhishek Jayaswal,
P.N. Krishnan and he himself used to participate in the said
meetings and on behalf of IL&FS, Sh. Pankaj Sakhuja, Sh.
Sanjay Mundley and Sh. Alok Verma used to participate in the
said meetings.
62. He told that the MoU dated 08.01.2007 [Ex. PW3/B]
was initially entered into for a period of six months from the date
of execution. He knew that an application was submitted on
behalf of M/s JICPL to MoC for seeking allocation of a coal
block. He told that he was neither an employee of IISIPL nor was
on the Board of Directors of the said company.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 38 of 343
63. He identified his signature on another MoU dated
02.04.2007, entered into between IISIPL and IL&FS regarding
developing a 2 MTPA integrated steel plant and an integrated
energy project of 1215 MW capacity based on captive coal
mines, to be located in Distt. Burdwan, in the State of West
Bengal. The MoU dated 02.04.2007 is Ex. PW3/C [D-7, Pg. 1-7].
The MoU dated 02.04.2007 Ex. PW3/C was effective for a
period of 12 months from the date of execution. He told that he
had signed the MoU Ex. PW3/C on the directions of Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal.
64. He also deposed about previous allocation to
different companies of Abhijeet Group. He further told that
subsequently Mahuagarhi coal block was jointly allotted to M/s
JICPL and M/s CESCL by MoC. He told that both JICPL and
CESCL formed a joint venture company and accordingly a joint
venture agreement dt. 04.12.2007 was entered into between
them. The copy of joint venture agreement Ex. PW3/D [D-32,
Pg. 221-243]. The said joint venture agreement was sent to MoC
vide letter dated 04.12.07 jointly by JICPL and CESC Ltd. The
copy of said letter dated 04.12.2007 is Ex. PW3/E [D-32, Pg.
220].
65. He told that one Indenture of Family Settlement
(“IFS”) dated 31.07.2008 was executed amongst Sh. Basant Lal
Shaw and his three sons namely Arbind Kumar Jayaswal, Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal. In order to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 39 of 343
ensure that no dispute might arrive in future, all the other family
members i.e. the spouses and children of the executants of the
aforesaid IFS also signed the same. He identified signatures of
Sh. Basant Lal Shaw, Arbind Jayaswal, Manoj Jayaswal, Ramesh
Jayaswal and signatures of Sh. B.K. Aggarwal and Sh. Sohan
Chaturvedi. The Indenture of Family Settlement (IFS) is Ex. PW
3/F (Part of D-20).
66. As per the said IFS Ex. PW 3/F, M/s JICPL had
come to the share of “MKJ Group” i.e. that of Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal/A-2 as is mentioned in the fifth schedule [at Pg. 99] of
the family settlement. M/s IISIPL had come to the share of “BLS
Group” i.e. that of Sh. Basant Lal Shaw as is mentioned in the
fourth schedule of the family settlement.
67. The companies mentioned in the 5th schedule of the
settlement were to come to the share of “MKJ Group” i.e. of
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He identified signatures of Manoj
Jayaswal on various other documents executed under Companies
Act 1956, and that of Anand Jayaswal and his own signatures on
the office copy of a letter dated 11.01.2008 addressed to IL&FS
(available at page 22 of D-16). He further identified signatures of
Manoj Jayaswal on various other documents such as certified
true copy of Board Resolution dated 04.03.09 of JICPL and
Directors report of JICPL (available from page 25 -30 in D-16).
Witness has also identified his own signatures on an application
submitted to National Securities Depository Ltd. on behalf of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 40 of 343
JICPL for demating of the shares of JICPL and as is available
from page 31-36 in D-16. He also identified signatures of Arbind
Jayaswal and that of A.D. Karajgaonkar on Memorandum and
Articles of Association of JICPL. He identified Certificate of
Incorporation of JICPL as issued on 16.07.2002 and fresh
certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name
whereby the earlier name M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.
was changed to M/s Jas Infrastructure Capital Ltd. All these
documents (available in D-16) are Ex. PW3/G (Colly.).
68. He identified signature of Manoj Jayaswal on letter
dated 06.05.13 addressed to SP, CBI (available in D-25) and also
on copy of agreement dated 02.03.2009 as enclosed with the
letter. The letter alongwith copy of agreement dated 02.03.2009
is Ex. PW3/H (Colly.)(D-25).
69. He deposed that subsequent to allocation of coal
block in favour of JICPL by MoC, about 10% shares in JICPL
were issued in favour of IL&FS. The share certificate is Ex.
PW3/J [D-12, Pg. 12] vide which shares numbering 23660 of
JICPL were issued to IL&FS. One copy of a letter dated
14.10.08 (D-14, Pg. 10) vide which IL&FS had sent to JICPL
details of the transactions undertaken by it is Ex. PW3/K. He
told that around the year 2010 or 2011, IL&FS had transferred
their equity in JICPL in favour of Abhijeet Group.
70. Clarifying about the term “Special Purpose Vehicle
(SPV)” with reference to a company, he told that though the same
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 41 of 343
has not been defined under Companies Act but it is usually
understood as a company which is brought into existence/
designated to achieve any particular objective and after the said
objective comes to an end then the said company also ceases to
exist. A subsidiary company and a holding company both have
been defined under Section 2 companies Act, 1956 as well as
under 2013 Act.
71. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, he
stated that in view of Clause 27 and 28 of Memorandum of
Association of the company, there was no bar for A-1 company in
applying for allocation of a coal block.
72. He admitted receiving a proposal of IL&FS given to
IISIPL which is Ex. PW3/DX-2 [D-9, Pg. 5-26]. He told that in
none of the meetings or discussions which he held with IL&FS
officers, they never stated or expressed any objection either
towards the contents of the application or that of the presentation
or feedback form. He admitted that the following were
mentioned as incidental or ancillary objects of JICPL in its
Memorandum of Association:
27. To carry on business of setting up facilities, plants
for generation, distribution of all kinds and/or forms of
energy, whether from conventional sources such as
thermal, hydel and gases or from non conventional
sources such as wind, solar, coal bed methane, synthetic
gas, and biomass including operation/ maintenance of
facilities for generation of all forms of energy.
28. To carry on the business of prospecting,
surveying, mining, digging, raising, manipulating,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 42 of 343
washing, beneficiating and operating coal mines for
mining, supplying and distributing coal and other
natural resources or reserves.
73. PW-6 is Sh. Sudhir Gupta. At the relevant time he
was working with Abhijeet Group of companies as CEO of the
Group. He told that Manoj Jayaswal was the Managing Director
of the Abhijeet Group. He told that there were lot of companies
in Abhijeet Group such as Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd.; JAS Toll
Road company limited; Abhijeet Roads Limited, etc.
74. He told that Manoj Jayaswal was MD of JICPL/A-1.
PW-6 deposed that he had signed the application for seeking coal
block allocation on behalf of JICPL. He identified the signatures
at various places on the application which is Ex. PW6/A (Colly.)
(D-3). He told that the application was prepared by Sh. Harshad
Pophali and was brought to him only for signatures. He had
signed six applications on behalf of the company for seeking
allocation of coal blocks. The covering letter along with
application of company JICPL for Mahuagarhi coal block is Ex.
PW6/E (Colly.). The others are Ex. PW6/B (Colly.); Ex. PW 6/C
(Colly.); Ex. PW6/D (Colly.); Ex. PW6/F (Colly.); Ex. PW 6/G
(Colly.); and Ex. PW6/H (Colly.). He was not aware as to which
coal block was finally allotted to company JICPL.
75. He identified his signature on a copy of letter dated
14.09.2007 [Ex. PW5/B (Colly.), D-18, Pg. 64-65]. He told that
this letter was written by him at the asking of Manoj Kumar
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 43 of 343
Jayaswal/A-2. The letter is Ex. PW6/J (part of D-18). He further
identified his signatures on a letter dated 17.09.2007 which is
addressed to Secretary Coal, Govt. of India which is Ex. PW6/K
[D-18, Pg. 77-79).
76. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, he
stated that when Harshad Pophali (PW-1) had brought the various
applications to him for his signatures then he had asked PW-1 as
to whether PW-1 had seen them and PW-1 told that he had seen
the applications and had verified the information mentioned in
the said applications and found them correct. He told that before
signing the applications, he had talked to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal
on intercom. He (Manoj Kumar Jayaswal) told him to sign the
same.
77. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 CrPC
dated 05.09.2012 [Ex. PW6/DX-1] wherein there was no
reference of letter dated 14.09.2007 [Ex. PW 6/J].
78. PW-10 is Sh. P.N. Krishnan. He had made
presentation on behalf of JICPL. He told that he made
presentation before the Screening Committee on behalf of JICPL
in electronic form. He further stated that in fact he was asked to
make a presentation before the Screening Committee on behalf of
MADC as Abhijeet Group had entered into a contract with them
and MADC had applied for allocation of a coal block to
Screening Committee, MoC. As regard JICPL, the presentation
was to be made by one Sh. Arun Gupta who was CEO of power
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 44 of 343
projects of Abhijeet Group. However Sh. Arun Gupta did not
come to the meeting venue on that day and so Sh. Manoj
Jayaswal asked him to make the presentation on behalf of JICPL
also. However, as regard MADC project, no presentation was
made as Screening Committee had not considered application of
any company for a power project of less than 500 MW capacity.
He deposed that Manoj Jayaswal/A-2 had told him in the
morning of 20.06.2007 itself at his office at Defence Colony,
Delhi that Arun Gupta was not coming so he (PW-10) might have
to make presentation on behalf of JICPL. He told that all the
relevant documents were provided to him at the meeting venue
itself by Harshad Pophali (PW-1). The said document also
included a feedback form.
79. He identified his signature on the feedback form Ex.
PW1/E. He told that when the feedback form was given to him
by Sh. Harshad Pophali then as the said feedback form was
containing a number of information so he rang up Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal and informed him about the same and he asked him to
sign it and submit the same to Screening Committee.
Accordingly, he signed the feedback form and submitted the
same to Screening Committee on behalf of JICPL.
80. In the cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, he
admitted that the two officers of IL&FS IDC also saw the
presentation and the feedback form as they were present in the
meeting hall. They did not object that any information over there
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 45 of 343
was incorrect.
81. He told that at the time of Screening Committee
meeting held on 20.06.2007, it was in his knowledge that both
CIAL and AIL had earlier been allotted captive coal blocks. He
denied not having any talks with Sh. Manoj Jayaswal either
regarding the Screening Committee meeting or as regard
feedback form or the presentation submitted to the Screening
Committee.
From IL&FS IDC
82. PW-7 S. Bhaskaran is from IL&FS IDC. He could
identify signatures and handwriting of various officials of the
said company. He told that as coal block matters were being dealt
with by Thermal Department of their company, so he was not
much aware about allocation of any coal block to JICPL. He
came to know about MoU dated 08.01.2007 after he was posted
in the Thermal Department. He identified the MoU dated
08.01.2007 [Ex. PW 3/B (part of D-17)].
83. He referred to various clauses of the MoU and
explained their purpose. The purpose of entering into the said
MoU by the two entities has been mentioned in the initial recitals
in clause 3 at page 2 of the MoU as under:
“(3) The Parties wish to partner with each other to
develop an Integrated Energy Project of 1215 MW
capacity based on a captive coal mine and to be
located in the State of Jharkhand / Orissa / West
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 46 of 343
Bengal (“the Project”). The Project, which would
entail development of a power generation project
along with a captive coal block is proposed to be
domiciled in “Jas Infrastructure Capital Private
Limited” (“JICPL”), a Special Purpose Vehicle
(“SPV”) incorporated by IISIPL as its 100%
subsidiary for undertaking development,
implementation & subsequent operation of the
Project.”
84. The scope of the agreement and the terms “Board”,
“project” and “Shareholders agreement” have been defined in
clause 1 and in the definition clause at page 3 and 4 in clauses
2(d), 2(f) and 2(g) as under:
” (1) Scope
The purpose and intent of this MoU is to outline the
broad contours of partnership between IISIPL and
IL&FS IDC for the promotion, development,
implementation and operation of an Integrated
Energy Project comprising of a captive coal mine
and a power generation project to be located in the
State of Jharkhand / Orissa / West Bengal. The
“Project is proposed to be domiciled in JICPL, a
SPV incorporated as a 100% subsidiary of IISIPL.
Definitions
(d) “Board” shall mean the Board of Directors
of JIPCL.
(f) “Project” shall mean the proposed
Integrated Energy Project of 1215 MW capacity
based on a captive coal mine and to be located in
the State of Jharkhand / Orissa / West Bengal.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 47 of 343
(g) “Shareholder’s Agreement” shall mean the
agreement to be entered between IISIPL and IL&FS
IDC as shareholders of JIPCL, inter alia, setting out
the privileges, regulations, rights, obligations of the
shareholders and ownership and management of
JIPCL, the provisions whereof would be
incorporated in the Articles of Association of
JIPCL.”
85. The equity participation of the two entities has been
discussed in clause 3 at page 4 of MoU as under:
“(3) Equity Participation
(a) JICPL has been incorporated with an
initial Authorized capital of Rs. 20,000,000 divided
into 2,000,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The
paid-up share capital of JICPL as on date is Rs.
100,000 (Rupees One Hundred thousand only)
divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 10 each issued at
par. JICPL is managed by a Board of Directors.
(b) Upon allocation of a captive coal block to
JICPL, IL&FS IDC / its associates / funds shall
have the right to subscribe upto 26% of the paid up
Equity Share Capital of JICPL at par value. The
parties shall enter into a detailed Shareholders’
Agreement (SHA) within 60 days of the allocation
of the coal block to JICPL.
(c) IISIPL shall immediately upon and in any case
not later than seven (7) days from the date of
allocation of the captive coal block offer to
transfer, at par, in favour of IL&FS IDC not less
than 26% of paid up Equity Share Capital of
JICPL, so as to enable IL&FS IDC to subscribe to
and hold Equity Share Capital of JICPL in terms of
clause (b) above.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 48 of 343
(d) Subsequent to the execution of the SHA of
JICPL, the Board of JICPL shall be reconstituted
to provide proportionate representation to IL&FS
IDC on the Board.
(e) IL&FS IDC / its associates / funds under
management shall also have an unqualified right to
subscribe to upto 26% of all the future equity share
issuance by JICPL at par.”
86. The utilization of advisory services of IL&FS IDC
have been mentioned in clause 4 at page 4 and 5 of the MoU as
under:
“(4) Utilisation of Advisory Services of IL&FS
IDC
(a) The Parties have agreed to utilize the
resources and expertise of IL&FS IDC for Project
Development. The scope of services of IL&FS IDC
as the Sole Transaction Advisor cum Fund Arranger
and its fees thereof shall be as per the provisions
and in accordance with the Advisory Proposal. The
Advisory Proposal shall be fully binding and
operative by and against IISIPL till its adoption &
ratification by JICPL as described in Clause (4) (b)
below.
(b) The Parties agree and confirm that JICPL, at its
next Board meeting held pursuant to execution of
this MoU, shall adopt and ratify the Advisory
Proposal and confirm the same to IL&FS IDC
through a written communication. Thereafter, the
provisions of the Advisory Proposal shall be fully
binding and operative by and against JICPL as if
JICPL was originally a party to the Advisory
Proposal.”
87. The roles and responsibilities of the two entities
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 49 of 343
under the MoU have been mentioned in clause 5 at page 5 of the
MoU as under:
“(5) Roles & Responsibilities
(a) The roles & responsibilities of IL&FS
IDC prior to allocation of coal block
shall be as follows:
To provide services as per the Advisory
Proposal agreed upon between IL&FS
IDC and IISIPL
To submit application with the Ministry of
Coal as a co-promoter for allocation of
captive coal blocks
To conduct an appraisal of the Project
To provide a letter of support/commitment
for financing the Project.
(b) The roles & responsibilities of IISIPL
shall be as follows:
To identify viable coal blocks
To liason with State Governments / State
Mining Corporations etc. so as to obtain
State Government recommendation for coal
blocks which would enable setting up of
Projects
To prepare a detailed project report for the
Project
To prepare final submissions for coal bids
To divest equity shareholding in JICPL in
favour of IL&FS IDC to the extent
specified in this MoU
To pay fees to IL&FS IDC as per the terms
of the Advisory Proposal.”
88. The effectiveness and term of the MoU has been
mentioned in clause 9 at page 6 of the MoU as under:
“(9) Effectiveness and Term
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 50 of 343
This MoU shall be automatically terminated in case
a captive coal block is not allocated to JIPCL
within six (6) months from the date of execution of
this MoU unless otherwise extended by the Parties
by mutual agreement. Under such termination,
IL&FS IDC shall be entitled to fees under the
Advisory Proposal only to the extent of the
milestones achieved till the date of such
termination.”
89. He told that at no point of time any officer or
representative of IL&FS IDC was ever inducted on the board of
JICPL. No shareholders agreement was ever executed with
IL&FS IDC. However, IL&FS IDC had invested a sum of Rs.
2,36,600/- as 26% of equity in JICPL. At the time of submission
of application to MoC for allocation of a coal block i.e. in
January 2007 IL&FS IDC was having no equity holding in
JICPL.
90. The equity of IL&FS IDC remained invested in
JICPL from March 2008 till March 2011. Though initially the
percentage of equity holding of IL&FS IDC in JICPL was 26%
but later on at the time of exit in March 2011 it had become
0.68%. The dilution in equity as above was effected without any
permission, knowledge or consent of IL&FS IDC and thus he
was not aware of any reason as to how the equity of IL&FS IDC
in JICPL came to be diluted.
91. He also came to know about another MoU dated
02.04.2007 entered into between IISIPL and IL&FS IDC which
is Ex. PW 3/C.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 51 of 343
92. He deposed that in September 2012, CBI had
conducted a search in their office at Ambiance Mall, Gurgaon.
He was also present during the raid. He had signed search list
dated 04.09.2012 (D-6). The search list is Ex. PW 7/A (D-6). He
also identified documents seized during the search such as MoU
dated 08.01.2007 which is Ex. PW7/B and MoU dated
02.04.2007 which is Ex. PW 3/C. The document D-7 is Ex. PW
7/C (Colly.). The annual reports of 2007 and 2008 of IL&FS are
Ex. PW 7/D (Colly.). The Transaction Approval Memorandum
(TAM) is Ex. PW 7/D-1 (Pg. 1-4 of D-9). Part of this document
from page 5-26 is already Ex. PW 3/DX-2. The whole document
D-9 is Ex. PW 7/D-2 (Colly.).
93. Some other documents are Ex. PW 7/E (D-10); Ex.
PW 7/F (D-11); Ex. PW 7/G (D-12); Ex. PW 7/H (D-13); and
Ex. PW 7/J (D-14). Ex. PW 7/F pertains to internal approval of
IL&FS IDC regarding investing 26% of equity in JICPL. Ex. PW
7/G pertains to the internal decision taken in IL&FS IDC to exit
from JICPL.
94. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, it has
come that he was not aware as to what all studies or due
diligence was carried out by IL&FS IDC before entering into the
MoU. He explained that prior to obtaining internal approval in
IL&FS IDC for entering into any MoU with any entity intended
to develop a project, the project team of IL&FS IDC interacts
with the representatives of the said entities to identify the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 52 of 343
projects contours and potential for providing advisory services
and also any investment opportunity. He also told that depending
upon the nature of the project, there might be some exchange of
documents but the same might not take place in every case.
95. He admitted that as per Ex. PW7/F (D-11), the
power generation project was to be located in the state of Bihar.
Upon being asked as to why in the disbursement memo dated
01.04.2008 (Ex. PW7/F), the location of the project was
mentioned as Bihar despite the said location was mentioned as
Jharkhand/Orissa/West Bengal in MoU dated 08.01.2007 [Ex.
PW3/B], the witness stated that the MoU was executed on
08.01.2007 whereas disbursement memo is dated 01.04.2008 so
during this period of about one year and four months there might
have been change in the location of the power plant project.
96. He admitted that in the MoU Ex. PW3/B dated
08.01.2007, the role and responsibilities of IL&FS IDC inter alia
is mentioned as under:
To submit application with the Ministry of
Coal as a co-promoter for allocation of
captive coal blocksTo conduct an appraisal of the Project
To provide a letter of support/commitment
for financing the Project.
97. PW-8 is Sh. Sanjay Mundley. He is also from IL&FS
IDC. He was working as Senior Manager, Power Projects at
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 53 of 343
Mumbai. As Sr. Manager, his job was to evaluate the technical
bids, technical proposals on behalf of IL&FS IDC. He was
acquainted with handwriting and signature of various officials of
IL&FS IDC.
98. He deposed that when he joined IL&FS IDC, he
came to know that a MoU had been entered into between IL&FS
IDC and IISIPL, and that in the name of JICPL, an application
had been submitted to MoC, Govt. of India for allocation of a
captive coal block. He deposed that he had discussions in this
regard with Sh. Sanjay Dey of JICPL. The discussions pertained
to clearances required for the project or other modalities to be
undertaken. He had also come to know that their Delhi office had
entered into another MoU with IISIPL on 02.04.2007. He told
that since IL&FS IDC had a documentary approval procedure, so
subsequent to MoU dated 02.04.2007, he had prepared a
Transaction Advisory Memorandum (“TAM”) for post facto
approval from senior officers and Managing Director. The TAM
is Ex. PW7/E (D-10).
99. He deposed that he had also attended one Screening
Committee meeting of MoC in June 2007 along with one Sh.
Ankur Rajan, another officer of IL&FS IDC. From Abhijeet
Group, one Sh. P.N. Krishnan was present along with one other
person. He deposed that Sh. P.N. Krishnan of Abhijeet Group
made a presentation before the Screening Committee which was
very short lasting about 05/10 minutes. He and Ankur Rajan,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 54 of 343
however, merely sat in the meeting and did not do anything. He
told that no document was provided to them in the said meeting
such as copy of either the feedback form or of the presentation so
made by officials of Abhijeet Group. The Screening Committee
members did not ask any question either from him or Ankur
Rajan.
100. After seeing MoU dated 08.01.2007, [Ex. PW 3/B
(part of D-17)], the witness stated that as per the said MoU the
power project was to be located in Jharkhand/Orissa/West
Bengal. He did not remember that he and Ankur Rajan were ever
told about the location of the end use plant to be in Bihar. He
resigned from the services of IL&FS IDC on 24.12.2007 and was
relieved on 27.02.2008. Till the time he remained in the services
of IL&FS IDC, no officer or representative of their company was
a director on the Board of Directors of JICPL. Till that time no
money was invested in the equity of JICPL by IL&FS IDC. No
shares were either allotted in favour of IL&FS IDC till that time
or acquired by our company in JICPL. No shareholders
agreement was executed till that time.
101. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, it has
come that he had not seen any TAM in the present matter of
IL&FS IDC of the period prior to execution of MoU dated
08.01.2007.
102. He identified few signatures of officers of IL&FS
IDC on the attendance sheet dated 21.06.2007 of 35 th Screening
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 55 of 343
Committee meeting [Pg. 8-16 in D-29]. The attendance sheet
dated 21.06.2007 as above is Ex. PW8/DX-1.
103. He did not remember whether IL&FS IDC was
associated with other entities also for development of certain
projects and which entities had applied for allocation of captive
coal blocks.
104. He told that IL&FS IDC was primarily a paperless
office and thus very little paper work was carried out. Print out of
only important papers such as MoU etc used to be taken out and
kept in a file but all other record used to be in electronic form. He
told that signatures at point A on disbursement memo Ex. PW 7/F
(D-11) were of Ankur Rajan. He denied the suggestion that
during the Screening Committee meeting Ankur Rajan was told
about the location of EUP to be in Bihar. He told that since it was
a very short presentation so at that time, as per him, nothing
wrong was stated in the said presentation.
105. After seeing Annexure-I titled ‘Milestones for
Payment of Advisory Fee’ as is part of advisory proposal Ex.
PW3/DX-2 [part of Ex. PW7/D-2 (Colly.), D-9], he admitted that
IL&FS IDC used to charge various amounts of fee for different
activities including presentation to Committee constituted by
MoC for coal mine allocation etc. as mentioned in the annexure.
106. He did not remember whether the amount of 0.50
million was paid to IL&FS IDC towards presentation to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 56 of 343
Committee or not. Even after seeing the hard copy of the
presentation of JICPL (Ex. PW1/F), PW-8 could not recall
whether it was the same presentation which he witnessed. He
denied that he was giving evasive answers.
107. He did not remember as to whether at the time of
presentation before the Screening Committee, the location of end
use plant was stated as Bihar or not. He also did not remember as
to whether in the said presentation the financials of JICPL,
IL&FS IDC and IISIPL for the last three years were shown
jointly or as combined financials. At the time of presentation
before the Screening Committee he was not aware that Abhijeet
Infrastructure Ltd. had already been allotted any captive coal
block. He told that he had not seen the feedback form. As such,
he cannot tell anything about water and electricity tie-up. He
denied that the presentation and feedback from of JICPL as
submitted to Screening Committee were prepared by IL&FS
IDC or that they were in his knowledge. He denied that he knew
that location of EUP was in Bihar.
108. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 CrPC
dated 03.11.2012 (Ex. PW8/DX-2) wherein it is not mentioned
that he and Ankur Rajan were not provided with any copy of
either the feedback form or of the presentation so made by
officials of Abhijeet Group.
109. PW-9 is Sh. Pankaj Sakhuja. He is also from IL&FS
IDC. He worked there from December 2005 till July 2007 as
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 57 of 343
Assistant Manager and was posted at Delhi. During that period
Sh. D.K. Mittal was the Managing Director of the company. PW-
9 used to report to Sh. Sanjay Sethi who in turn used to report to
the Managing Director.
110. PW-9 deposed that as Assistant Manager he used to
assist the senior officers in project appraisals in which IL&FS
IDC used to have any involvement. IL&FS IDC was engaged in
the business of project advisory services, project development
and infrastructure development. He was well acquainted with
handwriting and signature of Sh. Sanjay Sethi and Sh. D.K.
Mittal.
111. He was aware about MoU dated 08.01.2007 [Ex.
PW3/B (D-17)] executed between IL&FS IDC and IISIPL
regarding a proposed power plant.
112. He deposed that during this period, he had interacted
with Sh. Sanjay Dey of JICPL but other interactions must have
taken place with senior officers of IL&FS IDC. He identified the
TAM dated 26.12.2006 [Ex. PW 7/D-1, part of Ex. PW 7/D-2
(Colly.), D-9]. As per the MoU, IL&FS IDC was to provide
advisory services and was to take upto 26% equity in JICPL and
beyond that no other role was to be played by IL&FS IDC.
113. He told that since IL&FS IDC had not entered into
any shareholders agreement with JICPL, and had also not
acquired any equity holding in JICPL, so IL&FS IDC had no role
in the preparation of application by JICPL for seeking allocation
of captive coal block and to be submitted to MoC, Govt. of India.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 58 of 343
To the best of his knowledge, the application of JICPL seeking
allocation of captive coal block as was submitted to MoC, Govt.
of India was not provided to them in IL&FS IDC.
114. He deposed that as per the MoU dated 08.01.2007
[Ex. PW 3/B], the location of the power project was to be either
in Jharkhand or Orissa or West Bengal.
115. He deposed that as IL&FS IDC was not having any
equity holding in JICPL or any directorship in the board of
directors of JICPL so it cannot be stated that JICPL was an SPV
managed by IISIPL and IL&FS Group. He deposed that to his
knowledge the DPR as mentioned in the application was never
appraised by IL&FS Group.
116. In his cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, it
has come that prior to entering of MoU dated 08.01.2007,
discussion had taken place between senior officers of IISIPL and
IL&FS IDC. He admitted that in the MoU dated 08.01.2007 Ex.
PW 3/B in clause 5 titled “Roles and Responsibilities” it is inter
alia mentioned in the roles and responsibilities of IL&FS IDC as
under:
“To submit application with the Ministry of
Coal as a coal promoter for allocation of a
captive coal block”.
117. Witness was confronted with his statement u/s 161
CrPC dated 17.12.2012 which is Ex. PW9/DX-1. He did not
remember whether any project file relating to the present matter
in question was prepared in their office at IL&FS IDC.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 59 of 343
118. He admitted that in the proposal Ex. PW 3/DX-2, it
was mentioned that IL&FS IDC would assist the SPV in
selecting the most appropriate site for the power project keeping
in perspective its proximity to the mine location, water
availability and evacuation of power. He told that the MoU dated
08.01.2007 Ex. PW 3/B would have been prepared by the legal
department but the technical input must have been provided by
them.
119. He explained that though on the day when proposal
Ex. PW3/DX-2 was prepared then on the said date i.e.
08.01.2007 IL&FS IDC was having no equity in JICPL or
directorship in its board of directors but still the word “SPV” has
been used at different places in the proposals since the same has
been prepared on the basis of standard proposal format.
120. He admitted that in the MoU dated 08.01.2007 Ex.
PW3/B, it was stated that the parties should enter into a detailed
shareholders agreement (SHA) within 60 days of the allocation
of the coal block to JICPL.
From Office of Coal Controller, KOLKATA
121. PW-4 R.K. Sutradhar is from the Office of Coal
Controller Kolkata. He had produced certain documents to the
CBI on 14.01.2015. The production-cum-receipt memo dated
14.01.15 is Ex. PW4/A (D-46). The documents handed over by
him are available as D-47, D-48, D-49 and D-50.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 60 of 343
122. Vide letter dated 02.10.07 (D-47) of Mr. Shekhar
Berde, Sr. Manager, Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd., the company
AIL had submitted status report for the quarter ending September
2007 with respect to “Brinda”, “Sisai” and “Meral” coal blocks
which were allotted to the company. The said letter along with
status report is Ex. PW4/B (Colly.)(D-47).
123. Vide letter dated 11.07.07 (D-48) of Mr. Shekhar
Berde, Sr. Manager, AIL, the company had submitted status
report for the quarter ending June 2007 with respect to “Brinda”,
“Sisai” and “Meral” coal blocks which were allotted to the
company. The said letter along with status report as above is Ex.
PW4/C (Colly.)(D-48).
124. Vide letter dated 13.07.07 (D-49) of Dr. V.S. Garg,
Director, the company CIAL had submitted status report for the
quarter ending 31.06.2007 with respect to”Chitarpur” coal block
which was allotted to the said company. The said letter along
with status report is Ex. PW1/B (Colly.)(D-49).
125. Vide letter dated 02.10.07 (D-50) of Dr. V.S. Garg,
Director, CIAL, vide which the said company had submitted
status report for the quarter ending 30.09.2007 with respect
to”Chitarpur” coal block which was allotted to the said company.
The said letter along with status report is Ex. PW1/C (Colly.)(D-
50).
126. He told that some of the milestones whose scheduled
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 61 of 343
date of completion was mentioned in the status report by the
company were not achieved.
127. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, one
letter bearing no. 121210/3/RC-219-2012-E-0008 dated 16.12.14
was marked as Ex. PW4/DX-1.
128. He admitted that if any allocatee company failed to
achieve the stipulated milestones then the MoC could forfeit the
bank guarantees submitted by the said allocatee company at the
time of allocation. He was not aware as to whether bank
guarantees furnished by the two companies were forfeited by
MoC or not in the present matter.
From Ministry of Coal
129. PW- 11 is Sh. V.S. Rana. He is from MoC. He is the
most important witness for the prosecution as he had remained
associated with the process of allocation of coal block from
beginning to the end.
130. He deposed that during the period November 2006
to September 2007, H.C. Gupta/A-3 was the Secretary (Coal) and
K.S. Kropha/A-4 was Joint Secretary (Coal). He further told that
from November 2006 to February/March 2007, Sh. Sanjeev
Mittal was Director CA-I Section and thereafter in March/April
2007 K.C. Samria/A-5 took over as Dy. Secretary, CA-I Section.
131. He deposed that the captive coal block allocation
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 62 of 343
matters were dealt with by CA-I Section. During November 2006
till the year 2011, Sh. R.N. Singh was the Section Officer, CA-I
Section followed by Sh. L.S. Janoti who joined in the year 2008.
He was succeeded by Sh. S.K. Singh and Sh. Ram Naresh as CA-
I Section was divided in two sections. Sh. R.S. Negi was the
Dealing Assistant in CA-I section and subsequently when Sh.
R.S. Negi was transferred then Sh. Sewak Paul had joined as
Dealing Assistant.
132. During the period 2006-2011, Sh. Sibhu Soren was
initially the Minister of Coal and thereafter Dr. Manmohan
Singh, the then Prime Minister held the charge of Minister of
Coal. He deposed that he was well acquainted with handwriting
and signatures of abovesaid Ministers and Officials of MoC.
133. He deposed that in November 2006, an
advertisement was issued by MoC inviting applications for
allocation of captive coal blocks. The 38 coal blocks so offered
for allocation were already identified in MoC with the help of
CIL. Out of the said 38 coal blocks, 15 were earmarked for
companies engaged in power sector and 23 were earmarked for
companies engaged in non-power sector. The said advertisement
was got published in leading newspaper through DAVP. In the
entire process, help of CIL was taken by MoC. The said
advertisement was uploaded on the website of MoC also. The last
date of receipt of applications was specified as 12.01.2007. The
applications were to be received at Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 63 of 343
The advertisement was issued after approval in this regard was
given by Secretary (Coal).
134. He deposed that at Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, a
register was maintained wherein entries of all applications being
so received were made. However, in the last 2-3 days of the
receipt of applications, certain counters were increased as rush to
submit applications increased and on the last date i.e. 12.01.2007,
4-5 counters were made operational to receive the applications.
135. He deposed that in the initial days when the
applications were being received then though some cursory
glance was given to them but later on as the number of
applications increased so they were simply received after
checking the availability of demand draft. Entries of total number
of applications so received were made in the register.
136. He told that after receipt of applications i.e. post
12.01.2007, the applications were segregated end use wise, state
wise and block wise. The applications were thereafter sent to
concerned Administrative Ministries as per the end use
mentioned in the applications and also to State Governments
concerned where the coal block applied for was situated or the
end use plant was established or was proposed to be established
for their comments / recommendations.
137. Copy of one MoC file bearing no. 13016/65/2006-
CA-I (Vol. I)(D-37) was marked as Ex. PW11/A (Colly.). The
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 64 of 343
note sheet pages from page 1-49 are Ex. PW11/A-1 (Colly.) and
the correspondence pages from page 1-233 are Ex. PW11/A-2
(Colly.). This file relates to issuance of advertisement.
138. He identified an ID note of PMO dated 25.07.2006
at page 38-40/c therein and told that vide the said ID note,
summary record of 7th Energy Coordination Committee meeting
held on 19.07.2007 under Chairmanship of Prime Minister were
received in MoC. The ID note is Ex. PW11/A-3 (Colly.).
139. The notesheet relating to issuance and uploading of
the advertisement is at pages 3-5/n in note sheet pages Ex. PW
11/A (Colly.). Copy of letter dated 06.11.2006 available at page
69/c is Ex. PW11/A-4 vide which request was made to DAVP for
publication of the advertisement. Copy of letter available at page
70/c vide which a request was made to CGM, CIL to get the
advertisement published in national dailies is Ex. PW11/A-5.
Copy of letter dated 06.11.2006 available at page 71/c vide which
a request was made to Sh. Piyush Goel, Technical Director, NIC
to upload the material for advertisement issued by MoC on the
website of MoC is Ex. PW11/A-6. The advertisement along with
all other details available from Pg. 73-94 in Ex. PW11/A-2
(Colly.) is Ex. PW11/A-7 (Colly.).
140. The draft advertisement available from page 1-29
put up for approval wherein corrections were made regarding the
last date of receipt of applications by A-4 K.S. Kropha in
accordance with his note dated 04.11.2006 [available at page 4/n-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 65 of 343
5/n] is Ex. PW11/A-8 (Colly.). He referred to page no. 30/c
which is an extract of a note from file no. 38039/25/2005-CA-I
wherein there is a reference to a meeting to be taken by Secretary
(Coal) in his room to earmark coal blocks for power sector.
141. He told that at page 82-83 of the advertisement Ex.
PW11/A-7 (Colly.), the guidelines under the title “How to Apply”
specified the procedure and the documents to be annexed with
the applications. Same are already noted in para 7 of this
judgment.
142. Thereafter, under the title “Guidelines for allocation
of captive coal blocks and conditions of allotment through the
Screening Committee”, available from page 88-92/c the inter se
priority guideline for allocation of a block among competing
applicants were also specified in clause 9 as already noted in para
8 of this judgment.
143. The procedure as to how the applications would be
processed in MoC was also specified under the title “Processing
of Application” as already mentioned in para 9 of this judgment.
144. The Composition of the Screening Committee was
mentioned at page 94/c as under:
Composition of the Screening Committee
1 Secretary, Ministry of Coal Chairman
2 Joint Secretary (Coal), Ministry of Coal Member-ConvenerCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 66 of 343
3 Adviser (Projects), Ministry of Coal Member
4 Joint Secretary (LA), Ministry of Coal Member
5 Representative of Ministry of Railways, Member
New Delhi
6 Representative of Ministry of Power, New Member
Delhi
7 Representative of Concerned State Govt. Member
8 Director (Technical), CIL, Kolkata Member
9 Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Member
CMPDIL, Ranchi
10 CMD of concerned subsidiary company Member
of CIL/NLC
11 Representatives of Ministry of Steel Member
12 Representatives of Department of Member
Industrial Policy & Promotion (Ministry
of Industry)
13 Representative of Ministry of Member
Environment and Forest
145. The copy of advertisement published in Newspaper
Hindu on dated 13.11.2006, available at page 105/c, is Ex.
PW11/A-9.
146. Copy of one register titled “Advertisement
November, 2006” available in D-5 is the register wherein entries
of applications received were made. The same is Ex. PW11/B.
Six applications of M/s JICPL were received and corresponding
entries in that regard were made from srl. no. 225-230 in the
register at page 29.
147. He told that all the applications including that of
JICPL were segregated end use wise, block wise and state wise.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 67 of 343
He told that copies of all the applications including that of M/s
JICPL were sent to concerned stakeholders for comments/
recommendations. The segregation work was carried out keeping
in view the blocks applied for and for what purpose the end use
project was to be established. The demand draft of Rs. 10,000/-
received towards processing fees were separated from the
applications.
148. He deposed that as regards the guidelines titled
“Processing of Application”, the applications of JICPL were,
however, not checked for their eligibility and completeness in
MoC. Similarly, the applications of other applicant companies
were not checked for their eligibility and completeness.
149. The office copy of letter dated 19/28.02.2007
[available at page 130-140/c in file Ex. PW 11/A (Colly.)], vide
which one copy of the applications as per the list enclosed were
sent to Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand with the request that
applications might be examined and comments thereon might be
furnished to MoC is Ex. PW 11/A-10 (Colly.). As per enclosed
list, the four applications of M/s JICPL for the coal blocks
Amarkonda, Patal East, Ashok Karkata Cer and for Ganeshpur
were sent to Govt. of Jharkhand.
150. Office copy of another letter dated 19/28.02.2007
[available at page 183-190/c in file Ex. PW 11/A (Colly.)] vide
which one copy of the applications as per the list enclosed were
sent to Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal with the request to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 68 of 343
examine the applications and furnishing comments thereon is Ex.
PW 11/A-11 (Colly.). As per the list, two applications of M/s
JICPL for the coal blocks Mahuhagarhi and Gourangdih ABC
were sent to Govt. of West Bengal.
151. Office copy of another letter dated 19/28.02.2007
[available at page 220-222/c in file Ex. PW 11/A (Colly.)] vide
which one copy of the applications as per the list enclosed were
sent to Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar with the request to
examine the applications and furnishing comments thereon is Ex.
PW 11/A-12 (Colly.). As per list, four applications of M/s JICPL
for the coal blocks Amarkonda, Patal East, Ashok Karkata Cer
and for Ganeshpur were sent to Govt. of Bihar.
152. Office copy of another letter dated 19/28.02.2007
[available at page 199/c in file Ex. PW 11/A (Colly.)] vide which
one copy of all the applications as per the list enclosed were sent
to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CMPDIL with the request
to examine the applications and furnish comments thereon is Ex.
PW11/A-13.
153. He deposed that as per page 9/n in Ex. PW 11/A-1
(Colly.), file was put up with the request that applications were
required to be dispatched to concerned States/Ministries and thus
130 big size trunks were required beside transport arrangements
to be made by CIL. The letter dated 14.02.2007, available at page
126/c, was sent to Sh. R.K. Joshi General Manager, CIL
requesting for 130 big size trunks and for making transportation
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 69 of 343
arrangements for dispatch of applications to various
states/ministries. The letter dated 14.02.2007 is Ex. PW11/A-14.
154. He told that vide note dated 19.02.2007 at page
10/n, it was mentioned that the applications received for
allocation of coal blocks were ready for dispatch to CMPDIL,
State Government, Administrative Ministries i.e. Ministry of
Power, Ministry of Steel and Ministry of Industry and
Commerce, Departmental of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
155. He deposed that vide letter dated 20.12.2006 at
page 102/c, the Coal Controller was requested to depute at least
four officials for a period of 20 days for the purpose of receiving
applications etc. The letter dated 20.12.2006 is Ex. PW11/A-15.
156. Copy of MoC file bearing no. 13016/65/2006-CA-I
(Vol. II) available in D-38 is Ex. PW11/C (Colly.). This file
relates to sending of applications to administrative ministries.
157. Office copy of letter dated 17.04.2007 [available
from page 2-75/c in file Ex. PW 11/C (Colly.)] vide which one
copy of the applications as per the list enclosed were sent to
Secretary, MoP, Govt. of India with the request to examine the
applications and furnish comments is Ex. PW11/C-1 (Colly.) (D-
38). As per list, six applications of JICPL were sent to MoP. Note
in this regard is at page 18/n. He told that earlier the MoP had
refused to receive the applications on the ground that they would
not be giving recommendations on case to case basis as they had
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 70 of 343
already issued guidelines for processing of applications.
158. He deposed that vide letter dated 11.04.2007 page
76/c in file Ex. PW 11/C (Colly.), all the application forms
(Block-wise) and CDs received from the applicants who had
applied for allocation of coal blocks in power sector were sent for
preparation of data base. It was also stated that the application
forms in respect of Steel and Others (Block-wise) along with
CDs would be sent soon. The letter dated 11.04.2007 is Ex. PW
11/C-2.
159. However, after seeing note sheet pages Ex. PW
11/A-1 (Colly.) in file Ex. PW11/A (Colly.) (D-37) witness stated
that no corresponding note sheet / notings are there in the said
pages. After seeing note sheet page 22/n in file Ex. PW 11/A
(Colly.) (D-37), witness stated that vide note dated 31.05.2007, a
reminder was proposed to be issued to those who had not sent
comments. The said letter dated 07.06.2007 is Ex. PW11/C-3 (D-
38).
160. Copy of one MoC file bearing no. 38011/1/2007-
CA-I (Vol. I) available in D-30 is Ex. PW11/D (Colly.).
161. One letter dated 25.04.2007 available at page 28/c in
file Ex. PW11/D (Colly.) vide which Govt. of West Bengal had
sought some more time to submit their comments / views is Ex.
PW11/D-1. Letter dated 18.06.2007 available at page 215/c-
219/c vide which Govt. of West Bengal recommended Adhunik
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 71 of 343
Corporation Limited and JICPL for Mahuagarhi coal block as
captive power producers for iron and steel plants is Ex.
PW11/D-2 (Colly.). He told that vide letter dated 08.06.2007
available at page 65 in file Ex. PW 11/D (Colly.) (D-30), Govt. of
Bihar had conveyed the in-principle approval by State
Investment Promotion Board which is Ex. PW11/D-3.
162. About how the applications so received were
processed in the files in MoC, the witness stated that the
applications of various companies were not individually
processed in the files and all the applications so received were
collectively processed.
163. He had dealt with file of MoC Ex. PW6/A (Colly.)
(D-3). He deposed that in the meeting which took place in the
office of Joint Secretary (Coal) after issuance of advertisement, it
was discussed therein that applications would not be examined
on case to case basis. He stated that as such the senior officers
were well aware of the procedure being adopted in MoC about
processing of applications and in fact Joint Secretary (Coal) had
even visited Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar when the officials of the
office of coal controller were segregating the applications. He
referred to noting dated 07.05.2007 at notesheet page 20/n in file
Ex. PW 11/A (Colly.) wherein it was recorded as under:
“As directed by DS(CA-I) over inter-com that a
meeting of the Screening Committee has been
proposed to to be held under the Chairmanship of
Secretary (Coal) on 11.05.2007 at 10.30 A.M. in his
Chamber. It has further been directed to issue notice
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 72 of 343
to M/Power/M/Steel/M/Commerce & Industry
(DIPP)/CIL/CMPDIL. Accordingly, a draft notice is
put up for approval”.
164. Office copy of OM dated 07.05.2007 available at
page 87-88 in file Ex. PW 11/C (Colly.) (D-38) vide which
Secretary MoP, MoS, Ministry of Commerce and Industries,
Director (Technical) CIL, Chairman / Managing Director
CMPDIL and Coal Controller Kolkata were requested to attend a
meeting of the Screening Committee to be held on 11.05.2007 at
10.30 am under Chairmanship of Secretary Coal in his chamber
at Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi so as to consider the criteria /
detailed modalities for allocation of 38 coal blocks is Ex. PW
11/C-4. He deposed that contrary to Ex. PW11/C-4 and the
corresponding note sheet pages, no agenda of the said meeting
was either prepared or approved.
165. The list of participants who attended the Screening
Committee meeting dated 11.05.2007 is available at page 93/c in
file Ex. PW11/C (Colly.) (D-38). However, he told that he had
not attended the said meeting. After seeing note sheet page 23/n
in file Ex. PW11/A (Colly.), he told that he had made some
corrections in the draft minutes available at page 105-106 in file
Ex. PW11/C (Colly.) (D-38) and forwarded the same to Dy.
Secretary CA-I. He further told that the corrections in the draft
minutes in black ink are in his hand and the corrections in blue
ink on the first page are in the hand of K.S. Kropha and on the
second page is in the hand of K.C. Samria. The draft minutes are
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 73 of 343
Ex. PW11/C-5 (D-38). He told that the draft minutes of the
Screening Committee meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 11/C-
5 were however put up by the Section on the directions and
guidance of Joint Secretary Coal and Director CA-I. After
approval of Secretary (Coal), final minutes were prepared. The
final minutes are Ex. PW11/C-6 (Colly.) [D-38, Pg. 102/c-104/c].
166. Copy of MoC file No. 38011/1/2007-CA-I (Vol. VI)
available in D-34 is Ex. PW11/E (Colly.). The note sheet pages
from page 1-71/n are Ex. PW11/E-1 (Colly.) and the
correspondence side pages from page 1-186/c are Ex. PW11/E-2
(Colly.).
167. The letter dated 20.06.2007 available from page 88-
89/c in file portion Ex. PW11/E-2 (Colly.) vide which Govt. of
Jharkhand had sent its recommendations is Ex. PW11/E-3. He
told that vide the said letter, Govt. of Jharkhand had
recommended M/s CESC Limited and M/s Maithili Energy Pvt.
Ltd. for allotment of Mahuagarhi Coal Block with M/s CESC
Limited as Lead Project partner. However, the company M/s
JICPL was not recommended for any of the coal blocks by it.
168. The office copy of letter dated 06.06.2007 at page
39/c in file Ex. PW11/D (Colly.) (D-30) vide which CIL was
requested to make necessary arrangements for booking of venue
of meeting i.e. Scope Complex, Lodhi Road and for
arrangements for refreshment, lunch, tea, laptops and projectors
is Ex. PW11/D-4.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 74 of 343
169. Copy of another letter dated 06.06.2007 available at
page 43/c vide which all the applicants for power block were
informed about the 35th Screening Committee meetings to be held
from 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007 and that they were to make a
presentation and to also submit at the time of presentation a
feedback form (25 copies) containing updated information in
respect of each application is Ex. PW11/D-5.
170. Office copy of another letter dated 06.06.2007
available from page 44-45/c in file Ex. PW11/D (Colly.) (D-30)
vide which members of Screening Committee were requested to
attend the 35th meeting of the Screening Committee from
20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007 is Ex. PW11/D-6.
171. OM dated 06.06.2007 vide which Sh. Piyush Goel,
Technical (Director), NIC, Coal was requested to upload a notice
of 35th Screening Committee meeting to be held from 20.06.2007
to 23.06.2007 along with other papers i.e. letter to members of
Screening Committee, letter to applicants for power blocks,
schedule of meeting and feedback format is Ex. PW 11/D-7. The
format of feedback form, available at page 37 and also at page 38
is Ex. PW 11/D-8.
172. Letter dated 08.06.2007 vide which all the applicant
companies were informed about the change of venue of meeting
is Ex. PW 11/D-9. Office copy of OM dated 08.06.2007 vide
which all the Members of Screening Committee were also
informed about the change of venue of meeting is Ex. PW 11/D-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 75 of 343
10.
173. Copy of letter dt. 31.05.2007 [Ex. PW 11/D (Colly.),
D-30, Pg. 31] which was sent to Coal Controller Kolkata with
request to depute three officials from his office to MoC CA-I
section initially for three weeks commencing from 04.06.2007
onwards is Ex. PW11/D-11.
174. The file titled “Agenda For 35 th Screening
Committee meeting for Power Sector to be held from 20.06.2007
to 23.06.2007 Mahuagarhi” is available in D-44 and contains the
agenda note prepared for the aforesaid Screening Committee
meetings qua Mahuagarhi coal block. At page 100-104, there is
copy of application form of M/s JICPL. The agenda note is Ex.
PW11/F (Colly.) (D-44).
175. Letter dt. 15.06.2006 of Sh. B.G. Datta, Dy.
Assistant Coal Controller in response to MoC letter dated
31.05.2007 vide which three officials namely Sh. Manoj
Karmaker, UDC, Sh. Sumanta Biswas, UDC and Sh. Debasis
Das, UDC were deputed at MoC is Ex. PW 11/D-12. A copy of
this letter which was marked to K.C. Samria/A-5 is available at
page 214 and is Ex. PW 11/D-13.
176. OM dated 01.06.2007 [available at page 49-51 in
file Ex. PW 11/D (Colly.) (D-30)] was sent by Sh. N.R. Dash,
Director, MoS vide which the detailed guidelines of MoS for
categorizing the applications were also enclosed. The OM is Ex.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 76 of 343
PW 11/D-14 (Colly.). The said office memorandum was sent by
MoS in response to the Screening Committee meeting held on
11.05.2007 and it was stated that all the applicants be called for
presentation before the Screening Committee.
177. Letter dt. 08.06.2007 [available at page 66 in file
Ex. PW11/D (Colly.) (D-30)] was sent by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Industries, Government of Bihar in response to
website notice dated 06.06.2007 of MoC and vide which Govt. of
Bihar requested Secretary (Coal) to ensure the representation of
Bihar State in the Screening Committee. The letter dt.
08.06.2007 is Ex. PW 11/D-15.
178. PW-11 further deposed that in the 35th Screening
Committee meetings held at Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar from
20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007, the various applicant companies made
their presentations before the Screening Committee. While some
of the companies made their presentations in soft copy but some
of the companies only did so by way of hard copy. He told that
A-3 H.C. Gupta, Secretary (Coal) chaired the said meetings.
Apart from him, A-4 K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary (Coal) who
was also Member Convener was present besides A-5 K.C.
Samria, Director CA-I.
179. He told that in the said Screening Committee
meetings, the copy of agenda note prepared in MoC was
provided to all the members beside copy of recommendations
which were received from State Governments and Administrative
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 77 of 343
Ministries till then were also supplied. The representatives of
applicant companies during the course of their presentations used
to themselves supply the hard copies of their presentations, if
available to the members of Screening Committee along with
copy of feedback form brought by them. He told that probably
till that time the comments of MoP were not yet received in
MoC. However, one letter from Secretary Power was received by
that time. He told that no individual or separate minutes of the
said meetings were prepared in MoC.
180. The copy of MoC file bearing no. 38011/1/2007-
CA-I (Vol. II) available in D-29 is Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.).
181. One DO letter dt. 20.06.2007 [available from page
136-137 in file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.)] sent by Secretary (Power)
Sh. Anil Razdan to MoC is Ex. PW 11/G-1. In the said
communication, Secretary (Power) had communicated the
following facts to Secretary (Coal) in para 3 and 4.
“3. The Screening Committee of the Ministry of
Coal is holding presentations by the applicants for
four days – 20th to 23rd June. The Ministry of Power
has so far not made any case by case examination of
the applications and has also not made any
recommendations to the Ministry of Coal. I had
indicated in my earlier reference that the views of
the Ministry of Power would be communicated by
the Ministry’s representative at the Screening
Committee. However, considering that over 740
presentations will be made before the Screening
Committee, the official recommendations of the
Ministry of Power would be possible only if all the
data and presentations made by the developers
before the Screening Committee are analysed and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 78 of 343
processed on the file for approval.
4. We have, therefore, asked CEA to attend the
presentations and document the same for analysis
within the Ministry. CEA have been advised not to
make any recommendations in the Screening
Committee. The formal recommendations from the
Ministry would follow shortly after due
deliberations in the Ministry with the approval of
the Minster of Power”.
182. Another DO letter dt. 11.05.2007 [available at page
135] sent by Secretary (Power) to Secretary (Coal) is Ex. PW
11/G-2. In the said letter also Secretary Power had mentioned the
following facts in the last para:
“I, would therefore, request that instead of a
specific case by case recommendations, if
considered necessary, we could meet at your
convenience to further discuss the broad approach
to be followed in allocation of these blocks by the
Screening Committee”.
183. The attendance sheets of 35th Screening Committee
meetings held on 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007 of the applicants’
representatives is Ex. PW11/G-3 (Colly.) [available from page
60-88 in file Ex. PW11/G (Colly.) (D-29)]. The representatives of
JICPL had signed at page 61.
184. The attendance sheets of 35th Screening Committee
meetings held from 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007 of the members of
the Screening Committee is Ex. PW11/G-4 (Colly.) [available
from page 108-115 in file Ex. PW11/G (Colly.) (D-29)].
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 79 of 343
185. OM dated 19.07.2007 [available at page 140-141 in
file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.) (D-29)] is Ex. PW11/G-5.
186. He did not remember whether he had attended the
35th Screening Committee meeting held on 30.07.2007 or not.
187. One DO letter dated 30.07.2007 [available from
215-218 in file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.)] vide which Secretary
(Power) sent a short list of companies recommended for
allocation to Secretary (Coal) is Ex. PW 11/G-6. As per this
letter, the company M/s JICPL was recommended for its
Bhagalpur, Bihar Project qua Patal East (Jharkhand) coal block
for its 1 x 540 MW Ph-I and 1 x 660 MW Ph-II capacity power
project.
188. The attendance sheet of the meeting held on
30.07.2007 of the members of Screening Committee is Ex. PW
11/G-7 [available at page 148-149 in file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.)
(D-29)] .
189. PW-11 referred to note sheet page 11 in file Ex. PW
11/E (Colly.) (D-34) and to note dated 31.07.2007. Copy of letter
dated 02.08.2007 [available at page 151 in file Ex. PW 11/G
(Colly.) (D-29)] vide which Chairman, CIL was requested to
depute two financial experts from CIL for scrutinizing financial
details of applicants for coal blocks is Ex. PW11/G-8.
190. Copy of letter dated 02.08.2007 [available at page
155 in file Ex. PW11/G (Colly.)(D-29)] vide which Coal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 80 of 343
Controller Kolkata was requested to depute four officials for
scrutinizing applications for coal blocks earmarked for allocation
through the Screening Committee is Ex. PW 11/G-9.
191. Office copy of letter dated 02.08.2007 [available at
page 174-175 in file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.) (D-29)] vide which
Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal was requested to get the
status of preparedness of applicant companies verified in terms of
the factors mentioned in the letter and to submit the report in the
enclosed proforma within 10 days is Ex. PW 11/G-10 (Colly.).
The factors mentioned in the letter were the following:
(i) Land already acquired by the company (in
possession). (Column No. VIII under head ‘land’ of
the enclosed sheet).
(ii) Quantity of water already allotted by State
Government. (Column No. X under head ‘water’ of
the enclosed sheet).
(iii) Status of Civil Construction (in terms of
percentage). (Column No. XI).
(iv) Status of environment clearance in respect of
end use plant. (Column No. XII).
192. In the enclosed proforma the names of applicant
companies were mentioned qua whom verification report was
sought and the name of M/s JICPL was also mentioned qua its
proposed power plant at Burdwan, West Bengal of capacity 1215
MW.
193. Copy of letter dated 02.08.2007 [available at page
195-196 in file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.) (D-29)] vide which Chief
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 81 of 343
Secretary, Govt. of Bihar was requested to get the status of
preparedness of applicant companies verified is Ex. PW 11/G-11
(Colly.). The factors were the same as in letter Ex. PW 11/G-10
(Colly.). In the enclosed proforma the names of applicant
companies were mentioned qua whom verification report was
sought and the name of M/s JICPL is also mentioned qua its
proposed power plant at Aurangabad, Bihar of capacity 1215
MW.
194. He told that no separate minutes of the meeting held
on 30.07.2007 was prepared in MoC.
195. He also told that reminders to State Governments
were also sent as no reply to the earlier letters were received. The
office copy of reminder letter dt. 10.08.2007 [available at page
200 in file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.) (D-29)] sent to Chief Secretary,
Government of West Bengal is Ex. PW11/G-12 and sent to Chief
Secretary, Government of Bihar is Ex. PW11/G-13.
196. The copy of MoC file bearing no. 38011/1/07-CA-I
(Vol. VII) available in D-35 is Ex. PW 11/H (Colly.).
197. The letter dated 24.08.2007 received from Govt. of
West Bengal [available at page 22-50 in file Ex. PW 11/H
(Colly.) (D-35)] in response to letter of MoC and vide which
report was furnished by the said Govt. is Ex. PW11/H-1 (Colly.).
198. The information as regard M/s JICPL under various
heads was furnished was as under:
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 82 of 343
Information to be furnished by the State Governments.
Co Compan Propose Distric State EU Land Water Civil Status of Remar Ema Tel/
. y Name d t P Construction
Environmenta ks il FAX
Sl. Capacity l clearance for No.
N of end Total Alrea Total Quant Status of Civil End use Plant
o. use Requi dy Quant ity construction
plant remen acquir ity alread (in terms of
(mw/mt t (as ed in requir y Percentage)
pa) per posse ed (as allotte
feedb ssion per d by
ack (as feedb State
form) per ack Govt.
feedb form)
ack
form)
92 JAS 1215 Burdw W.B. P 2500 Nil NA 7700 Not started Not applied.
Infrastru an cu.m/
cture hr
Capital
Pvt. Ltd
199. One copy of letter dated 24.08.2007 [available from
page 70-72] which is copy of letter Ex. PW 11/H-1 (Colly.) is
Ex. PW11/H-2 (Colly.). Another copy of the same letter
[available from page 73-75] is Ex. PW11/H-3 (Colly.).
200. Copy of letter dated 30.08.2007 [available from
page 88-200 in file Ex. PW 11/H (Colly.) (D-35)] received from
Govt. of Bihar in response to MoC letter dated 02.08.2007 and
vide which report was furnished by said Govt. is Ex. PW11/H-4
(Colly.).
201. Copy of MoC file bearing no. 38011/1/2007-CA-I
(Vol. III) available in D-31 is Ex. PW11/J (Colly.) (D-31).
202. Copy of OM dt. 6/8.09.2007 [available at page 47]
vide which notice of the Screening Committee meeting to be
held on 13.09.2007 at 02.30 PM in Conference Room, MoC
Shastri Bhawan was issued to members of Screening CommitteeCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 83 of 343
is Ex. PW11/J-1.
203. He was present in the said meeting held on
13.09.2007. He told that in the said meeting, the Screening
Committee finalized its recommendations qua various applicant
companies block wise. He deposed that though he did not
remember as to what all documents were supplied in the said
meeting to the members but they had made available in the
meeting hall the agenda note and all the recommendations
received from State Governments and Administrative Ministries.
As regard the decision arrived at by the Screening Committee
recommendation sheets were signed by the members in the
meeting hall itself.
204. The attendance sheet of the members of the
Screening Committee meeting held on 13.09.2007 [available
from page 81-82 in file Ex. PW 11/J (Colly.) (D-31)] is Ex. PW
11/J-2.
205. The recommendation sheets [available from page
83-87 in file Ex. PW 11/J (Colly.) (D-31)] which were signed by
the members in the meeting hall and the same mentions the
recommendations made by the Screening Committee is Ex. PW
11/J-3.
206. He told that in all the five recommendations
sheets, the names of the recommended companies and the
location of their respective end use plant are in the hand of K.C.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 84 of 343
Samria/A-5.
207. He told that company M/s JICPL was however
recommended for joint allocation of Mahuagarhi Coal Block in
Jharkhand for its end use plant at West Bengal along with M/s
CESC whose end use plant was located in Jharkhand. Secretary
(Coal) Sh. H.C. Gupta had Chaired the said meeting. The minutes
of the aforesaid meeting were also subsequently drawn up in
MoC on the guidance and directions of Joint Secretary and
Director CA-I.
208. He told that vide detailed note dt. 14.09.2007
[available from note sheet page 15-20 in file Ex. PW 11/E
(Colly.) (D-34)], the minutes of the 35th Screening Committee
were put up for approval of Secretary (Coal). Secretary (Coal)
Sh. H.C. Gupta thereafter forwarded the file to Minister of State
for Coal for Orders/approval qua para 16 of the note of Sh. R.N.
Singh dt. 14.09.2007 which read as under:
“16. If the Minutes are approved by Secy
(C), then the file may be submitted for
approval of the Minister of Coal to the
following:
(i) Allocation of coal blocks to the
recommended allocatees as indicated
in Table above in para 11.
(ii) For orders on Gourangdih ABC block
of West Bengal, in the light of the
facts mentioned at para 12 above.
(iii) The suggestions made in para 13
above regarding allotment to the joint
allocattees.”
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 85 of 343
209. The minutes of 35th Screening Committee meetings
held on 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007; 30.07.2007 and on 13.09.2007
available from page 1-41 in file Ex. PW 11/J (Colly.) (D-31)
which were finally approved by Secretary Coal are Ex. PW 11/J-
4 (Colly.).
210. He deposed that before the minutes could be
approved by Prime Minister as Minister of Coal, certain
representations were received from some companies in PMO and
said representations were referred to MoC by PMO and the same
were dealt with at note sheet page 21 to 26 by MoC and also by
Minister of State for Coal Sh. Dasari Narayan Roa vide his note
dt. 11.10.2007.
211. Referring to notesheet page 26 in file Ex. PW
11/E (Colly.) (D-34), PW-11 stated that the file was thereafter
returned from PMO with a note of Sh. Ashish Gupta Director
PMO stating that Prime Minister as Minister of Coal had
approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee
regarding allocation of 16 coal blocks for the power sector as at
para 16(I) on page 20 and also the suggestion on joint allocattee
at para 16 (III).
212. He told that when the file was sent for approval to
PMO, then along with the file containing the minutes of
Screening Committee, a separate folder containing the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 86 of 343
recommendations received from State Governments and
Administrative Ministries and copies of the applications and the
feedback forms of the recommended companies were also sent
but in the note sheet there is no mention of the said folder so sent
to PMO.
213. Copy of file of MoC bearing no. 38011/1/2007-
CA-I (Vol. IV) available in D-32 is Ex. PW 11/K (Colly.).
214. Office copy of letter dt. 06.11.2007 [available
from page 131-133] which is option letter issued to the two joint
allocattee companies of Mahuagarhi Coal Block i.e. M/s CESC
Limited and M/s JICPL is Ex. PW 11/K-1. The response of the
two companies was received vide letter dated 04.12.2007 [Ex.
PW 3/E, Pg. 220 in file Ex. PW 11/K (Colly.) (D-32)]. A JV
agreement so executed between the two companies [Ex. PW 3/D,
Pg. 221-246] was also enclosed with the letter.
215. Copy of MoC file bearing no. 38011/1/2007-CA-I
(Vol. V) available in D-33 is Ex. PW 11/L (Colly.). The office
copy of allocation letter dt. 09.01.2008 (available from page 71-
89 and also page numbered 97 i.e. in all 20 pages) is Ex. PW
11/L-1 (Colly.).
216. He told that vide letter dt. 25.02.2008 [available at
page 15-16 on correspondence side pages Ex. PW 11/E-2 (Colly.)
in file Ex. PW 11/E (Colly.) (D-34)], M/s JICPL sought
amendment in the allocation letter dated 09.01.2008 [Ex. PW
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 87 of 343
11/L-1 (Colly.)] issued by MoC. The company explained that
during the presentation made by them on 20.06.2007 before the
Screening Committee, it was informed that the plant was being
set up in Bihar and in the feedback form submitted to the
Screening Committee, also it was clearly indicated that M/s
JICPL was setting up the power project in Bihar. The allocation
letter, however, was issued for EUP at District Burdwan, West
Bengal. The letter dt. 25.02.2008 is Ex. PW 11/E-4.
217. Vide note sheet at page 45-46 in file Ex. PW 11/E
(Colly.) (D-34), the aforesaid letter dt. 25.02.2008 of M/s JICPL
was processed by CA-I section vide note dt. 20.03.2008. Another
letter dated 29.04.2008 [available from page 34-36] M/s JICPL
again requested for amendment in allocation letter. The letter
dated 29.04.2008 is Ex. PW 11/E-5 (Colly.).
218. A-3/H.C. Gupta Secretary (Coal) forwarded the file
to Minster of State for Coal vide his endorsement and signature
dt. 25.06.2008 stating inter alia that the proposal of M/s JICPL
might be agreed as in the presentation also M/s JICPL had
indicated that the power plant would be in Bihar and he also
stated that in fact the allocation letter ought to have been issued
by MoC for Bihar and not for West Bengal.
219. After seeing note sheet page 56 witness stated that
the then Minister of State for Coal Sh. Santosh Bagrodia returned
back the file vide his detailed note dt. 05.11.2008 bearing his
signatures at point F and the note regarding JICPL read as under:
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 88 of 343
“Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd
The Company has been allocated Mahuagarhi coal
block jointly with CESC for setting up 1000 MW
power plant each in Mirzapur in Burdwan, West
Bengal. The company has requested for change of
location of end use plant from West Bengal to
Bihar.
At the time of allocation, the Company has
mentioned location of EUP both at West Bengal and
Bihar. But at the time of furnishing feedback form,
the Company has mentioned the location as Bihar.
Since the block has been jointly allocated, only the
JV company formed can have the mining lease and
the block has to be developed jointly as per the
option opted for.
The company has pointed out immediately for
change of location from West Bengal to Bihar.
However, the change of location must meet the
criteria and guidelines for allocation of coal block
which would require scrutiny of land an water tie
up, preparedness etc.The above issues may be clarified and file
resubmitted”.
220. Another letter dated 07.07.2009 of M/s JICPL
addressed to Secretary (Coal), [available at page 42-84 on
correspondence side in file Ex. PW 11/E (Colly.) (D-34)] vide
which the company again requested for amendment in the
allotment letter by seeking change of location of end use power
plant to Bihar is Ex. PW11/E-6 (Colly.).
221. The office copy of OM dt. 06.08.2009 [available
from page 105-120 on correspondence side in file Ex. PW 11/E
(Colly.) (D-34)] vide which comments of MoP were sought
regarding change of location of EUP is Ex. PW11/E-7 (Colly.).
The MoP sent OM dt. 01.01.2010 in response to above said letter.
The OM from page 121-124 is Ex. PW11/E-8 (Colly.).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 89 of 343
222. Vide office copy of letter dated 19.08.2010
[available at page 127-128 on correspondence side in file Ex. PW
11/E (Colly.) (D-34)], the request of the company was allowed
and location of EUP was changed from Mirzapur, District
Burdwan, West Bengal to Banka in Bihar. The letter dt.
19.08.2010 is Ex. PW11/E-9.
223. PW-11 told that neither in any correspondence
received from M/s JICPL nor in any note sheet page as referred
to by him, there was any mention of project report of the power
plant proposed to be established by M/s JICPL at Banka, Bihar.
He also told that the matter regarding final approval qua change
of location of end use plant from West Bengal to Banka, Bihar
was never placed before the Screening Committee for its
consideration and approval.
224. Copy of OM dt. 21.05.2008 [available at page 166
in file Ex.PW 11/C (Colly.) (D-38)], the MoP made request to
return the 22 unopened trunks which were containing
applications for allotment of captive coal blocks and which were
sent to MoP by MoC vide communication dt. 17.04.2007. The
office memorandum is Ex. PW 11/C-7.
225. Another OM dt. 10.06.2008 [available at page 221-
222] vide which a fresh request was received from MoP seeking
to return the trunks is Ex. PW 11/C-8 (Colly.) (D-38).
226. Office copy of OM dt. 20.08.2008, available at page
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 90 of 343
211, vide which MoP was informed to retain the applications as
per past practice is Ex. PW 11/C-9.
227. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, he
told that as per his knowledge, no special treatment of any nature
whatsoever was accorded to any of the applicant companies
including M/s JICPL either at the stage of processing of the
applications in MoC or while considering them in the Screening
Committee or even subsequent thereto.
228. Upon being asked as to the meaning of the words
“Cursory Glance”, he told that it meant that the persons who
were deputed to receive the applications checked the name of the
coal block(s) for which application was being moved, location of
the coal block, nature of end use project and location of end use
project and also as to whether five sets of applications were there
or not.
229. His statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 30.10.2012 was
marked as Ex. PW 11/DX-1.
230. He told that the meaning or definition of the word
“Net Worth” was not put up in public domain by MoC for the
information of applicants at large. Similar was his reply with
regard to the meaning or definition of the words “Principal”,
“Group” and “Promoter”.
231. He told that the scrutiny of the applications for their
eligibility and completeness was not carried out for various
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 91 of 343
reasons i.e. there were no directions in this regard from the senior
officers and there was also shortage of man power in CA-I
Section. Moreover, they in CA-I Section were not having any
knowledge of technical, financial or legal matters involved.
232. He admitted writing note dt. 25.10.2006 at page 1/n
in file portion Ex. PW 11/A-1 (Colly.)(D-37) to the following
effect:-
“Discussed with JS(C) on 25/X/2006. Issue the
proposed letter to CMD, CMPDI & put up file
again”.
233. He told that the meeting in the Chamber of Joint
Secretary (Coal) to work out the modalities for receiving and
processing of applications was held prior to 20.12.2006 but he
did not remember the exact date of meeting except that it was
held after issuance of advertisement.
234. Upon being asked as to who was responsible to
check the applications for their completeness and eligibility, the
witness stated that he was unable to comment anything in that
regard.
235. He admitted that in the letters vide which copy of
applications of different applicant companies were sent to various
concerned stake holders, it was not mentioned that the
applications had not been checked for their eligibility in MoC.
236. He also admitted that in the minutes of the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 92 of 343
meeting held on 11.05.2007 [Ex. PW 11/C-6 (Colly.), D-38, Pg.
102-104/c], it was no where mentioned that the applications had
not been checked for the eligibility and completeness.
237. During cross-examination, certified copy of the
counter affidavit dated 07.11.2008 filed in WP(C) No. 7135 of
2008 titled “M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India” and
signed by PW-11 himself was marked as Ex. PW 11/DX-2.
238. He admitted that following facts were mentioned in
para 4, 12 and 13 of preliminary submissions in the counter
affidavit:
“PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-
4. Coal mining blocks are recommended for
allocation by the Screening Committee headed by
Secretary (Coal) as the Chairman, out of the blocks,
which have been identified and offered for captive
purposes. The Screening Committee has, as its
members, representatives from Ministries of Steel,
Power, Industry & Commerce, Environment &
Forests and Railways, Coal India Limited (CIL),
Central Mines Planning and Design Institute
Limited (CMPDIL) and the concerned State
Governments where block is located and the end
use plant is to be set up. Applications received for
allocation of coal blocks are referred to the State
Governments where block is located and the end
use plant is to be set up and the administrative
Ministries concerned, which, inter-alia, scrutinize
them in view of track record of applicant company,
techno-economic viability of the end-use projects,
and assessment of coal requirement in terms of
quality and quantity etc and make their
comments/recommendations to the Screening
Committee. CMPDIL/CIL also scrutinize the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 93 of 343
applications from the point of qualitative and
quantitative matching of the projected coal
requirement with that available in the sought block
and other associated matters and submit feedback of
block, to the Screening Committee. The Screening
Committee with the benefit of these
comments/recommendations and records provided
by CMPDIL/CIL, after giving an opportunity to the
applicants to present their case, decides each case
on its relative merits.
12. The Screening Committee, therefore,
deliberated at length over the information furnished
by the applicant companies in the application forms,
during the presentations and subsequently. The
Committee also took into consideration the
views/comments of the Ministry of Power, Ministry
of Steel, State Governments concerned, guidelines
laid down for allocation of coal blocks etc and
made the recommendations for allocation of coal
blocks including Fatehpur block. The Screening
Committee recommendations were placed for
consideration and approval of the Govt. The
approval of the Govt. was conveyed on 23.10.2007.
A copy of the Minutes of the 35 th meeting of the
Screening Committee is enclosed herewith as
Annexures-II.
13. Based on the recommendations of the Screening
Committee as approved by the Government, the
Fatehpur captive coal block has been jointly
allocated to M/s SKS Ispat Ltd and M/s Prakash
Industries Ltd. for their power plant of 1000MW
and 625MW capacity respectively. Therefore, the
capacity of M/s SKS Ispat Ltd. has been taken as
1000MW, as per the capacity indicated in its
application form subject to the maximum of
1000MW as per the guidelines of the Ministry of
Power, which are already explained in the foregoing
paragraphs. It may be noted that the guidelines of
the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Coal for
allocation of captive coal blocks have been applied
uniformly to all applicants before deciding the
allocation of coal blocks and consequent equitable
proportionate distribution of shares of geological
reserves. So far as the representations of the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 94 of 343
petitioner dated 13th November, 2007, 16th
November, 2007, 28th August, 2008 and 15th
September, 2008 are concerned, the same did not
warrant any action afresh, since the petitioner has
been fully aware of the proceedings of the
Screening Committee meetings held which were
based on the guidelines enumerated and the
presentations given by the petitioner before the
Screening Committee. Further, the
recommendations of the Screening Committee
meeting has the approval of the competent authority
and revisiting the same would be offsetting the
recommendations and scrutiny done by the
Screening Committee based on the guidelines.
Hence, re-looking the recommendations of the
Screening Committee would have undone the
exercise of allocation already finalized.”
239. In cross-examination on behalf of accused public
servants, he admitted that he had been examined as a prosecution
witness in various cases of coal block allocation matters such as
CBI Vs. M/s VMPL & Ors., CBI Vs. M/s KSSPL & Ors., CBI
Vs. M/s NPPL & Ors. and CBI Vs. M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy
Ltd. & Ors. etc.
240. He told that the applications received qua 35th and
36th Screening Committee were processed in the same manner as
the applications received for 34th Screening Committee. He told
that the applications received qua 35th and 36th Screening
Committee were processed together by CA-I Section. He told
that the checking of applications for their eligibility and
completeness did not take place even at the time of 34 th
Screening Committee.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 95 of 343
241. His previous cross-examination dated 06.10.2017 as
conducted in case CC No. 74/2016 titled CBI Vs. Y. Harish
Chandra Prasad & Ors. (NPPL) was put to him which he
admitted. He had told as follows:
“At the time when the officials were deputed to
receive the applications then at that time itself it
was told to them to cursory check the annexures of
the application being submitted including the draft.
Witness further stated that the officials were told to
cursory check as to whether annexures were there
or not. Vol. There were five sets of the applications
and the set in which there was draft was to be
checked.”
242. He admitted that aforesaid directions were given to
CA-I Section officials who were deputed to receive the
applications. He also admitted that the availability of annexures
of the applications were also told to be cursorily checked.
243. His previous cross-examination dated 06.11.2017 as
conducted in abovesaid case was also admitted wherein he told
as follows:
“Question: Is it correct that checking of applications
for eligibility and correctness was carried out only
in one set of the applications and not in the other
four sets of the applications?
Ans. As stated by me in my earlier deposition that a
cursory glance was given to the documents as were
available in all the five sets. However the contents
of the documents were not seen by us but it was
only seen as to whether all documents were
available or not”.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 96 of 343
244. His previous cross-examination dt. 21.10.2016
recorded in case CC No. 03/16 CBI vs VMPL & Ors. was put to
him and he admitted having stated while referring to the
application of M/s VMPL that the incomplete applications were
not entertained by MoC.
245. He told that the “incomplete applications” referred
to by him were regarding the availability of draft and five sets of
the applications. However, he admitted that in his deposition
recorded in the case CBI vs VMPL and Ors., he had stated that
incomplete applications were not entertained by MoC with
reference to the availability of project report along with the
application of M/s VMPL and not with reference to draft of
processing fees.
246. He denied the suggestion that the applications were
checked for their completeness at the time of 34 th Screening
Committee and in the same manner they were checked at the
time of 35th and 36th Screening Committee.
247. He was shown List A titled “Applications found
complete on first scrutiny (subject to change subsequently)” and
List B titled “Applications found in-complete/in-valid on first
scrutiny (status may change on second scrutiny)” available from
pg. 10-27 in MoC file bearing no. 38011/3/2006-CA-I (Vol. II)
available as D-3 in case CC No. 296/2019 titled “CBI vs. Grace
Industries Ltd.“, which pertained to 34th Screening Committee
and he was asked that the two lists as above showed that the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 97 of 343
applications were checked for their completeness in MoC and he
had dealt with the said file. In response, after going through the
file, he stated that though the said file had been dealt with by him
but to his knowledge no such exercise was ever undertaken and
also stated that no noting in the said file existed in this regard and
nothing was ascertainable as to who had prepared the said lists.
Copy of list A and list B are Ex. PW 11/DX-3 (Colly.).
248. A copy of communication dated 22.07.2006 of M/s
Kesoram Industries Ltd is Ex. PW 11/DX-4 (Colly.). Similarly, a
copy of communication dt. 09.08.2006 of Dr. Sabhyasachi Sen is
Ex. PW 11/DX-5. PW-11 was also shown note sheet page 29 in
MoC file bearing no. 13016/23/2005-CA-I [available as D-12 in
case CC No. 296/19 titled “CBI Vs. Grace Industries Ltd.“] and
wherein a note of R.N. Singh dated 04.09.2006 was put up before
the witness regarding complete/incomplete applications and
which read as under:
“It is noted that some D.D. submitted along
with application lost validity period as some
were not deposited in account well in time.
Probably some applications were considered as
incomplete for that reason D.D. might have not
been deposited. As we are inviting all the
applications irrespective of status of
complete/incomplete, it is proposed that
available DDs be returned to concerned parties
for sending to Govt after revalidation.
DFA
For decisionCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 98 of 343
Sd/-
(R.N. Singh)
4/9/06
US(CA-I)
In view of the above note, we may
send the demand draft to the concerned
party/company for revalidation of draft.
Submitted for approval, please.
Sd/-
(V.S. Rana)
5/9/06″
249. Witness was thus asked as to whether he was now
able to recollect the facts regarding preparation of said two lists.
Witness in response however stated that he was still not able to
recollect as to on what basis the applications were stated as
complete/incomplete.
250. He admitted that as per guidelines issued by MoC,
the applications were to be stated as complete only when all the
required documents as were asked for were annexed with the
same.
251. He admitted that during the course of investigation
of various coal block allocation matters, when the IO pointed out
to him deficiencies in various applications then only it came to
his knowledge that some of the applications were incomplete.
252. He did not remember whether he had earlier deposed
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 99 of 343
in any case or had stated in any statement before CBI that in the
initial 2-3 days of receiving of applications, the same were
segregated state-wise and nature of end use wise but later on
when the number of applications increased then the segregation
exercise was undertaken after the last date of receipt of
applications. He was confronted with his deposition earlier
recorded in the case(s) CC No. 04/14 titled CBI Vs. KSSPL &
Ors; CC No. 03/16 titled CBI Vs. VMPL & Ors; CC No. 06/14
titled CBI Vs. Grace Industries Ltd; CC No. 07/14 titled CBI Vs.
VISUL & Ors; CC No. 04/15 titled CBI Vs. PSMPL & Ors; CC
No. 02/14 titled CBI Vs. Y. Harish Chandra Prasad & Ors and
CC No. 06/15 titled CBI Vs. JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd & Ors
which are Ex. PW 11/DX-6; Ex. PW 11/DX-7; Ex. PW 11/DX-8;
Ex. PW 11/DX-9; Ex. PW 11/DX-10; Ex. PW 11/DX-11 and Ex.
PW 11/DX-12 respectively.
253. He was also confronted with his statements u/s 161
CrPC recorded during the course of investigation of other coal
block allocation matters i.e. CBI Vs. PSMPL & Ors; CBI Vs.
VMPL; CBI Vs. VISUL; CBI Vs. KSSPL; CBI Vs. JLD
Yavatmal Energy Ltd; CBI Vs. Grace Industries Ltd; CBI Vs. Y.
Harish Chandra Prasad; CBI Vs. SKS Ispat (RC No. 15/14) and
CBI Vs. Revati Cement which are Ex. PW 11/DX-14 (Colly.) ;
Ex. PW 11/DX-15; Ex. PW 11/DX-16; Ex. PW 11/DX-17; Ex.
PW 11/DX-18 and Ex. PW 11/DX-19 (Colly.). The copy of
statements u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by CBI in the cases, CBI Vs.
Y. Harish Chandra Prasad; CBI Vs. SKS Ispat (RC No. 15/14)
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 100 of 343
and CBI Vs. Revati Cement are Ex. PW 11/DX-20; Ex. PW
11/DX-21 and Ex. PW 11/DX-22.
254. He denied that he had informed K.C. Samria/A-5,
Deputy Secretary, MoC while he was posted in CA-II Section,
MoC that preliminary scrutiny of applications and sorting would
be carried out between 12.01.2007 and 05.02.2007.
255. After seeing a communication dated 22.01.2007 sent
by K.C. Samria/A-5 to Director (CA-I), Director, (CPD),
Director (Tech.) with copy to US (CPD), US (CA-I), US(CRC),
US(CPAM), US(CA-II) alongwith with response sent to the said
communication by the PW-11 on 31.01.2007, available from
page 67-72 in MoC file bearing No. 47011/4/2003-CB-CA(Pt)
[available as D-40 in case CC No. 3/16, titled “CBI Vs. VMPL &
Ors.”], he admitted having sent his response vide endorsement
dated 31.01.2007 and thereby furnishing requisite information in
respect of identification of policy measures and other specific
initiatives to be taken up by the Ministry in the current year for
allocation of coal block under Government as well as captive
dispensation. Copy of the aforesaid communication of K.C.
Samria and response of the witness is collectively Ex. PW
11/DX-13 (Colly.).
256. He admitted that as per the guidelines issued by
MoC, the applications were supposed to be treated as ready for
dispatch to Administrative Ministries / State Governments /
CMPDIL only when they were checked for their eligibility and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 101 of 343
completeness in MoC. He admitted that note dt. 19.02.2007 of
R.N. Singh at pg. 10/n in file Ex. PW 11/A (Colly.) (D-37) was
approved by him and it was not sent to any senior officer by him.
He further admitted that subsequently R.N. Singh put up a note
dt. 01.03.2007 (available at pg. 10/n) seeking to upload list of
applicants on the website of MoC as per a format proposed in
DFA. One office copy of communication dt. 16.03.2007
available at pg. 128 in file Ex. PW 11/A (D-37) is Ex. PW
11/DX-23.
257. He denied that the lists of applicant companies
uploaded at the time of 34th Screening Committee were two lists
i.e. of complete applications and of incomplete applications. He
denied that lists Ex. PW 11/DX-3 (Colly.) were the lists uploaded
at the time of 34th Screening Committee or the lists as were seen
by him while sending letter dt. 16.03.2007 Ex. PW 11/DX-23 (D-
37).
258. He admitted that only such states were members of
Screening Committee where the coal blocks were situated.
259. He admitted that MoC did not prepare any inter se
priority list of the applicant companies qua 35 th/ 36th Screening
Committee on its own or ever submitted any such
list/recommendation to 35th/ 36th Screening Committee. No such
exercise was even carried out with respect to the applications
received qua 31st to 34th Screening Committee.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 102 of 343
260. As per his knowledge, no written communication
was received from any member of Screening Committee relating
to 31st to 36th Screening Committee wherein any request was
made to MoC to provide them any such inter se priority list or
recommendations of the applicant companies.
261. He told that the agenda of 35th Screening Committee
was provided to all the members and the same contained the
applications submitted by all the applicant companies in the
prescribed proforma without any accompanying documents.
262. He did not remember whether the recommendations
of MoP as were received on 30.07.2007 were supplied to all the
members of Screening Committee or not. He also did not
remember whether the said recommendations of MoP were
subsequently supplied to the members prior to the final meeting
held on 13.09.2007 or not.
263. He admitted his cross-examination dated 11.09.2018
recorded in the case “CBI Vs. M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd. CC
No. 06/15” at page 4 of 6 and admitted having stated the
following facts:
“It is correct that till the final decision was arrived
at by 35th Screening Committee the applications
along with their annexures as were lying at Scope
Minar Laxmi Nagar were never brought to the
office of MoC at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. In the
Screening Committee meetings the members used
to be accompanied with one or two officials of their
department, who used to carry some documents but
I am not aware as to what all documents they used
to carry.”
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 103 of 343
264. It is correct that the officials of office of coal
controller were called for assisting in receiving the applications.
265. He admitted that as per the guidelines issued by
MoC governing allocation of captive coal blocks, the applicant
should be an incorporated company to be eligible for allocation
of captive coal block.
266. He admitted that as per the guidelines issued by
MoC, the applications were to be scrutinized for their eligibility
and completeness before sending applications to State
Government and the Administrative Ministries by MoC. As per
the guidelines, no other scrutiny of the applications was to be
carried out by MoC.
267. As to whether after 14th and 18th Screening
Committee meetings, it was the job of Administrative Ministry
and State Governments to verify the correctness of the claims
made by various applicant companies, PW-11 stated he did not
remember the exact directions so given in the aforesaid two
Screening Committee meetings but in so far as he was able to
recollect there were some directions relating to verification of
track records of applicant companies by the State Governments
and Administrative Ministry before sending their
recommendations.
268. Though it was nowhere specified as to who will
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 104 of 343
check the correctness of the claims made by any applicant
company regarding its financial strength but Ministry of Coal did
not use to check the same and in so far as State Governments /
Administrative Ministry are concerned, he was not aware as to
whether they used to check the same or not.
269. He admitted his cross-examination dated 06.10.2017
recorded in the case CBI Vs. M/s NPPL (Y. Harish Chandra
Prasad & Ors.) CC No. 74/2016 at page 27 of 32 and admitted
having stated the following facts:
“Q. Was it thus your understanding in the year 2012 that
Ministry of Power shall examine the claims made in the
applications?
A. At that time I was under the impression / understanding
that Ministry of Power will examine and thereafter will make
recommendation to MoC.”
270. He admitted that his aforesaid understanding was
based on past practice being followed.
271. About in what context the applications could not be
properly scrutinized, the witness stated that the applications
could not be individually scrutinized by opening separate files
qua them.
272. He admitted that fresh advertisement qua 35th and
36th Screening Committee was issued by MoC pursuant to
directions given in Energy Coordination Committee Meeting
held in PMO.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 105 of 343
273. He admitted his cross-examination dated 29.05.2018
recorded in the case CBI Vs. M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd. CC
No. 06/15 at page 3 of 18 and admitted having stated the
following facts:
“That after approval of the advertisement a meeting
was held in the office of Joint Secretary Coal and
where the process/manner in which the applications
were to be dealt with in MoC was discussed and the
applications were accordingly dealt with in the
same way in MoC.
There is no noting in the file pertaining to the
aforesaid meeting held in the chamber of Joint
Secretary Coal. The said meeting however took
place after issuance of advertisement but before
receipt of applications.”
274. He did not remember as to whether the reports
received from State Governments pursuant to decision of
Screening Committee held in the meeting dt. 30.07.2007 and as
was asked for vide communication dt. 02.08.2007 was put up
before the Screening Committee in the next meeting or not.
275. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC
dt. 13.01.2015 recorded in case CBI vs SKS and Ors. bearing RC
No. 219 2014 E 0015 from portion A to A, wherein it is recorded
that the complied reports of the State Governments were placed
before the members of Screening Committee. The certified copy
of said statement u/s 161 Cr. PC is Ex. PW11/DX-24.
276. He admitted his cross-examination dated 11.09.2018
recorded in the case CBI Vs. M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd. CC
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 106 of 343
No. 06/15 at page 1-2 of 6 and admitted having stated the
following facts:
“It is correct that whenever any senior officers takes
any decision on any point or decides a particular
course of action on any point then his subordinate
officers are supposed to follow and execute the
same. If the Director takes a decision on any issue
in writing then I as Under Secretary is not
empowered to issue any directions to the Section
Officer to act either contrary to the said direction of
Director or to not to follow the same unless
confirmed by the same officer. Vol. However, if in
the intervening period any verbal directions are
given by the same senior officer then there may be a
change in the course of action to be undertaken.
During the year 2007-08, I was not aware that M/s
AMR Iron & Steel Ltd was a related company of
M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd or not.
In the hierarchy if a senior officer has given a
particular direction or has decided a course of
action then an officer junior to him cannot change
the said directions or the said course of action
unless approved by the same senior officer. Vol. If
the same senior officer in the meantime gives some
verbal directions then the decision or course of
action may be changed.”
277. He further admitted his cross-examination
dated 10.09.2018 recorded in the case CBI Vs. M/s JLD
Yavatmal Energy Ltd. CC No. 06/15 at page 22 of 22 and
admitted having stated the following facts:
“Since I was not present in the meeting held on
11.05.2007, in the office of Secretary Coal so I have no
personal knowledge as to what transpired in the said
meeting. The minutes were prepared and put up by CA-
I Section. Since I do not remember as to whether the
directions by the senior officers qua preparation of
minutes of the meeting held on 11.05.2007 were givenCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 107 of 343
in my presence or not to CA-I Section so I can neither
admit nor deny the suggestion that no such directions
were given to CA-I Section in my presence. Similar is
my answer with respect to the question as to what
directions were given by the senior officers to CA-I
Section towards preparation of minutes of meeting held
on 11.05.2007 or as to who were the senior officers
who gave the directions.”
278. He could not comment to the suggestion that
thorough and comprehensive examination, appraisal and
evaluation of all the applications was being made by the
Administrative Ministries and the State Governments concerned;
and thereafter by the Screening Committee and thereafter by the
office of Minister of State for Coal; and finally by the Prime
Minister’s Office (PMO).
279. PW-18 Sh. S.K. Shahi is also from MoC. He was
posted in MoC from February 2013 till July 2016.
280. During the year 2013, he had made certain
correspondence with CBI with regard to investigation of coal
block allocation matters. Letter dated 04.06.2013 which is
already Ex. P-6/PW-17 (D-42) is signed by him. Vide this letter
he had furnished details of the coal blocks allocated to M/s AIL,
M/s CIAL and M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vide Office
Memorandum dated 03.05.2013 [Ex. P-4/PW-17(Colly.) (D-26)],
he had provided a clarification in response to CBI’s letter No.
1043/3/coal scam cases dated 04.02.2013. The OM reads as
under:
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 108 of 343
“New Delhi dated 3rd May, 2013
OFFICE MEMORANDUMSub: Investigation of CBI case No. RC 219-
2012-E-0008, RC 219-2012-E-0009 and
RC 219-2012-E-0010-Reg.
Reference is invited to CBI’s letter No.
1043/3/Coal scam cases dated 04.02.2013 on the
above subject and to say that the column No. 29 and
30 of the application format for applying for
allocation of coal blocks are meant for furnishing
the information by the applicant company regarding
earlier coal blocks allocated to the applicant
company or its group/associated companies. From
the records available, the rationale/logic for keeping
column No. 29 & 30 in the application form could
not be ascertained. However, the Guidelines for
allocation (copy enclosed) inter alia provide for the
evaluation criterion of technical experience (in
terms of existing capacities in coal/lignite mining
and specified end use) and track record, which
could have possible link to the column no. 29 and
30 in the application form.
Encls: AA
1
Sd/-
(S.K. Shahi)
Director”
281. Further vide OM dated 02.05.2013 [Ex. P-5/PW-17
(D-27)], PW-18 had furnished response to various queries of
CBI. The queries of CBI were received through following
communications:
i. CBI’s letter No. 2225/3/15/2012 EOU-V,
DELHI dated 21.03.2013 received from Shri V.
Murugesan, DIG/CBI, EO.II.
ii. CBI’s letter No. 2226/3/15/2012 EOU-V,
DELHI dated 21.03.2013 received from Shri V.
Murugesan, DIG/CBI, EO.II.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 109 of 343
iii. CBI’s letter No. 2553/RC: 219 2012 E
0011/EOU-IV, dated 02.04.2013 received from Shri
K.L. Moses, Inspector of Police/CBI, EOU-IV.
iv. CBI’s letter No. 2131/3/RC-219-2012-E-0010
dated 15.03.2013 received from Dr. V. Murugesan,
HOB/CBI, EO-II.
v. CBI’s letter No. 2629/3/16/2012, EO-V, DELHI
dated 05.04.2013 received from Shri Sanjay Dubey,
Inspector of Police/CBI, EOU-V.
vi. CBI’s letter No. 12054/3/16/2012, EO-V,
DELHI dated 05.12.2012 received from Shri Sanjay
Dubey, Inspector of Police/CBI, EOU-V.
282. The response of PW-18 to the aforesaid queries was
as follows:
“2. In this regard, it is informed that from the
records/documents as available, it is seen that the
applications received from the applicant companies
for allocation of 38 coal blocks (15 power blocks
which were considered in 35th Screening Committee
meetings and 23 non-power blocks which were
considered in 36th Screening Committee meetings)
advertised in November, 2006 do not appear to have
been checked for the eligibility and completeness in
the Ministry of Coal before sending to
administrative Ministries/State Governments for
examination and comments thereon. However, a set
of applications received was also sent to CMPDIL,
which is a technical organization under CIL, for
examination and comments. Further, as per the
minutes of 35th Screening Committee, it is seen that
it was decided that the State Governments may be
asked to carry out a quick verification of the data
used by the Ministry of Power for techno-economic
evaluation of end use projects. Minutes further
record that the verification reports were received
from most of the State Governments. It also appears
from the records that the Screening committee had
not entrusted the job of checking of applications to
any official.
The Feedback form and presentation made by M/s
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 110 of 343
Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. Could not be
located in the concerned Section in the Ministry No.
circulars/office orders/guidelines etc. describing the
role of officers/officials of Ministry of Coal during
the process of allocation of coal blocks by 35th and
36th Screening Committee were found to have been
issued.”
283. In cross examination on behalf of A-2, it has come
that PW-18 was not posted in MoC at the time of receiving the
applications and their processing.
284. He stated that to check the applications for their
eligibility and completeness received in the year 2006-07 was the
job of the then CA-I Section, MoC.
285. He was also cross-examined on behalf of accused
public servants on similar lines as A-2.
From Ministry of Power or CEA
286. PW-14 is Sh. Anil Kumar Kutty. He is from MoP.
287. He proved copy of one file of MoP as Ex. PW14/A
(Colly.) (D-40). He referred to some notesheets at pages 44-
47/n therein and also to the guidelines regarding inter se priority
as per which the following factors were to be considered:
“Status (stage) level of progress and state of
preparedness of the projects.
Net worth of the applicant company (or in
the case of a new SP/JV, the net worth of their
principals).
Production capacity as proposed in the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 111 of 343
application.
Maximum recoverable reserve as proposed
in the application.
Date of commissioning of captive mine as
proposed in the application.
Date of completion of detailed exploration
(in respect of unexplored blocks only) as proposed
in the application.
Technical experience (in terms of existing
capacities in coal/lignite mining and specified end
use).
Recommendation of the Administrative
Ministry concerned.
Recommendation of the State Government
concerned (i.e. where the captive block is located).
Track record and financial strength of the
company.”
288. He told that after the file was put up before him, he
put up a detailed note under his signatures dated 19.06.2007 at
pages 46-47/n and observed in para 3 as under:
“3) From the point of view of the Ministry of
Power, the following issues needs to be taken into
account while deciding our response.
a) the representative of Ministry of Power is only
one among the 13 members of the Screening
Committee.
b) the Ministry of Coal has already announced the
“guidelines for inter-se priority for allocation of
blocks among competing applicants” and the
recommendation of the administrative ministry is
just one (S. No. 10) out of the ten criteria.
c) however, an examination of the conditions
shows that the Ministry of Power would
directly/indirectly have to be associated with the
Sl. Nos. 1*, 2*, 7*, 8* and 10* (para 2 above).”
289. He deposed that he had proposed in his note that as
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 112 of 343
MoC was holding presentation by the applicants i.e. from 20 th to
23rd June and as MoP had so far not made any case-wise
examination of the applications and had also not made any
recommendations to MOC, and also that Secretary (Power) had
already intimated to Secretary (Coal) in his letter that the views
of MoP would be communicated by the ministry’s representatives
at the Screening Committee, so, considering that over 740
presentations would be made before Screening Committee, the
official recommendations of the MoP would be possible only if
the data and presentations made by the developers before the
Screening Committee were analyzed and processed on file for
approval of the Secretary/MoP. His note was approved by Sh.
Anil Razdan Secretary Power vide his signatures dated
20.06.2007.
290. He told that thus the networth which was required to
be seen was for the purpose of assessing the capacity of the
organization to raise sufficient funds for establishing the power
project in question.
291. The note sheet pages from page 1-64/n in file Ex.
PW 14/A (Colly) (D-40) are Ex. PW14/A-1 (Colly.) and the
correspondence side pages from page 1-295/c are Ex. PW14/A-2
(Colly.).
292. The office copy of one DO letter dated 20.06.2007 at
pages 66-67/c in Ex. PW14/A-2 (Colly) is Ex. PW14/A-3. The
response of MoC to letter dated 30.06.2007 is Ex. PW14/A-4.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 113 of 343
Office copy of letter dated 26.06.2007 at pages 68-70/c is Ex.
PW14/A-5 (Colly.). It was mentioned as follows in the said
letter:
“Please refer to this Ministry’s D.O. letter of even
number dated 20.06.2007 from Secretary, Ministry
of Power to Secretary, Ministry of Coal (copy
enclosed). Since the presentations made by the
developers before the Screening Committee on coal
blocks in the Ministry of coal are now over, I would
request you to kindly have these presentations
expeditiously documented on the parameters
already indicated. The level and state of
preparedness being an important criteria, these
should be analyzed in a transparent manner against
tangible and verifiable yardsticks like land
acquisition, water linkages and other required
statutory clearances etc. The net worth of the
applicant company should be only a qualifying
criteria and the yardstick \adopted for the UMPPs
may be adopted for analyzing these projects also. I
request you to kindly complete this analysis and get
it computerized and sent to us latest by 2 nd July,
2007 so that the matter could be further taken up for
making formal recommendations to the Ministry of
Coal.
The matter may be treated as Most Immediate”
293. He also proved copy of MoP file bearing No. FU-
10/2003-IPC B-II as Ex. PW14/B (Colly.) (D-41).
294. Copy of letter dated 30.07.2007 at page 49-78 in file
Ex. PW14/B (Colly.) vide which the blockwise recommendations
for allocation of coal blocks to IPPs/CPPs alongwith summary of
recommendations was sent by CEA to MoP is Ex. PW14/B-1
(Colly.). He told that a note dated 30.07.2007 was put up by him
vide note sheet page 53 in file Ex. PW14/A (Colly.)(D-40) to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 114 of 343
Secretary, Power for approval.
295. The communication dated 13/16.07.2007 available
from page 131-219 in file Ex. PW14/A (Colly.) is Ex. PW14/A-6
(Colly.). The communication dated 26.07.2007 available from
page 220-229 in file Ex. PW 14/A (Colly.) is Ex. PW14/A-7
(Colly.).
296. He told that subsequently, vide letter dated
30.07.2007 (available from page 38-41), the recommendations of
MoP as were received from CEA were sent to MoC for being
placed before the Screening Committee for their consideration.
The copy of letter dated 30.07.2007 alongwith summary of
recommendations as enclosed is Ex. PW14/B-2 (Colly.) (D-41).
297. He told that A-1 company M/s JICPL was
recommended jointly with M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. for
Patal East (Jharkhand) coal block for its proposed project at
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
298. He told that vide letter dated 24/27.08.2007, the
methodology adopted by CEA in short-listing the applicant
companies at the stage of pre-qualification or thereafter short-
listing and making block-wise recommendations was enclosed.
The said letter is Ex. PW14/B-3 (Colly.) (D-41) (from page 80-
85).
299. One OM dated 29.05.2007 [available from page 55-
59 in a file of MoC Ex. PW11/D (Colly.) (D-30)] vide which
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 115 of 343
minutes of the Coal Coordination Committee meeting held on
18.05.2007 in MoP were sent to MoC is Ex. PW14/C (Colly.) (D-
30).
300. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1, he stated that
networth was an important factor for considering inter se priority.
He told that he was aware that IL&FS or IDFC used to associate
with other companies to set up power projects in the country. He
almost agreed that the purpose of aforesaid association with
IL&FS and IDFC was to consider their financial strength for the
project of applicant company getting associated with them.
301. Upon being asked as to what weight was to be
assigned to the ten factors mentioned in the inter se priority
guidelines issued by MOC, the witness stated that it was for the
Screening Committee to consider and decide and not for MoP.
302. A question regarding what weightage was to be
given to the different factors as mentioned in note dt. 19.06.2007
was disallowed by my learned Predecessor.
303. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 CrPC
dated 22.05.2013 which is Ex. PW14/DX-1/A-1 wherein the
following facts were not mentioned:
“Applications of various companies were received
in 22 trunks in Ministry of Power from MOC but as
Ministry of Power had already taken a decision not
to make recommendations on case to case basis and
also we were told that presentations shall be made
before the Screening Committee by all the applicant
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 116 of 343
companies so we asked CEA (Central Electricity
Authority) officers to attend the presentations in
MOC.”
304. In cross-examination on behalf of accused public
servants, copy of one OM dated 12.10.2006 [available from page
24-27, in file Ex. PW14/B (Colly.) (D-40)] vide which MoP had
informed Secretary (Coal) about three lists of coal blocks which
had been identified by MoP in consultation with MoC was
marked as Ex. PW14/DX-2 (Colly.)/A-5.
305. He admitted that since 2004, MoC was trying to do
away with Screening Committee route for allocation of captive
coal blocks. According to PW-14, MoP had taken a view that
MoC should continue with Screening Committee route for
allocation of captive coal blocks.
306. Copy of one note dated 13.12.2006, titled “Note for
the cabinet” issued by Ministry of Mine, Government of India
[available from page 366-403 (running into 38 pages) in MoP file
i.e. FU-5/2003 IPC Volume-II] is Ex. PW14/DX-3 (Colly.)/A-5.
This note contains views of various Ministries and that of State
Governments in para 8.
307. He admitted that the application forms were sent to
MoP by MoC and thereafter they were sent to CEA. He told that
he came to know later on that CEA had not taken the said
applications which were in 22 boxes and they had attended the
presentation and where they had received the required papers.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 117 of 343
This fact came to his notice much later i.e. even after the
allocation of coal blocks had taken place. He told that he had
never instructed CEA not to accept the applications or not to
peruse them.
308. He admitted that vide DO letter dt. 20.06.2007 [Ex.
PW14/A-3 (D-40)] sent by Sh. Anil Razdan Secretary (Power) to
Secretary (Coal), it was conveyed that MoP would be associated
with only certain specific aspects of the inter se priority
guidelines issued by MoC. He admtited that vide the said DO
letter MoP had agreed to give its recommendations on the basis
of inter se guidelines issued by MoC, though qua some aspects
only.
309. About how in the absence of approval of Minister of
Power on 30.07.2007 in the file, the recommendations were sent
to Screening Committee on 30.07.2007 itself, the witness stated
that the Secretary (Power) might have obtained such consent of
Minister on telephone itself.
310. PW-15 is Sh. Manjit Singh Puri. At the relevant
time, he was posted in CEA which comes under MoP. He
described his role as an official of CEA.
311. He deposed that in the month of June 2007, he along
with some other CEA officers had attended some meetings of 35 th
Screening Committee on the directions of his ministry i.e. MoP.
In the said Screening Committee meetings, presentations were
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 118 of 343
made by various applicant companies.
312. He deposed that the instructions given to him were
to listen to the presentations being made in the Screening
Committee meetings and to collect information, if any, made
available in the meetings. The said Screening Committee
meetings were chaired by Secretary (Coal) H.C. Gupta and Joint
Secretary (Coal) was also there.
313. He told that during the aforesaid meetings, the
applicant companies had supplied to them a feedback form
beside also providing hard copy of their presentations so made
before the Screening Committee.
314. He identified his signatures on the attendance sheet
of Screening Committee meeting held on 21.06.2007 [part of Ex.
PW11/G-4 (Colly.) (D-29)]. The attendance sheet dated
21.06.2007 is Ex. PW15/A (page 110-111). Similarly, attendance
sheet of Screening Committee meeting held on 23.06.2007 [part
of Ex. PW11/G-4 (Colly.) (D-29)] is Ex. PW15/A-1 (page 114-
115).
315. He deposed that after few days of attending the
aforesaid meetings, their Chief Engineer directed them to
compile the information pertaining to various applicant
companies received during the course of Screening Committee
meetings in a given format. The said format was prepared under
the supervision of Chief Engineer (TPI) Sh. S. Seshadri.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 119 of 343
316. He told that the aforesaid information was compiled
in three different divisions of CEA i.e. TPI division, Integrated
Resource Planing (IRP) division and Operation Monitoring (OM)
division. The aforesaid compilation of data was based on the
information as was mentioned in the feedback forms and the
presentations made by the companies. At that time CEA was not
having applications of any of the aforesaid applicant companies.
He also told that the applications were subsequently forwarded to
CEA by MoP much after the allocation of coal blocks by MoC
probably in 2010.
317. He deposed that after compilation of all the
aforesaid data, the first exercise carried out by CEA was as
regard the pre-qualification criteria i.e. the criteria pertaining to
networth and capacity of proposed project. He told that the
networth criteria which was adopted was that of UMPP as per
letter of Joint Secretary (Power). The said networth criteria was
that of 0.5 crore per MW. After seeing communication dated
13/16.07.2007 Ex. PW14/A-6 (Colly.) (available from page 131-
219 in D-40) of Sh. S. Seshadri, Chief Engineer TPI, CEA and as
addressed to Sh. A.K. Kutty, Joint Secretary, MoP, PW-15 stated
that the second criteria regarding capacity was stated as under:
“(b) Project Capacity
Min. of Coal while inviting applications for coal
block allocations had indicated that priority shall be
accorded to projects with more than 500 MW
capacity. Since for each coal block there are more
than one applications, the applicants who have
applied for projects having less than 500 MW
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 120 of 343
capacity have not been prequalified.”
318. After pre-qualification criteria was applied,
thereafter, short listing of applicant companies was also carried
out in accordance with the criteria mentioned in para 4 of
aforesaid communication Ex. PW 14/A-6 (Colly.) (D-40).
319. Accordingly, Annexure-I contains the list of all
applicant companies whose information has been complied.
Annexure-II contains the list of applicant companies, who
qualified at the initial stage i.e. at the stage of pre-qualification.
Annexure-III contains the list of applicant companies, who were
finally short-listed. Annexure-IV contains the list of short-listed
applicant companies block-wise.
320. He told that CEA however had not carried out
verification of any of the aforesaid information furnished by the
applicant companies. In fact in the communication Ex. PW 14/A-
6 (Colly.) in para 6 the following facts were also mentioned:
“6. It is suggested that while allocating the coal
blocks, the following aspects may be considered by
the Screening Committee:
i) Some of the coal blocks are bigger in size
and these may be allocated to more than one
applicants.
ii) Only one block per applicant may be
allocated.
iii) Coal blocks may also be allocated to the
applicants for captive power plants as per MoP
letter No. FU- 10.2005-IPC dated 12.10.06
addressed to Ministry of Coal,
iv) Priority may be given to projects proposed to
be located near the coal blocks to avoid burden on
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 121 of 343
Railways for coal transportation.
The short listing of the applicants has been made
based on the information furnished by the
applicants in their feedback form/ presentation
made to the Screening Committee. It is suggested
that the details as presented by them may be got
verified before allocating the blocks.
This issues with the approval of Chairperson,
CEA.”
321. He further told that some of the applicant companies
supplied some additional information directly to CEA. Upon
receipt of said updated information, fresh communication was
also sent to MoP by CEA based on the said updated information.
322. He deposed that he had dealt with file of CEA
bearing no. 144/GC/BO/CE (TPI)/2007. Copy of the said file is
Ex. PW15/B (Colly.) [AD-1] (from page 1-235).
323. He identified his signature on communication dated
17.07.2007 issued to Sh. A.K. Kutty, Joint Secretary, MoP [page
229 in file of CEA Ex. PW15/B (Colly.)]. Copy of the aforesaid
communication is Ex. PW15/B-1 (AD-1).
324. He had also dealt with file of CEA bearing no.
144/GC/BO/CE (TPI). Copy of the said file is Ex. PW15/C
(Colly) [AD-2] (from page 1-301).
325. He identified copies of charts available in AD-3 and
AD-4 as the rough work sheets of CEA, which were worked
upon by them before sending block-wise recommendations to
MoP.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 122 of 343
326. The charts available from page 1-12 in AD-3 are
Ex. PW15/D (Colly.). The charts available from page 1-6 in AD-
4 are Ex. PW15/E (Colly.).
327. Copy of communication dated 26.07.2007 [available
from page 1-51 in file Ex.15/C (Colly.) (AD-2)] vide which
further updated information was sent to MoP by CEA is Ex. PW
15/C-1 (Colly.).
328. The office copy of another communication dated
30.07.2007 [available from page 58-86 in file Ex. PW 15/C
(Colly) (AD-2)] vide which the block-wise recommendation for
allocation of coal blocks to IPPs / CPPs along with summary of
recommendations were sent with the approval of Chairperson
CEA is Ex. PW 15/C-2 (Colly).
329. Letter dated 26.06.2007 [page 233-235 in file Ex.
PW 15/B (Colly) (AD-1)] vide which Sh. A.K. Kutty, Joint
Secretary Power had asked Chairman CEA, Sh. Rakesh Nath to
document the presentations made before the Screening
Committee, MoC on the basis of parameters already indicated
and other factors which were mentioned in a communication
dated 20.06.2007 to Secretary (Coal) by Secretary (Power) Sh.
Anil Rajdan is Ex. PW 15/B-2 (Colly) (AD-1).
330. In the letter of Secretary, Power as was addressed to
Secretary Coal, the following facts were mentioned in para 2:
“2. The Ministry of Coal had indicated that “priority
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 123 of 343
shall be allocated to projects with more than 500
MW capacity”. Further, Ministry of Coal had
indicated that the “inter-se priority for allocation of
a block among competing applicants for a captive
block may be decided as per the following
guidelines:
1*. Status (stage) level of progress and state of
preparedness of the projects.
2*. Net worth of the applicant company (or in the
case of a new SP/JV, the net worth of their
principals).
3. Production capacity as proposed in the
application.
4. Maximum recoverable reserve as proposed in the
application.
5. Date of commissioning of captive mine as
proposed in the application.
6. Date of completion of detailed exploration (in
respect of unexplored blocks only) as proposed in
the application.
7*. Technical experience (in terms of existing
capacities in coal/lignite mining and specified end
use).
8*. Recommendation of the Administrative
Ministry concerned.
9. Recommendation of the State Government
concerned (i.e. where the captive block is located).
10*. Track record and financial strength of the
company.
An examination of the conditions reveals that the
Ministry of Power would have to be associated with
the SL Nos 1*, 2*, 7*, 8* and 10* above.”
331. The office copy of communication dated
24/27.08.2007 [page 179-184 in file Ex. PW 15/C (Colly) (AD-
2)], vide which the methodology adopted for pre-qualification,
short-listing and block-wise recommendation for allocation of
coal block to IPPs/CPPs was sent to MoP is Ex. PW 15/C-3
(Colly) (AD-2).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 124 of 343
332. Vide communication dated 30.07.2007, Ex. PW
15/C-2 (Colly) (AD-2), as regard the company JICPL, the
recommendation was made by CEA in favour of the company
qua allocation of Patal East (Jharkhand) coal block to be shared
jointly with one other company i.e. M/s Bhushan Power and
Steel Ltd. in the ratio of 540:250 for Bhagalpur, Bihar project of
the company.
333. The five recommendation sheets available from
page 37-41 are Ex. PW15/F (Colly.) [Part of Ex. PW 11/J-4
(Colly.)].
334. After seeing feedback form of M/s JICPL Ex. PW
1/E (D-34), PW-15 told that no document was annexed which
could show that JICPL was joint venture between IISIPL and
IL&FS.
335. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 company, it
has come that he was not aware as to on what basis or on what
considerations MoP took the decision to use UMPP criteria for
pre-qualification. He was also not aware as to whether MoP
communicated their said decision to MoC or not.
336. He told that UMPP guidelines were part of standard
bid documents qua tariff based competitive bidding process. The
UMPP were power projects of capacity 4000 MW. It has come
that the pre-qualification criteria was received in CEA vide letter
dated 26.06.2007 of Sh. A.K. Kutty [Ex. PW15/B-2 (Colly) (AD-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 125 of 343
1)] and it was so received after the Screening Committee
meetings held on 20.06.2007 till 23.06.2007 were already over.
It has come that the decision that the companies would be pre-
qualified by CEA on the basis of UMPP guidelines was never
uploaded on the website of CEA. He was not aware as to whether
MoP ever uploaded the said decision on their website or not.
337. In cross-examination on behalf of accused public
servants, it has come that large thermal power projects of
capacity 4000 MW were categorized as UMPPs. The allocation
qua UMPP was undertaken by MoP through Power Finance
Corporation (PFC) by inviting bids. The coal blocks were
earmarked for UMPPs. Land for such projects used to be
identified by MoP through CEA and PFC. They all collectively
also used to identify coal blocks which were to be earmarked for
UMPPs. Some of the clearances such as Water and
Environmental clearances and Land availability etc. used to be
tied up by MoP through PFC and CEA before inviting the bids.
338. He told that in the Screening Committee meetings,
he did not ask for the application forms from anyone. He was not
aware as to on 20.06.2007 the applications forms of all the
applicant companies in the nature of Agenda Form was given to
all the members of Screening Committee or not. He admitted that
the exercise of compilation and analysis of the information so
collected was started in CEA after receipt of communication dt.
26.06.2007 Ex. PW15/B-2 (Colly.) (AD-1) from MoP in CEA.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 126 of 343
339. Copy of one file bearing No. 144/GC/BO/CE(TPIA)
containing note sheet pages from 1-11 is Ex. PW15/DX-1/A-3).
340. He identified signature of Sh. A.K. Kutty on letter
dated 26.06.2007, Ex. PW15/B-2 (Colly.) (AD-1) addressed
to Sh. Rakesh Nath Chairperson, CEA and issued under the
signatures of Sh. A.K. Kutty Joint Secretary, MoP. He
identified his signature also on the said letter.
341. He told that the status of DPR of any applicant
company was relevant as the same reflected the nature of
project or its requirements and other details which was to
be established.
342. After seeing a communication dated 24.08.2007
Ex. PW15/C-3(Colly.) (AD-2), he stated that in the said
communication sent to MoP under the signatures of Sh. S.
Sheshadari, Chief Engineer, CEA, a brief note on the
methodology adopted for pre-qualification, short-listing and
block- wise recommendation was communicated and in
the said communication in para 3.1 (d) the following facts
were mentioned:
“3. 1 d) Considering that the sufficient twelve 12
of applicants in the category of CPPs could not be
shortlisted, 2 CPP applicants namely, Tata Steel
Ltd. in Chhattisgarh and Bhushan Power & Steel
Ltd. in , Jharkhand were also considered for
block-wise recommendations. M/s Tata Steel Ltd.
was earlier not shortlisted due to non-tie-up of
land. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. subsequently intimated
that land acquisition is under progress for which
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 127 of 343
Section 4, Section 6, Section 9 notice already
issued. Further, the project is proposed in tribal
dominated backward district of Bastar hence, it has
been included in the list. Similarly, Bhushan Power
& Steel Ltd. who was earlier not shortlisted due to
non tie-up of water has subsequently intimated that
Chief Engineer (WRO) vide letter dated 25.7.07
conveyed that their proposal for water
requirement for the proposed Steel Plant &
Captive Power Plant was under process. This
project has been short listed considering that this is
the prequalified captive power project for this
block which has made some progress. ”
343. He did not remember whether or not draft of
communication Ex. PW15/C-3 (Colly.) (AD-2) was prepared by
him before Mr. Sheshadri signed it. He did not remember as to
when the decision was taken that a suggestion be made in
the communication dated 13/16.07.2007 Ex. PW 14/A-6
(Colly.) (D-40) in para No.6 (ii) and as sent to Ministry of
Power that only one block per applicant may be allocated. It
is correct that in the communication dated 24.08.2007 Ex. PW
15/C-3 (Colly.) (AD-2) it is mentioned in para No. 3.2 (iv) that
“allocation to not more than one project of same category i.e.
IPPs or CPPs belonging to the same group of companies”.
344. Upon being asked as to when change in the earlier
condition as mentioned in communication Ex. 14/A-6 (Colly.)
(D-40) to the one mentioned in communication Ex PW 15/C-3
(Colly.) (AD-2) took place, the witness stated that the condition
mentioned in communication Ex. PW 15/C-3 (Colly.) (AD-2) is
in fact a further refinement of the condition mentioned in Ex. PW
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 128 of 343
14/A-6 (Colly.) (D-40). However, the earlier condition did not
stand diluted as a result thereof. The condition as mentioned in
communication Ex. PW 15/C-3 (Colly.) (AD-2) was arrived at
when the block-wise recommendations were being made so as
to avoid a situation that in view of less number of coal blocks
available it should not happen that all the coal blocks are
allocated to same group of company or to only IPPs and no coal
block is allocated to CPPs.
345. He admitted that in terms of the condition mentioned
in communication Ex. PW 15/C-3 (Colly.) (AD-2) it was possible
to allocate to same group of company two coal blocks i.e. one for
IPPs and another for CPPs.
346. Upon being asked as to who decided as to
which particular block shall be allocated to any given
company, the witness stated that the aforesaid
recommendation arose from out of the entire exercise which
was undertaken in CEA and thus, no particular person can be
identified in this regard.
347. He did not remember in what manner the
marking criteria as was adopted in CEA was used in preparing
the summary of recommendation i.e. the comparison of the
applicant companies was inter se companies short-listed for CPPs
and IPPs or was even inter se in between the two categories of
CPPs and IPPs.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 129 of 343
348. The factors which were considered while preparing
the block-wise recommendations and the summary of
recommendations are mentioned in the methodology as was
sent to MoP on 24.08.2007 i.e. Ex. PW 15/C-3(Colly.) (AD-2).
The aspects/criteria which were considered are mentioned in
para 3.2 of communication dated 24.08.2007 as under:
“3.2 Following aspects/criteria have been
considered for preparing the block wise
recommendations. i. Preparedness of the projects in
regard to land and water as well as status of placement
of order for main plant and equipment of the
applicants for which coal block had been applied.
ii. Optimum utilization of coal reserves in each block.
iii. Allocation of bigger size coal block to more than one
applicant.
iv. Allocation to not more than one project of
same category i.e. IPP or CPP belonging to the same
group of companies.
v. Projects located nearer to the coal blocks to have
priority as far as possible.
vi. Allocation of coal blocks to captive power plants were
also ensured.”
349. Upon being asked as to what documents were
considered while making block-wise recommendations
and summary of recommendations, the witness stated
that as mentioned in para 4 of communication dated
24.08.2007 Ex. PW 15/C-3 (Colly.) (AD-2), the information
furnished by the applicants in their feedback form,
presentation made to the Screening Committee and
information subsequently furnished were considered.
350. Upon being asked as to on what basis the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 130 of 343
companies belonging to any given group of companies were
identified, the witness stated that such companies were
identified during the course of discussion and by referring to
the presentations available and also by obtaining information
from other officers who had attended the presentations in the
Screening Committee.
351. He admitted that during the course of their
exercise they would not have recommended the company
JICPL and M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy Pvt. Ltd for two
different coal blocks had they been aware that companies belong
to same group of companies. He admitted that from the
documents available with them it could not be found that the two
companies belong to same group of companies.
352. He admitted that the decision to not recommend
more than one company of same group for allocation of more
than one IPP was a decision taken during the course of their
internal exercise undertaken in CEA and was not directed by
MoP and was also not mentioned in the guidelines issued by
MoC.
353. The copy of one office order dt. 06.07.2007
whereby a committee was constituted in CEA to inter
alia recommend allocation of coal blocks to thermal project
promoters including captive plants was constituted is Ex. PW
15/DX-2/A-3 (available at pg. 95 in AD-1).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 131 of 343
354. He told that sometime in October 2007 or so, he
had downloaded the minutes of 35 th Screening Committee from
the website of MoC.
355. Copy of feedback form of Rashmi Cement Ltd. was
marked as Mark PW15/P-1/A-3. Copy of presentation of Rashmi
Cement Ltd. was marked as Ex. PW15/DX-3/A-3.
356. He admitted that different marks were allotted
to applicant companies whose status was considered tied up but
the stages of acquisition of land were different. He told about the
marking system as follows:
Input Process FirmAllocation
initiated <20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
/in principle
allocated
/sea water
Land 4 5 6 7 8 10
Water 4 5 6 7 8 10
Order for main Notice issued Letter of Intent Letter of Award
plant&equipments issued issued
1 3 5
357. Two charts i.e. chart titled "Block wise short
listed applicants for IPPs and CPPs” are Ex. PW 15/D (Colly.)
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 132 of 343
(AD-3); and copy of chart titled “Statement of applicants
short-listed from the list of pre-qualified applicants” is Ex.
PW 15/E (Colly.) (AD-4).
358. He admitted that one company namely EMCO
Energy Ltd. mentioned at serial No. 60 in Annexure-I to letter
dated 13/16.07.2007 Ex. PW14/A-6 (Colly.) (D-40) was not
further short- listed earlier as it was not having water tie-up of
500 MW but later on was subsequently short-listed as additional
information was furnished by the company.
359. No maximum limit of distance between the
proposed project from the coal block in question was fixed
so that any project beyond the said distance will not be
recommended.
360. Attention of the witness was drawn to
recommendation made qua Fatehpur East (Chhattisgarh) coal
block) as mentioned in chart Ex. PW 15/D (Colly.) (AD-3)
and was asked as to why M/s JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd.
was recommended even though it had only 10 points towards
preparedness and the project was situated about 560 Kms
from the coal block, the witness stated that all the suitable
companies keeping in view the potential reserves of the coal
block in question were recommended after necessary
discussion, considering all the factors.
361. A-2 adopted the cross-examination done on behalf
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 133 of 343
of A-1 company M/s JICPL.
From Govt. of West Bengal
362. PW-12 is Bhaskar Khulbe. He is from Govt. of West
Bengal. He had attended meetings of the 35 th Screening
Committee as a representative of Govt. of West Bengal. He has
been examined to show working of the 35th Screening Committee
meetings.
363. He told about examination of applications pertaining
to coal blocks situated in West Bengal or pertaining to EUP to be
established in West Bengal by a Committee headed by him. The
Committee headed by him made its recommendations in favour
of certain applicant companies qua Gourangdih ABC coal block
to State Govt. of West Bengal.
364. He told that he had attended only some of the
meetings of the 35th Screening Committee. He told that Sh. Arun
Sen, CMD of WBMDTC had also attended meetings alongwith
him.
365. About what happened in the meeting held on
30.07.2007, he told that in the said meeting MoP had put up its
recommendations qua various applicant companies and had
asked that the preparedness of the applicant companies might be
got verified from the applicants through the State Governments
concerned. As such, they were also asked to obtain report about
the preparedness of the applicant companies pertaining to State
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 134 of 343
of West Bengal in a given format which was provided to them by
MoC. Subsequently, Govt. of West Bengal had submitted the
requisite information in the said proforma to the MoC.
366. About what proceedings took place in the final
meeting of 35th Screening Committee held on 13.09.2007, he told
that in the said meeting when the matter regarding allocation of
Gourangdih ABC coal block situated in the State of West Bengal
was taken up then being a representative of State of West Bengal
he stated that the State Govt. of West Bengal had already sent its
recommendations for allocation of the said coal block in favour
of WBMDTC. He further stated that he also stated in the meeting
that if Govt. of India was unable to allot the said coal block in
favour of WBMDTC then the said coal block might not be
allotted in favour of any other company.
367. He told that in the meeting held on 30.07.2007, one
consolidated chart containing recommendations of all State Govt.
qua various coal blocks under consideration was provided to all
the members of the Screening Committee but no document was
supplied to the members in the meeting held on 13.09.2007. He
also told that in the earlier meetings of 35 th Screening Committee
held from 20.06.2007 till 23.06.2007, a bunch of documents
containing applications of all the applicant companies who had
applied for allocation of any given coal block was supplied to all
the members in the Screening Committee meeting itself.
368. He stated that the final decision about
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 135 of 343
recommendations qua various coal blocks in favour of different
applicant companies was taken by 35th Screening Committee in
the meeting held on 13.09.2007.
369. As to how the recommendations of the Screening
Committee were arrived at, PW-12 told that when in the meeting
held on 13.09.2007, he stated that the Gourangdih ABC coal
block be allotted in favour of WBMDTC in accordance with the
recommendations of Govt. of West Bengal already sent to MoC,
then the Chairman stated that since WBMDTC had not applied
for allocation of the said coal block and was thus not an applicant
before them, so the recommendation of State Govt. in favour of
said corporation could not be considered. However, when he
responded back that in such a situation the said coal block might
not be allotted in favour of any company, then the Chairman
responded that such a decision had to be taken by the Central
Govt. but they shall be however making recommendations in the
Screening Committee for allocation of said coal block.
370. About his role with respect to allocation of coal
blocks situated in States other than West Bengal, the witness
stated that no other role was to be played by the members
representing different State Governments in the Screening
Committee meeting except putting forth the recommendations of
their respective State Governments, which were already sent to
MoC.
371. About how the suitability of any given coal block
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 136 of 343
for any specific end use project of any given applicant company
was decided, the witness stated that after the State Govt.
representative put forth their views or the representatives of
Administrative Ministries used to put forth their views then the
Chairman used to decide as to which coal block be recommended
for allocation in favour of which applicant company. No
document regarding suitability of any given coal block for any
specific end use project of any given applicant company was
supplied to them in the meeting.
372. He told that no document to assess the Techno-
Economic Feasibility of any given applicant company was
provided to the members of Screening Committee. He told that
the issue of Techno-Economic Feasibility of any given applicant
company was not discussed in the meeting. No discussion was
even held in the meeting as regard the past track record of the
applicant companies in execution of the projects or as regard the
financial and technical capabilities of the applicant companies
and also no document in this regard was supplied to the members
of Screening Committee.
373. He told that the recommendations made by the
Administrative Ministries qua various applicant companies i.e. of
MoP was however not supplied to the members of Screening
Committee. No discussion with respect to the recommendations
of MoP took place in the Screening Committee meeting. He told
that no discussions took place to assess inter se priority or inter
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 137 of 343
se merit or inter se data of the applicant companies. No
document was supplied to them in that regard. He told that no
methodology or system was adopted in the Screening Committee
meeting held on 13.09.2007 from which it could be ascertained
as to which of the applicant company was better placed than the
others. He told that the Chairman was having the final say.
374. He also stated that the decisions arrived at by 35 th
Screening Committee could not be termed as “unanimous” or by
“consensus”.
375. He deposed that after the meeting held on
13.09.2007 was over then each member of the Screening
Committee present were asked to sign the recommendation
sheets even if the coal blocks mentioned over there did not
pertain to the State to which the said member was representing.
The said recommendation sheets were prepared in the meeting
itself. The minutes were however not prepared in the meeting.
The said minutes were subsequently downloaded by them in
Govt. of West Bengal from the website of MoC but were
otherwise not received from MoC. No draft of the said minutes
for confirmation was received in Govt. of West Bengal prior to
approval of said minutes in MoC.
376. He identified his signatures on recommendation
sheets, Ex. PW 11/J-3 (Colly.) [from pg. 83-87 in file Ex. PW
11/J (Colly.) (D-31)]. He identified the minutes of 35th
Screening Committee meeting, Ex. PW 11/J-4 (Colly.) (D-31)
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 138 of 343
[jointly of all the meetings of 35th Screening Committee as are
available from pg. 1-41 in MoC file Ex. PW 11/J (Colly.) (D-
31)].
377. He was asked as to whether the following facts
mentioned in para 9, 10 and 13 of the minutes of 35 th Screening
Committee meeting held on 13.09.2007 were correct.
9. The next meeting of the Screening
Committee was convened on 13.09.2007.
The verification reports from most of the
State Governments, as requested, were
received. The information received was
compiled and placed before the Screening
Committee. Financial strength of applicant
companies was scrutinized independently
with the help of financial experts from CIL.
10. Based on the data furnished by the
applicants, and the feedback received from
the State Governments and the Ministry of
Power, the Committee assessed the
applications having regard to matters such as
techno-economic feasibility of end-use
projects, status of preparedness to set up the
end-use project, past track record in
execution of projects, financial and technical
capabilities of applicant companies,
recommendations of the State Governments
and the Administrative Ministry concerned
etc. Taking cognisance of the advice given
by the Ministry of Power that in view of the
capacity constraints in transmission network,
plant capacity should be limited to 500-1000
MW, the Committee agreed that this should
be taken as the guiding principle. Therefore,
1000 MW would be taken as the maximum
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 139 of 343
limit for allocation of coal blocks, in case the
capacity indicated in the application is higher
than that. In view of the large number of
applications and limited number of coal
blocks on offer, the Committee felt that it
would be reasonable to have a satisfaction
level in the range of around 40-70%, to the
extent feasible.
13.The Screening Committee, thereafter,
deliberated at length over the information
furnished by the applicant companies in the
application forms, during the presentation
and subsequently. The Committee also took
into consideration the views/comments of the
Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, State
Governments concerned, guidelines laid
down for allocation of coal blocks, and other
factors as mentioned in paragraph 10 above.
The Screening Committee, accordingly,
decided to recommend for allocation of coal
blocks in the manner as follows:
Name of Recommended Companies End Use
Block Plant
1 .... .... ....
2 .... .... ....
3 .... .... ....
4 .... .... ....
5 .... .... ....
378. Witness after reading the facts mentioned in para 9
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 140 of 343
as above stated that no verification report received from State
Govt. was placed before the Screening Committee Members.
Also no report regarding financial strength of applicant
companies as is stated to have been scrutinized independently
with the help of financial experts from CIL was placed before the
Screening Committee Members. Witness stated that a
compilation chart containing the recommendations of State
Governments was given but no verification report of State
Governments was given and even the said compilation chart was
given in the meeting held on 30.07.2007.
379. As regard the facts mentioned in para 10 witness
stated that the facts mentioned in the said para that the
Committee assessed the applications having regard to matters
such as techno-economic feasibility of end use project, status of
preparedness to set up the end use project, past track record in
execution of projects, financial and technical capabilities of
applicant companies are not correct as no such factors were
assessed.
380. As regard the facts mentioned in para 13, witness
stated that fact mentioned over there that the Screening
Committee deliberated at length over the information furnished
by the applicant companies in the application form during the
presentation and subsequently is also not correct.
381. He told that it was the duty of MoC to first check the
applications and thereafter send them to the State Governments
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 141 of 343
or Administrative Ministries. He stated that it was not informed
to the members by MoC officers that the applications had not
been checked for their eligibility and completeness.
382. Upon being asked as to whether the witness played
any role with respect to recommendation made by 35 th Screening
Committee in favour of M/s JICPL qua allocation of Mahuagarhi
Coal Block, the witness stated that he did not play any role in
that regard.
383. He told that Sh. V.K. Jairath was representing the
State Govt. of Maharashtra in the Screening Committee Meeting
held on 13.09.2007 and he was in urgency to return to Mumbai
and thus requested the Screening Committee to take up the
matter relating to Maharashtra Govt. in the beginning and which
request of his was duly acceded to by the Chairman. Accordingly
the matter relating to Maharashtra was taken up in the first and
soon thereafter he left the meeting. He told that before Sh. V.K.
Jairath left the Screening Committee Meeting, he was asked to
sign the recommendation sheet and on account of the said fact his
signatures appear at srl. no. 1 on all the five recommendation
sheets.
384. Upon being asked as to whether the Govt. of West
Bengal had recommended M/s JICPL for allocation of a captive
coal block, the witness after seeing a letter dated 18.06.2007
addressed to Secretary, MoC and written under the signatures of
Sh. Sabyasachi Sen, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 142 of 343
Department, Govt. of West Bengal [page 1-5 in file Ex. PW11/G
(Colly.) (D-29)] stated that Govt. of West Bengal had
recommended JICPL for Mahuagarhi coal block under the
category “Captive power producers for iron and steel plants ” and
not as “Independent power producers”. Witness identified
signatures of Sh. Sabyasachi Sen at point A on page 2 of letter
dated 18.06.2007. The letter dated 18.06.2007 is Ex. PW 12/A
(Colly.) (D-29).
385. After seeing a letter dated 21.06.2007 [page 43-48 in
file Ex. PW 11/G (Colly.) (D-29)], witness stated that vide the
said letter, addressed to Secretary, Govt. of India, M/s Himachal
EMTA Power Ltd. as independent power producer was also
recommended for allocation of Mahuagarhi coal block in
addition to the earlier recommendation sent vide letter dated
18.06.2007. The copy of earlier letter dated 18.06.2007 was also
appended to the said letter. The fax copy of letter dated
21.06.2007 of Sh. Sabyasachi Sen is Ex. PW 12/B (Colly.). The
original letter dated 21.06.2007 is however available at page 49.
The original letter dated 21.06.2007 is Ex. PW 12/C (D-29).
386. After seeing letter dated 24.08.2007 [Ex. PW 11/H-1
(Colly.) (D-35), page 22-49], witness stated that vide the said
letter issued under the signatures of Dr. Jiban Chakraborty,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry, Govt.
of West Bengal and as addressed to Sh. K.C. Samria, Deputy
Secretary, MoC, the response of Govt. of West Bengal to letter
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 143 of 343
dated 02.08.2007 of MoC, containing required information as
regard 16 applicant companies was sent while mentioning that
qua other 12 companies no inputs were received.
387. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, he
told that no chart containing various particulars of the applicant
companies was provided to the members during the course of
meetings of 35th Screening Committee. However during the
course of meeting, the particulars of individual applicant
companies used to be given.
388. He told that during the course of presentation made
by representatives of applicant companies, the Screening
Committee members did ask questions from them.
389. The statement u/s 161 Cr. PC dated 07.02.2013 of the
witness is Ex. PW12/DX-1. He was confronted on various
aspects.
390. In cross-examination on behalf of accused public
servants, some documents were exhibited such as a copy of an
Order dt. 05.07.2006 issued in file bearing no.
247-CI/O/Coal/001/03/M-1 [available at page 10 in the file
bearing No. A(1)/III/9/WBIDC-06 of the Office of Advisor
(Industry) i.e. MR No. 3768/16] as Ex. PW 12/DX-2; another
Order dt. 03.05.2007 issued in file no.
10014-CI/O/Coal/13/06/M-1 (Pt-II) as Ex. PW 12/DX-3; one
DO letter dt. 24.05.2007 [available at page 91 in the file bearing
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 144 of 343
No. A(1)/III/9/WBIDC-06 of the Office of Advisor (Industry) i.e.
MR No. 3768/16] as Ex. PW 12/DX-4; the minutes of the
meeting held on 14.06.2007 [available from page 1-4 in the file
bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06 i.e. the file of Office of Advisor
(Industry) as brought from EO-I Malkana CBI] as Ex. PW
12/DX-5; page no. 69 in a file bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06
(MR No. 3768/16) as Ex. PW 12/DX-6; one letter dated
04.06.2007 [at pg. no. 92 in a file bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-
06 (MR No. 3768/16)] as Ex. PW 12/DX-7; some pages at pg.
no. 158-156 in a file bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06 (MR No.
3768/16) as Ex. PW 12/DX-8; some pages at pg. no. 155-111 in
a file bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06 (MR No. 3768/16) as Ex.
PW 12/DX-9; one letter dated 11.06.2007, at pg. no. 96 in file
bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06 (MR No. 3768/16) as Ex. PW
12/DX-10.
391. He told that during the course of investigation of
any of the coal block allocation matters, he was never shown any
file of any Govt. Department by the IO.
392. Upon being asked as to whether the witness as
Chairman of the committee spelt out or laid down any procedure
which shall be followed by the committee in arriving at its
recommendations, the witness stated that as the matter is about
12 years old so it is difficult for him to recollect as to what
exactly transpired at the beginning of the meeting. However, he
told that the minutes of the meeting were correctly recorded.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 145 of 343
393. He denied the suggestion that it was the part of job
to be carried out by State Governments to check the applications
for their eligibility and completeness. However, State Govt. of
West Bengal did carry out checking of the applications for their
eligibility and completeness.
394. He admitted that letter dt. 24.05.2007 [Ex. PW
12/DX-4] contained the following facts:
“Expectedly, Shri Kropha believes that the State
Committee would follow Ministry of Coal guidelines &
conditions (copy downloaded from Ministry website
enclosed) for allocation of coal blocks to enable
harmonious observance of norms, especially in view of
large number of applications received this year. He
indicated that until the Committee decides to change
the procedure, the convention of personal interaction
with the applicants is likely to be continued. Informally,
his suggestion was that the State committee need not
resort to such interaction, lest it raises expectation
levels unnecessarily. I think vast number of applications
with us would also preclude such possibility.”
395. He admitted that it was not prudent to put any
specific weightage to any of the nine factors as were mentioned
in the guidelines issued by MoC for arriving at the inter se
priority and decision in this regard was to be taken in a holistic
manner by reconciling the views of the various members of the
committee which ensured that all the factors were duly
considered while making the recommendations.
396. He admitted that the role of Chairman in a meeting
is two fold i.e. to conduct a meeting in an orderly fashion so that
everyone present may express their views and towards the end
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 146 of 343
the chairman sums up the essence of the discussion which was
held in the meeting and thereby to arrive at a decision. He
admitted that summing up of discussion in a meeting done by the
chairman is undertaken by way of reconciling the views
expressed by various members of the committee. He also
admitted that if any member in a meeting does not agree with the
said summing up of the discussion by the chairman then he can
get his dissent recorded.
397. He admitted that if no member gets his dissent
recorded then the decision arrived at in the meeting shall be
considered as decision taken in the meeting by unanimity or by
broad consensus. He admitted that as a common practice the
decision in a meeting like that of internal committee is
announced by the chair but the same is taken as a decision of the
committee.
398. He admitted that after the final meeting of 35 th
Screening Committee, he had written a communication to Govt.
of West Bengal informing as to what had transpired in the
meeting. After seeing pg. no. 349 in a file bearing no.
A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06 (MR No. 3768/16), he told that the said
letter was office copy of a communication dated 13.09.2007 sent
to Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, Principal Secretary, C&I Department,
Govt. of West Bengal by him and the same is Ex. PW 12/DX-11.
399. He admitted that in the said communication, he had
had written that recommendations in respect of other states
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 147 of 343
(Orissa, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Chhatisgarh) were finalised
by reconciling between the states’ evaluation, power Ministry
opinion and the criteria suggested by the Chairman.
400. He did not remember whether during the course of
discussion in respect of other states, the members who
participated in the said discussion expressed divergent views or
not. He admitted that the views expressed by the members were
reconciled before arriving at the final decision. He admitted that
the final decision was announced by the chairman after
reconciliation of views.
401. He denied that the recommendations of MoP were
supplied to him in the Screening Committee meeting. He was
shown pg. no. 212-211 in a file bearing no. A(I)/III/9/WBIDC-06
(MR No. 3768/16) i.e. a communication dated 03.08.2007 sent to
Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, Principal Secretary, C&I Department, Govt.
of West Bengal by him and he admitted that from the said
communication it was clear that the recommendations as were
made by CEA and were endorsed by the Power Ministry were
circulated and deliberated upon in the meeting. The
communication dated 03.08.2007 is Ex. PW 12/DX-12. He
further admitted that in the said communication dated
03.08.2007, he had stated that in the meeting, the State
Governments, Coal Ministry and Power Ministry unanimously
agreed that sanctity of the criteria announced by the coal
Ministry while advertising the coal blocks for allotment was of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 148 of 343
utmost importance. He admitted that the views expressed by
State Govt. representatives and that of MoP were considered in
the meeting.
402. He was not able to recollect the contents of the chart
containing the State Govt. recommendations which was supplied
to the members in the Screening Committee meeting held on
30.07.2007. He did not remember as to whether or not any
member in the meeting held on 13.09.2007 raised any issue of
non-supplying of verification report received pursuant to the
decision of Screening Committee meeting held on 30.07.2007.
403. He admitted that during the course of Screening
Committee meetings when presentation were made by the
applicant companies then Members used to take their own notes
and also used to ask clarifications as and when required from the
representatives of the applicant companies. He told that after
downloading the minutes of 35th Screening Committee meetings
from the website of MoC and after going through the same, he
did not submit any comments or report to Govt. of West Bengal
that the minutes of the meetings had not been correctly recorded.
404. To the suggestion that a compilation chart [available
from pg. 1-21 in file of MoC Ex. PW 3/E (Colly.) (D-164)]
containing information regarding applicant companies as was
prepared pursuant to verification report received from State
Governments after the decision taken in the meeting held on
30.07.2007 was placed before 35th Screening Committee
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 149 of 343
Members in the meeting held on 13.09.2007, he stated that he did
not remember that any such chart was placed before 35 th
Screening Committee members in the meeting held on
13.09.2007 or not and thus he could neither admit nor deny the
suggestion.
405. He admitted that it was the job of the State Govt. to
evaluate the applications of a company seeking allocation of coal
block and to verify the same with the documents supplied along
with the application and in case, there was any further
clarification required, the State Govt. would also undertake a
physical verification of the facilities to ascertain the financial
strength and ground capabilities of a company and that such a
ground verification was undertaken by you under the instructions
of State Govt. in the case of M/s JAS Infrastructure Ltd and was
duly reported to the State Govt. also.
From Coal India Ltd.
406. PW-13 is Sushmita Sengupta. She is from CIL. In
the year 2007, she was working as Finance Manager in CIL at
Kolkata. In August 2007, she alongwith Sh. Samiran Dutta who
was also working as Manager (Finance) in CIL was sent to MoC
office, New Delhi by their superior officers.
407. She told that they met Sh. K.S. Kropha, Joint
Secretary (Coal) on 06th or 07th August, 2007. She told that Sh.
K.S. Kropha called Sh. K.C. Samaria, the then Director, MoC to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 150 of 343
his room.
408. She deposed that they were given a spreadsheet
containing the names of various companies alongwith their
networth mentioned against their names. They were told to cross-
check the networth as mentioned over there in the spreadsheet
with the balance sheets of the said companies. They were told
that the balance sheets of the said companies have been kept at
Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar.
409. She deposed that two officials of MoC accompanied
them to the said Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar office and over there
they met Sh. Joshi who was General Manager, CIL. He arranged
sitting space for them and also made available a Stenographer
with an electronic typewriter.
410. Thereafter they started cross-tallying the networth
mentioned in the spreadsheet of various companies with their
respective balance sheets. The said balance sheets were made
available to them by the MoC officials one by one. She told that
initially they were deputed for 2-3 days but when they could not
complete their job even on the third day so they met Sh. K.S.
Kropha who told them to stay back for another day so as to
complete the job. On the next day they completed their job as
was assigned to them and they submitted the said spreadsheet
which also was containing their comments to Sh. K.S. Kropha, in
the presence of Sh. K.C. Samria.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 151 of 343
411. She deposed that Sh. K.S. Kropha then told them
that the job undertaken by them was confidential and they should
not disclose about it to anyone. He also told them to destroy the
rough papers, if there were any, prepared in the course of their
aforesaid job. Accordingly they destroyed the rough papers as
were with them. Thereafter she and Sh. Samiran Dutta went back
to Kolkata to their office.
412. She deposed that they had cross-checked the
networth figures mentioned in the spread-sheet with the figures
mentioned in the balance sheets of the respective companies.
413. The networth of the companies from their respective
balance sheets were calculated in the following manner:
“The sum total of share capital and reserves and
surplus. Reserve is created out of profit net of
expenses or provisions. However revaluation of
assets, write back of depreciation and amalgamation
were not considered.”
414. In the remarks column they mentioned the word
“OK” wherever the networth of any given company as mentioned
in the spreadsheet matched with the networth so calculated by
them from the face of the balance sheets and wherever it did not
tally they mentioned the word “Not OK”. However, in cases
where name of the company mentioned on the spreadsheet did
not tally with the name of the company mentioned on the balance
sheets made available to them, then they made a comment
against the name of the said company in the remarks column as
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 152 of 343
“Balance sheet not available”. In case there was only a certificate
of Chartered Accountant instead of balance sheet made available
to them then in the case of said companies they did not accept the
said certificate and gave the remark ” Balance sheet not
available”. They only considered such balance sheets as were
signed by Director Finance, Chairman and Auditor. All the
remarks as above were got typed on the spread-sheet.
415. In some cases certain bunch of papers other than
balance sheets were provided to them but they did not go through
them due to paucity of time.
416. She deposed that in case of a company being a
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) or a Joint Venture Company, if
balance sheet of the SPV or JV company was made available
then they might have considered the same but in case the name of
the company on the balance sheet provided to them did not tally
with the name of SPV or JV company then they did not consider
it because in such a case the MoU or JV agreement or agreement
constituting SPV was required. They did not do any other work
other than the one stated by her.
417. In cross-examination on behalf of accused public
servants, she stated that at the time of undertaking the job of
cross-checking the networth of the applicant companies, she was
not aware of the guidelines issued by MoC governing allocation
of captive coal blocks.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 153 of 343
418. About whether from the balance sheet of any
company can it be ascertained that the said company is a JV
company or SPV company, she stated that in case the balance
sheet is of a JV company or SPV company, then in the balance
sheet it is so mentioned.
419. She denied the suggestion that no electronic
typewriter were given to them at CIL office, Laxmi Nagar or that
a computer was provided to them for working.
420. She was confronted with her statement u/s 161 CrPC
dated 25.09.2012 where nothing is mentioned about use of
electronic typewriter. The statement u/s 161 CrPC is Ex. PW
13/DX-1/A-4.
421. She told that the formula of calculating the net
worth used by them was as per law and nobody had told them as
to how to calculate the networth at that time.
422. In cross-examination on behalf of A-1 & A-2, it has
come that the spread sheet on which they had put their remarks
by cross-checking the net worth. She told that the said spread
sheet were also probably not shown to her by the IO even when
her statement was recorded in the present case.
423. After seeing application form Ex. PW 1/A (Colly.) of
JICPL in which networth of IL&FS, IISIPL and JICPL had been
separately mentioned, she told that they had asked for balance
sheets of companies whose names were mentioned in the spread-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 154 of 343
sheet and thus they did not see balance sheets of IL&FS or
IISIPL.
424. She did not remember as to what remarks were put
by them in the spreadsheets against the name of M/s JICPL.
425. She told that the spread sheet submitted to Sh. K.S.
Kropha was not submitted by them in any file cover.
From CBI
426. PW-5 is Dy. SP Tej Pal Singh. He had conducted
search operation on 04.09.2012 at Nagpur. The search was
carried out in the premises belonging to JICPL.
427. The search list is Ex. PW 1/G (D-15). The
documents seized vide this search list are Ex. PW 3/G (Colly.)
(D-16), Ex. PW 5/A (Colly.)(D-17), Ex. PW 5/B (Colly.)(D-18),
Ex. PW 5/C (Colly.)(D-19), Ex. PW 5/D (Colly.)(D-20), Ex. PW
5/E (Colly.)(D-21(i) and D-21(ii)) and Ex. PW 5/F (Colly.)(D-
22).
428. He also recorded statement of Sudhir Gupta u/s 161
CrPC. Thereafter investigation was transferred to Inspector
Himanshu Bahuguna by the orders of DIG.
429. He had submitted report to the concerned Court
also. The application along with its enclosures in this regard is
Ex. PW 5/G (Colly.).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 155 of 343
430. He identified signature of Sh. Ravi Kant, DIG, CBI
on all pages of FIR of case RC No. 219 2012 E 0008. The FIR is
Ex. PW 5/H (Colly.).
431. He was generally cross-examined on the issue of
search operation but nothing substantial has come on record.
432. PW-16 is Dy. SP. K.L. Moses. He had filed his
affidavit dated 12.03.2020 in his examination-in-chief which is
EX. PW 16/A. He had conducted part investigation. He had
recorded statement of Sh. Anil Kumar Kutty u/s 161 CrPC and
had also shown him some documents of MoP which were
available with him in connection with investigation of another
case.
433. In cross-examination on behalf of A-2, it has come
that he had not shown to Sh. Kutty the communication dt.
26.07.2007 [Ex. PW 14/A-7 (Colly.), pg. 220-229 in D-40] or
communication dt. 30.06.2007 [Ex. PW 14/A-4, pg. 71 in D-40].
434. He had asked Sh. A.K. Kutty as to on what basis the
UMPP criteria was applied by MoP to which Sh. Kutty referred
to note dt. 18.06.2007 of Sh. Sanjay Chadha, Director, MoP.
435. PW- 17 is IO Dy. SP Himanshu Bahuguna. He
deposed that in June, 2012 he had remained associated with a
preliminary enquiry bearing PE No. 219 2012 E0002 registered
in EO-I Branch, CBI regarding coal block allocation matters.
Subsequently, in September 2012 three regular cases relating to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 156 of 343
coal block allocation matters were assigned to him for
investigation and the present case i.e. pertaining to M/s JICPL
was one of them. The initial investigation was conducted by Dy.
SP T.P. Singh. The initial IO Dy. SP T.P. Singh had already
conducted search operations at various places and
collected/seized various documents.
436. He told that the investigation of the present case was
handed over to him on 19.09.2012 vide order dated 18.09.2012
of Sh. O.P. Ghalotra, the then Head of EO Zone-I. At that time
Sh. Ravi Kant, the then DIG, was the Incharge of EO-I. He told
that in the FIR, there were allegations against the company M/s
JICPL and its officers/directors that they had misrepresented
before 35th Screening Committee, MoC with a view to procure
allocation of a captive coal block, i.e. Mahuhagarhi coal block in
Jharkhand. It was also alleged that the misrepresentation made by
the company was overlooked by the MoC officers.
437. He deposed about collecting various documents
from various departments and individuals besides also obtaining
explanation of the accused persons and also recorded statements
of relevant witnesses.
438. He deposed about collecting photocopy of
application form of JICPL in respect of allocation of
Mahuhagarhi coal block alongwith enclosures containing pages
1-323 vide production-cum-receipt memo Ex. P-1/PW-17 (OSR)
(D-2).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 157 of 343
439. He deposed about collecting one register Ex. PW
11/B vide production-cum-receipt memo Ex. P-2/PW-17 (D-4).
440. He told that vide copy of a letter dated 03.05.2013
[available in D-26], Sh. S.K. Shahi of MoC informed that
regarding the rationale/logic for keeping column No. 29 and 30
in the application form could not be ascertained. The photocopy
of letter dated 03.05.2013 alongwith annexures is Ex. P-3/PW-
17 and the original brought by the witness is marked as Ex.
P-4/PW-17(Colly.).
441. The copy of office memorandum dt. 02.05.2013 (D-
27) vide which information as to whether the applications
received for 35th and 36th Screening Committee were checked for
their completeness and eligibility in MoC or not was supplied is
Ex. P-5/PW-17.
442. The copy of communication dated 04.06.2013 (D-
42) vide which MOC had informed about the details of various
coal blocks allocated to M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd., M/s
CIAL and M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. is Ex. P-6/PW-17.
443. He had collected various documents vide
production-cum-receipt memo dated 02.06.2012 (D-28) which is
Ex. P-7/PW-17; vide production-cum-receipt memo dated
18.06.2012 (D-36) which is Ex. P-8/PW-17; vide production-
cum-receipt memo dated 27.07.2012 (D-39) which is Ex.
P-9/PW-17 (OSR); and vide production-cum- receipt memo
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 158 of 343
dated 06.06.2012 (D-43) which is Ex. P-10/PW-17 (OSR).
444. He deposed that upon completion of aforesaid
investigation, the matter was discussed with senior officers and it
was decided that as no prosecutable case was made out against
any accused person, so a Closure Report might be filed in the
Court. Therefore, a closure report was prepared and filed in the
Court.
445. The Closure Report/Final Report u/s 173 CrPC dt.
11.04.2014 is Ex. P-11/PW-17.
446. Subsequent to filing of final report u/s 173 CrPC
[Ex. P-11/PW-17], Hon’ble Supreme Court constituted a Special
Court for trying coal block allocation matters and Learned Sr.
Advocate Sh. R.S. Cheema was appointed as Special P.P. in the
matter. Subsequent to his appointment as above the present
matter was discussed with Sh. R.S. Cheema and pursuant to
which it was decided that a detailed supplementary report u/s 173
CrPC elaborating the outcome of investigation might be filed.
Accordingly, on 14.10.2014 a detailed supplementary final report
u/s 173 CrPC dated 13.10.2014 was filed in the Court which is
Ex. P-12/PW-17 (Colly.).
447. However, subsequent to order 20.11.2014 passed by
this Court, the matter was sent to CBI with the direction that the
record of the case be placed before the Competent Sanctioning
Authority for considering the issue of according sanction to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 159 of 343
prosecute the two serving public servants namely Sh. K.S.
Kropha and Sh. K.C. Samria. On 05.01.2015, CBI sent all the
relevant record to the competent sanctioning authority for
considering according of sanction to prosecute the aforesaid two
public servants. He informed the Court on 29.01.2015 about the
said progress. However, no communication was received from
the office of Competent authority regarding the decision, if any,
taken by it with regard to grant or refusal of sanction to prosecute
the two public servants. He thus filed further investigation report
dated 21.07.2015 in the court which is Ex. P-13/PW-17.
448. The affidavit of Sh. Piyush Goel dated 05.07.2017 as
above is Ex. P-14/PW-17 (Colly.). The documents available in
D-45 are Ex. P-15/PW-17 (Colly.) (D-45).
449. The response of Sh. A. Sanjay Sahay, the then Under
Secretary, Government of India dated 19.02.2015 is Ex.
P-16/PW-17 (Colly.)(D-51).
450. He referred to order dated 22.07.2015 vide which it
was decided that there was deemed sanction to prosecute the said
public servants u/s 19 P.C. Act and vide order dated 31.07.2015,
the Court took cognizance of various offences against the
accused persons and ordered their summoning.
451. He deposed that during investigation, it was found
that in its application form M/s JICPL had claimed that M/s
JICPL was a SPV of M/s IISIPL and M/s IL&FS. However, no
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 160 of 343
document was filed by the company in support of its claim of
JICPL being the SPV. He found that no officer or employee of
IL&FS was ever a director in M/s JICPL.
452. During investigation it was also found that the
company had misrepresented in its application in column No. 30
that no earlier coal block had been allocated to its group or
associated company. However during investigation it was found
that M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s CIAL which were
the Group Companies of Abhijeet Group had been earlier allotted
four coal blocks and the said information was withheld from
MoC by the applicant company in its application form. The
aforesaid misrepresentation regarding previous allocation of coal
block was also found to be there in the feedback form Ex. PW
1/E (D-34) as was submitted by the applicant company to the 35 th
Screening Committee, MOC.
453. Upon being asked as to what was found during the
course of investigation regarding the checking of applications for
their eligibility and completeness in MoC, the witness stated that
during the investigation it was found that no such checking was
carried out in MoC.
454. Upon being asked about the checking of financial
strength of applicant companies in MoC, the witness stated that
in the minutes of 35th Screening Committee, it was mentioned
that the financial strength of the applicant companies shall be got
verified through financial experts of Coal India Ltd. (CIL).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 161 of 343
However when the said officers of CIL were examined during the
course of Investigation then they not only stated that they were
no financial experts but also stated that they had not checked the
financial strength of the applicant companies but had only
scrutinized the financial documents as were given to them qua
the financial strength of the applicant companies. It was also
found that the Screening Committee or MoC, had not prepared
any inter se priority chart or inter se merit chart of the applicant
companies. Nothing was found during the course of investigation
which could show that any deliberation or discussion took place
in the Screening Committee as to on what basis any given coal
block be allotted or has been allotted to any particular company.
455. Upon being asked as to under what circumstances a
closure report was filed in the Court u/s 173 CrPC when so many
misrepresentations and other factors regarding allocation process
had come to the notice of the witness during the course of
investigation, the witness stated that though as per the evidence
collected by him he was of the opinion that sufficient
incriminating evidence warranting charge sheeting of various
accused persons had come on record but the final competent
authority was of the opinion that the said misrepresentations did
not have any direct bearing on the allocation of coal block as
such and there was no sufficient incriminating evidence
warranting chargesheeting of the accused persons.
456. He also referred to affidavits of seven other
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 162 of 343
prosecution witnesses namely Sh. SP Rana, DySP/CBI, Sh. Ram
Naresh Section Officer/MoC, Sh. VP Sharma, Section
Officer/MoC, Sh. A Sanjay Sahai, Under Secretary/MoC, Sh.
Gordhan Singh, Ct. Assistant Malkhana In-charge, EO-II, CBI,
Sh. K.P. Singh, HCt. Malkhana Incharge EO-I, CBI and Sh. KL
Moses, Dy. SP/CBI were also filed on record u/s 296 CrPC as
their evidence was found to be of formal character. Affidavit of
Sh. SP Rana, Dy. SP/CBI dated 26.02.2020 is Ex. P-17/PW-
17(Colly.), that of Sh. Ram Naresh Section Officer/MoC dated
26.02.2020 is Ex. P-18/PW-17 (Colly.), that of Sh. VP Sharma,
Section Officer/MoC dated 26.02.2020 is Ex. P-19/PW-17
(Colly.), that of Sh. A Sanjay Sahai, Under Secretary/MoC dated
26.02.2020 is Ex. P-20/PW-17 (Colly.), that of Sh. Gordhan
Singh, Ct Assistant Malkhana In-charge, EO-II, CBI dated
02.03.2020 is Ex. P-21/PW-17 and that of Sh. K.P. Singh, Hd Ct.
Malkhana Incharge EO-I, CBI dated 02.03.2020 is Ex. P-22/PW-
17.
457. In cross-examination on behalf of A-2, he was
questioned about closure reports filed by him. He told that he
personally had recommended prosecution but senior officers
recommended closure and hence he filed closure reports. One
list of unrelied statements was marked as Ex. P-23/PW-17.
458. It has come that he did not investigate as to who
drafted the proforma application to be made by the applicant
companies for the allocation of coal block. He admitted that
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 163 of 343
during investigation, it could not be established as to what was
the purpose and utility for seeking information to be provided in
column no. 29 & 30 of the proforma application form i.e. relating
to previous allocation.
459. It has come that the allegation that M/s JICPL in
order to embellish its claim for allocation of coal block had in its
application fraudulently claimed that M/s JICPL was a SPV
managed by M/s IISIPL and IL&FS Group, and had in its support
claimed networth of Rs. 812.03 Crores of M/s IL&FS Group and
Rs.206.48 Crores of M/s IISIPL could not be substantiated. It
has come that allocation of earlier coal blocks either to the
applicant company or group/associate company was not to be a
disqualification for getting a fresh coal block. It was further
found that no company was disqualified on basis of previous
allocation of coal blocks.
460. During investigation, it was revealed that in the
minutes of the 35th Screening Committee, it was mentioned that
the Screening Committee took into consideration the
view/comments of the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, State
Govt. concerned, guidelines laid down for allocation of coal
blocks.
461. During investigation it could not be established that
M/s JAS Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd. had obtained any undue
benefit from MoC with regard to its non-declaration of previous
coal blocks to its group/associate companies.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 164 of 343
462. During investigation it was revealed that in the
guidelines pre-decided for allocation of coal blocks there was a
concept to take into consideration the inter se priority for
allocation of block among competing applicants and the factors
required to be considered were also decided. However, it was not
a mandatory provision as the word ‘may be’ has been used and
that no threshold of any of the factor or the priority of the factor
was ever decided throughout the process.
463. During investigation, it was revealed that the need
for preparing inter se priority chart was never emphasized by any
of the members of the Screening Committee or any of the
ministries associated with the process, at any stage; and
moreover there was no document to suggest that the task of
preparing a block wise inter se priority chart was ever undertaken
by the officials of MoC or they asked any department to do so.
464. During investigation, no evidence could be found to
show that there was criminal conspiracy of the members of the
Screening Committee with the concerned company i.e. M/s JAS
Infrastructure Capital Pvt. Ltd.
465. During investigation, it was revealed that the final
recommendations of coal blocks were signed by all the members
present, which showed that the recommendations made by the
Screening Committee was a unanimous decision having consent
of all the members.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 165 of 343
466. He admitted that as per D-11 (Ex. PW7/F) i.e.
‘Photocopy of the Disbursement Memo Equity Investment dt.
01.04.2008 of M/s IL&FS IDC’ the location of the project is
mentioned as Bihar.
467. He admitted that during investigation in the instant
case the allegations that M/s JICPL had fraudulently claimed in
its application the networth of IL&FS could not be substantiated.
468. Some certified copies were marked as Ex.
PW17/DX-1.
469. In cross-examination on behalf of A-3 and A-4, It
has come that MoP did not even open the applications of
companies seeking allocation of coal block as sent to them by
MoC for their examination and evaluation before making their
recommendations. The recommendations made by them were
based on the presentations and feedback form submitted
subsequently by the applicants.
470. One Inter Se Priority Chart annexed as Annexure A
with the Supplementary Final Report dt. 13.10.2014 was marked
as Ex. PW-17/DX-3. It was prepared by PW-17 himself.
PART – D
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CRPC
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 166 of 343
471. Statements of A-2 to A-5 were thereafter recorded
u/s 313 CrPC in detail. Liberty was also given to all the accused
persons to file their written statements u/s 313 (5) CrPC,
however, they opted not to file the same. A-2 to A-5 opted to lead
defence evidence. As A-1 company was being represented by
Official Liquidator, statement u/s 313 CrPC qua A-1 company
was not recorded. All the accused either denied the incriminating
circumstances or tried to explain them.
PART – E
THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE
472. A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal examined Sh. Manish
Rajvaidya as DW-1, Sh. Sohan Chaturvedi as DW-2, Sh. Ashok
Kumar Suryanarayan Patro as DW-3, his son Sh. Abhishek
Jayaswal as DW-5 and himself as DW-6.
473. A-3 H.C. Gupta examined Sh. Nirmal Parkash
Manchanda as DW-4 in his defence and Sh. Shiv Raj Singh as
DW-7.
474. Despite seeking opportunity, no witness was
examined by A-4 and A-5 on their behalf.
475. DW-1 is Manish Rajvaidya. In March 2006, he
had joined Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. as Assistant Manager in
the department of Company Secretary. He was transferred to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 167 of 343
Abhijeet Ashoka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in 2012. Subsequently,
he resigned from the job in September 2016. Thereafter he had
been practicing independently as Company Secretary.
476. He deposed that initially while he was working in
Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. then for a period of 4-5 months he
was reporting directly to Sh. Sanjay Dey, Company Secretary.
Thereafter he was reporting to Sh. A.B.P. Kesan, Company
Secretary. He told that Sh. ABP Kesan was responsible for
compliances under Companies Act and considering new business
opportunities including applying for coal blocks. He told that
while he used to report to Sh. A.B.P. Kesan and Sh. Kesan used
to report to Sh. B.L. Shaw.
477. Sh. B.L. Shaw was the Chairman of BLS family
companies. He told that since Sh. A.B.P. Kesan was not very
comfortable with the use of computers, so many a times he used
to take him (DW-1) along in his meetings with Sh. B.L. Shaw.
He also looked after work of JICPL.
478. He told that Sh. B.L. Shaw had three sons namely Sh.
Arbind Jayaswal, Sh. Manoj Jayaswal and Sh. Ramesh Jayaswal
and because Sh. B.L. Shaw did not use to trust his three sons so
all the decisions relating to various companies of the group used
to be taken by Sh. B.L. Shaw himself only.
479. He deposed that Sh. B.L. Shaw used to consider Manoj
Jayaswal/A-2 as an irresponsible and incompetent person
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 168 of 343
because of his flamboyant nature. Sh. Shaw had restricted Manoj
Jayaswal’s role only to administrative work such as HR related
issues of the companies, Bill passing of employees etc.
480. DW-1 told that various companies of the BLS Family
used to work independently but matters relating to applying for
coal blocks as well as formalities in that respect used to be dealt
with by a centralised office of the BLS Family which was
personally monitored, managed and controlled even at micro
level by Sh. B.L. Shaw. All the work relating to allocation of
coal block on behalf of various companies including filing of
application forms or submitting other documents to concerned
public offices was looked after by Sh. B.L. Shaw alongwith Sh.
ABP Kesan. He also used to assist them in this work. All the
policy decisions in such matters used to be taken by Sh. B.L.
Shaw only.
481. He deposed that in respect of M/s JICPL, in matters
relating to allocation of coal blocks, the decisions used to be
taken by Sh. B.L. Shaw and not by the directors of the company,
though it used to be recorded on papers that the decisions had
been taken by directors. Accordingly all the decisions relating to
submitting of application on behalf of M/s JAS Infrastructure
Capital Pvt. Ltd. to MoC or making presentation before
Screening Committee or submitting feedback form on behalf of
the company were taken by Sh. B.L. Shaw.
482. He told that Manoj Jayaswal had no role in providing
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 169 of 343
any information relating to any of the columns in the application
or in the feedback form or in the presentation as was submitted to
MoC on behalf of the company. The information as was
mentioned in the application, feedback form or in the
presentation was provided by Sh. B.L. Shaw and Sh. ABP
Kesan.
483. He also told that Harshad Pophali (PW-1) had some
dispute regarding his dues with Manoj Jayaswal and threatened
to give evidence against A-2 if his dues were not cleared.
484. He told that CBI did not record his or ABP Kesan’s
statement though they had volunteered to CBI officer for getting
their statement recorded.
485. He further told that post 2006, Sh. Shaw decided that
JICPL would be turned into a special purpose vehicle of M/s
IL&FS and M/s IISIPL.
486. In respect of M/s IISIPL too, all decision making at
policy level was done by Sh. B.L. Shaw. He used to run it with
aid and assistance of his trusted advisor Sh. H.G. Joshi. This
company was eventually to be merged with Jayaswal Neco
Industries Ltd. and it was so amalgamated after family settlement
in 2008. This fact is also recorded in IFS.
487. He told that Sh. H.G. Joshi was trusted person of Sh.
B.L. Shaw. He was son-in-law of Sh. M.M. Vyas, who was
Director in M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Sh. H.G. Joshi was looking
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 170 of 343
after bringing new businesses. With respect to M/s JICPL, he was
co-ordinating with IL&FS. The MoU dt. 08.01.2007, Page 5 to
12 of D-17, already Ex. PW3/B bears signature of Sh. H.G. Joshi.
Similarly, MoU dt. 15.11.2006, Page 1 to 3 of D-17, already Ex.
PW3/A bears signature of Sh. H.G. Joshi. In the same manner,
some balance sheets contained in Ex. PW-6/A (Colly.), D-3 i.e.
the balance sheet for FY 2005-06 (pages 28 to 42) and balance
sheet for the FY 2004-05 (at pages 58 to 77) bear signature of Sh.
H.G. Joshi.
488. He deposed that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had no role in
M/s JICPL though he was made Director. However, Sh. Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal used to sign some documents like balance sheet,
annual returns etc. as Director, upon instructions of Sh. B.L.
Shaw. Sh. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was made Director by Sh.
B.L. Shaw in this company.
489. He also told that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had no role in
M/s IISIPL. This company was incorporated with a view to
install Sinter Plant at Raipur and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was
made Director in the company with a limited purpose of to be
able to provide personal guarantee to the bankers and this fact is
recorded in IFS. This Sinter Plant was necessary for Integrated
Steel Plant of Jayaswal Neco Ltd. at Siltara, Raipur. This
company was later on amalgamated into Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
490. The company IISIPL was formed for the purpose of
amalgamation with Jayaswal Neco Ltd. after installation of Sinter
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 171 of 343
Plant.
491. Sh. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had no role in Jayaswal
Neco Ltd.
492. He referred to one letter dated 03.05.2007 written by
Mr. A.B.P Kesan to Sh. Hari Gopal Joshi which is Ex. D-1/DW-
1, an inter-office communication dated 25.10.2005 signed by
Sanjay Dey which is Ex. D-2/DW-1 and a handwritten note
which is Ex. D-3/DW-1 (Colly.) to show exercise of control on
companies by Sh. B.L. Shaw. He also exhibited one letter dated
23.04.2007 of M/s IL&FS as Ex. D-4/DW-1, affidavits of
Harshad Pophali as Supporting Creditor as Ex. D-5/DW-1
(Colly.) and Ex. D-6/DW-1, his appointment letter dated
14.03.2006 as Ex. D-7/DW-1, his Certificate of Practice issued in
October, 2016 as Ex. D-8/DW-1.
493. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, it has come that
DW-1 had met Sh. D.K. Mittal only once in office of Sh. B.L.
Shaw at Nagpur sometime in November/December, 2006.
494. He was further cross-examined about previous
allocations to various companies such as CIAL and Abhijeet
Infrastructure Ltd.
495. DW-1 denied various suggestions of the learned DLA.
DW-1 also explained about date of application as 05.01.2007 and
date of MoU dt. 08.01.2007 and about fact of there being SPV
and told that the application though is dt. 05.01.2007 but it was
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 172 of 343
submitted to MoC after signing of MoU.
496. He denied that copy of MoU dt. 08.01.2007, Ex.
PW3/B was not annexed with the application as it contained a
clause no.1 in first line wherein it was mentioned that “IISIPL is
a part of Abhijeet Group”.
497. He admitted that after the execution of IFS dt.
31.07.2008, M/s JICPL came in the group of MKJ in 5 th
schedule.
498. He was questioned about some litigation initiated by
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 which was Civil Suit No. 603/2008
filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur on
07.05.2008 against M/s Neco Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd.,
Basant Lal Shaw, Arvind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal.
Photocopy of certified copy of plaint, application for withdrawal
of the suit, documents filed with the plaint and order of the Court
[which are part of documents of case titled CBI Vs. Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal (Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.), Case No.
CBI/41/2020, (D-74) (Page 1-40) were marked as Ex. D-9/DW-1
(Colly).
499. He denied that he had falsely put the blame on Sh.
B.L. Shaw to save accused A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
500. DW-2 is Sohan Chaturvedi. He is a charted
accountant by profession. He knows Sh. Basant Lal Shaw. He
deposed that he had audited accounts of various companies of Sh.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 173 of 343
Shaw.
501. He also knew Sh. HG Joshi who was son-in-law of
Sh. MM Vyas. He told that Sh. Joshi was a director of M/s
IISIPL. He had audited accounts of IISIPL also. He identified
his signatures on the balance sheet and auditor’s report for the FY
2005-2006 [Part of Ex. PW 6/A (Colly.)]. Sh. HG Joshi had also
signed the same.
502. DW-2 further told that Sh. B.L. Shaw used to closely
monitor and control all activities relating to M/s IISIPL. He
claimed close association with Sh. B.L. Shaw.
503. He was aware of Vyavastha Patrak and IFS. In
2007, he was made facilitator of division of family along with
Sh. BK Agarwal by Sh. BL Shaw as per IFS (Ex. PW 3/F, D-20).
504. He told that before execution of the IFS, all the
companies of the BLS family were under the exclusive control of
Sh. BL Shaw. And after execution of the IFS, it became an MKJ
Group Company. M/s IISIPL was amalgamated with M/s JNIL
as per the long term vision of Sh. BL Shawn as also recorded in
the IFS at recital N and Clause 11.
505. DW-2 too stated that A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal
had no role in preparation of application for allocation of coal
block on behalf of JICPL and it was prepared under supervision
and control of Sh. B.L. Shaw.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 174 of 343
506. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, he denied
all the suggestions given by learned DLA.
507. DW-3 is Sh. Ashok Kumar Suryanarayan Patro. He
was on the rolls of M/s Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. (M/s
JNIL) between the years 2001 to 2006. He was heading the
account team of two companies, namely M/s Ashutosh Casting
Ltd. and M/s NECO Casting Ltd. He told that decisions with
respect to M/s JNIL were taken by Sh. Basant Lal Shaw. He told
that since Sh. BL Shaw was head and karta of the family, all the
family functioned as per his decision only. He told that there was
a Mining Division which was common for all the companies.
There were various teams headed by different heads.
508. He had signed on MoU dated 31.03.2006 (Ex.
PW2/B (D-24)) as a witness. He told that this MoU was
executed to show existence of two groups i.e. Abhijeet Group
and NECO Group to avail bank loans easily.
509. DW-3 told that as a matter of fact, it was Sh. B.L.
Shaw who was controlling the affairs of all the companies of
both the groups. He stated that the Abhijeet Group was created
for commercial convenience by Sh. BLS but the same was only
on papers.
510. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, he denied
that NECO group and Abhijeet group were distinct groups since
2002. He further denied that M/s JICPL was not being controlled
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 175 of 343
by Sh. BL Shaw as a company of BLS family or that it was
Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who was looking after affairs of the M/s
JICPL. He denied various other suggestions as well.
511. DW-5 is Abhishek Jayaswal. He is son of accused Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal/A-2.
512. He deposed about Vyawastha Patrak which was
executed on 28.03.2005. He told that it was executed in first
person by his grandfather Sh. Basant Lal Shaw in his presence.
He identified his signature and that of his grandfather, father and
other family members. He told that purpose of Vyawastha Patrak
was to seek affirmation from all the family members that the
business of BL Shaw family was one and for the benefit of all.
The purpose was also to reiterate that Sh. B.L. Shaw was the
karta controlling the entire business for the family. It was also the
intention that loan from financial institutions would be taken by
Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited and CIAL but that would be for
the benefit of Jayaswal Neco Group. The same was done as
Jayaswal Neco Group was under Corporate Debt Restructuring
(CDR) and hence was unable to take loan and hence the loans
were taken under AIPL and CIAL, projecting it only for
commercial convenience and to show to banks that it was a
different company but actually was managed by Sh. B.L. Shaw.
The Vyawastha Patrak is Ex. D-39/DW-5 (5 pages). He told that
the family and the companies got actually divided in the year
2008 after the execution of the IFS. Till then they shared a
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 176 of 343
common kitchen and all other resources and there was no
division in the family.
513. DW-5 also claimed that his father/A-2 had no role
in obtaining allocation of coal block for JICPL.
514. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, he told
that Sh. Arbind Jayaswal is his Tauji. He has one son Sh. Anand
Jayaswal and one daughter. Sh. Ramesh Jayaswal is his Uncle
(Chachaji). He has two sons namely Sh. Avneesh Jayaswal and
Archit Jayaswal and one daughter. Smt. Kamini Jayaswal is his
Buaji. She has three sons and one daughter. DW-5 are two
brothers and one sister. His younger brother is Sh. Abhijeet
Jayaswal and his younger sister is Ms. Swati Tayal.
515. He told that Vyawastha Patrak (Ex. D-39/DW-5)
was only an internal document. It was not got registered. He
denieed that there was division in BLS family before execution
of Indenture of Family Settlement dt. 31.07.2008 (Ex. PW3/F, D-
20). He denied that his father Manoj Jayaswal was managing or
looking after the affairs of M/s CIAL and M/s AIL during 2006 to
2008.
516. Regarding Ex. PW2/B which is MoU dt. 31.03.2006,
he explained that though various companies were assigned to
each group but there was no actual division as sons of his uncles
alongwith his father were also shown to be operating Abhijeet
Group.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 177 of 343
517. As to the purpose of clause 3.1 of the MoU with
heading Non-interference wherein it is stated inter-alia that Neco
group shall not interfere with the affairs and conduct of business
of Abhijeet group, DW-5 explained that it was to show to the
outside world that both the groups were separate and Neco Group
was not controlling the Abhijeet Group. However, in reality, his
uncles through their sons were involved and were rather
controlling the affairs of Abhijeet Group.
518. He denied various other suggestions given by
learned DLA.
519. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal/A-2 himself appeared as
DW-6.
520. He deposed that his father Sh. Jayaswal Basant Lal
Shaw had written his autobiography titled as “Mera Jeevan
Pravaha” which has been published by Basant Lal Shav
Institute of Indological Research, Nagpur. It is edited by Sh.
Madhup Pandey and Smt. Hemlata Mishra “Manvi”. It is
compiled by Sh. Manoj Gokhale and printed at Vardaan Bora,
Print Tek, Nagpur. It is the first edition published on
03.08.2019, which is the birthday of his father and is treated
as Founders Day and celebrated by entire family.
521. He told that this book was released by Sh. Nitin Jairam
Gadkari, the then Hon’ble Cabinet Minister. The
autobiography was marked as Ex. D-40/DW-6. There was
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 178 of 343
objection by learned DLA to marking of exhibit. However,
the objection is liable to be overruled as no plausible ground
has been raised.
522. DW-6 referred to various pages of the
book/biography. He particularly referred to page 140 wherein
there is a separate chapter about the division of the family
with the heading “Bachon me Dayitva ka Vibhajan” and it is
stated in first line that “unfortunately my family got divided in
2008”. DW-6 deposed that there is a controversy regarding
the actual date of division in their family. All coal block cases
wherein he was an accused including this case pertain to a
period prior to 2008. He deposed that he has been prosecuted
by getting singled out from the family in the cases set up
against him on the ground that he was the one who having
been separated in 2002 was conducting business
independently.
523. He deposed that his father and his brothers
decided to separate in 2008 and they decided to be with my
father and the family was divided in the ratio of 3:1 and out of
four people i.e. his father and two brothers kept three shares and
one share was given to him. He told that all companies had cross-
holdings. Further slowly shareholdings were divided into two
groups — one was called Neco Group of BLS and second
Abhijeet Group i.e. belonging to him.
524. He also referred to Chapter starting from Page 178
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 179 of 343
with the heading “Santane Ho Toh Aisi Ho, Beta Arvind” and
Page 185 where there is a chapter “Beta Ramesh”. He told
that his father praised both of his brothers Arvind and Ramesh
and gave all the credit to them for making growth in the
business. He stated that his father did not mention his
(Manoj’s) name anywhere.
525. He further referred to a specific chapter on
himself at page 182 titled “Beta Manoj” wherein it is
mentioned that Manoj/A-2 was extravagant and lives with
thaath baath and that his father was not liking his
extravagancy and living with thaath baath. He stated that his
father had criticized him in the book.
526. He deposed that his relations with his father were
never good. He told that his son persuaded his father not to
write about him (DW-6/A-2) that he was doing only HR work
and bill passing work and thus his father wrote good words
about him like he was a very hardworking person. The gist of
opinion of his father in his autobiography about his three sons is
summarized by DW-6 in the form of a chart which is Ex. D-
41/DW-6.
527. He deposed to the effect that his father was the
person who controlled all the work relating to applying for coal
block allocation matters.
528. He brought on record copy of a lease agreement
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 180 of 343
dated 01.12.2006 between M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. and
M/s Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. as Ex. D-42/DW-6 and a
copy of the lease agreement dated 26.03.2007 between M/s CIAL
and M/s Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. as Ex. D-43/DW-6.
529. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, he explained
that HR related work means supervising attendance, leaves,
gratuity etc. of employees working with his father and his
companies. Passing of bills means work related to bills of
employees relating to travelling, hotel stay, air fare etc.
530. A copy of IFS dt. 31.07.2008 available as D-158 in
the case CBI Vs. AMR Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CC No.
316/2019, which was notarized was taken on record as Ex. D-
44/DW-6. He admitted that in the copy of IFS Ex. PW3/F,
signatures of three persons namely Ms. Swati Manoj Jayaswal,
Abhijeet Manoj Jayaswal and Ms. Ritika Ramesh Jayaswal are
not there, whereas in the copy of IFS Ex. D-44/DW-6, signatures
of two persons namely Abhijeet Manoj Jayaswal and Ms. Ritika
Ramesh Jayaswal are not there.
531. He referred to record when it was suggested that
location of EUP in the present case was changed from West
Bengal to Bihar after approval of Shriprakash Jayaswal as he was
a Minister of State (Incharge for Coal and S&PI) in the Central
Govt. as reflected from File Ex. PW11/E (Colly.) (D-34, page
71/n, dt. 19.08.2010). He denied that M/s JICPL was part of
Abhijeet Group at the time of applying for allocation of coal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 181 of 343
block. He denied that he had shifted the burden upon others to
save himself.
532. DW-4 is Sh. Nirmal Parkash Manchanda. He has
been examined on behalf of A-3 H.C. Gupta.
533. DW-4 was working in Coal India Ltd. since June
1982 as Stenographer.
534. He deposed that in 2007, desktop computers were
available for typing work. In the year 2007, he had assisted Sh.
Samiran Dutta and Mrs. Sushmita Sen Gupta in their typing
work. He told that the typing work was carried out on desktop
computer situated adjacent to GM chamber. These two Officers
were posted at headquarters at Kolkata and they were financial
experts. He told that he simply typed the matter that they had
given to him.
535. After seeing one Excel Sheet from Page 32 to 39
and another Excel Sheet from Page 70 to 77 of Ex. D-21 (Colly.)
[available as D-14 in case file titled as ‘CBI Vs. M/s Jindal Steel
& Power Ltd., RC 6 (E) 2013 EO-I DLI], he told that he had not
typed these documents.
536. After seeing running matter titled ‘Notes as per
remark column’ at Page 78 to 84 attached to second Excel Sheet
of Ex. D-21 (Colly.), he told that he had typed similar matter but
he was not sure whether he had typed these pages or not as it was
an old matter.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 182 of 343
537. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, he told that
he had used electronic typewriter till year 2000. He was not
aware if anyone had used electronic typewriter in their office
after year 2000.
538. He was cross-examined on behalf of A-4 and A-5
also. In the said cross-examination, he admitted that Sh. Manoj
Kumar, Dy. SP, CBI, EO1, New Delhi had examined him with
respect to visit of Sh. Samiran Dutta and Mrs. Sushmita Sen
Gupta on 02.07.2018. He admitted that in 2007 there was no
electronic typewriter in their office. He admitted that Sh.
Samiran Dutta and Mrs. Sushmita Sen Gupta were not provided
with any electronic typewriter. He admitted that whatever they
themselves typed or got typed by him was on his office computer
and printed from laser printer.
539. DW-7 is Sh. Shiv Raj Singh. He was officer of
Indian Administrative Services (1973 Batch) of Madhya Pradesh
Cadre. From 2003 up to 2007, he was posted as Principal
Secretary, Industries & Mineral Resources Department, Govt. of
Chhattisgarh. He told that he had attended around 4 to 5
screening committee meetings held for allocation of coal blocks
for the steel and cement sector. He had also attended 35 th
screening committee meeting held on 30.07.2007 for allocation
of coal block for the power sector alongwith Sh. Vivek Dhand,
Principal Secretary, Energy & Water Resources Department.
540. He told that the said meeting lasted for about one
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 183 of 343
hour. He told that first of all, attendance was taken by MoC
officials of all the participants. Thereafter, Chairman of the
screening committee namely Sh. H.C. Gupta, Secretary, Coal
briefed the participants that presentations by various applicants
had already been made with the participation of representatives
of various states and on that date it was proposed to consider
various applications for IPPs and CPPs for recommendation by
the screening committee. Chairman also mentioned that the
views of representatives of the administrative ministries of the
government of India and the concerned state governments would
be considered alongwith availability of coal from CMPDIL and
various coal companies so that just and equitable coal reserves
could be allocated to the selected applicants. The Chairman also
mentioned that in the recommendations received from various
state governments, emphasis had been laid to allocate coal blocks
located in the respective states to the projects being proposed in
their states, however, there were states not having coal reserves
their requirement would also need to be met. Before the start of
the discussion by the participants, some junior officials of MoC
had circulated recommendations received from various state
governments and MoP. One chart showing names of various
applicant companies which had some information about the
applicants was also given to the participants.
541. In cross-examination on behalf of CBI, he told that
his statement was not recorded by CBI in connection with the
present case. He also told that he had gone through the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 184 of 343
advertisement issued in November, 2006 by MoC. He stated that
it was not responsibility of MoC officers alone to check the
applications and documents. According to him, it was joint
responsibility of MoC Officers as well as Officers of
Administrative Ministries and State Govt.
542. Regarding his role as representative of Govt. of
Chhattisgarh in the 35th screening committee meeting, he told
that it was to put forth the views of the state government and to
secure allocation of coal blocks to the IPPs and CPPs proposed to
be set up in Chhattisgarh State and recommended by the state
government. Regarding his as representative of Govt. of
Chhattisgarh in the 35th screening committee meeting in relation
to EUPs proposed to be set up and coal blocks situated in other
states, he told that the screening committee meeting proceedings
and discussions could broadly be divided into two parts. The first
part pertained to the methodology and the process of
deliberations based on which the applicant companies were to be
recommended for allocation of coal blocks. In this part of the
meetings, representative of all the State Govt. and the
Administrative Ministries participated and broadly a
methodology to be followed was agreed upon. As regards the
second part in which individual applications were deliberated
upon, he had no role qua those applications which related to coal
blocks or EUPs situated/proposed to be set up in other states.
543. He denied that the role which he had described in
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 185 of 343
the first part, nothing of those issues were discussed in the
meeting dt. 30.07.2007. He asserted that in the meeting, those
issues as mentioned in the first part were definitely discussed.
He was shown minutes of the meeting dt. 30.07.2007 Ex.
PW11/J-4 (Colly.), D-31 and he told that those minutes were
incomplete as various issues that were discussed and the decision
taken thereon had not been mentioned in those minutes. He
denied that that recommendations of MoP were not circulated to
the members of the 35th screening committee on 30.07.2007.
544. In cross-examination on behalf of A-4 and A-5, he
admitted that during the meeting held on 30.07.2007, the
representative of MoP had informed the screening committee that
MoP had made its recommendations by considering networth of
the company, tie up of water and land and he requested the
committee that these recommendations be accepted by the
committee.
545. He admitted that the representative of MoP never
informed the screening committee on that day that the
recommendations of MoP were arrived at by applying the UMPP
criteria vis a vis the minimum networth i.e. a minimum networth
of Rs. 50 Lakhs per MW as a qualifying criteria.
546. He admitted that during discussions, H.C. Gupta/A-
3 had told Sh. Harish Chandra (from MoP) that MoC had not
formally received the recommendations from MoP and upon this,
some official from MoP handed over the letter containing formal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 186 of 343
recommendations made by MoP during the meeting itself.
547. He admitted that after reading formal letter of MoP,
H.C. Gupta/A-3 was visibly upset about the fact that MoP had
not verified the facts on the basis of which it had made the
recommendations and he suggested to the screening committee
that before finalizing the recommendations, the said facts should
be got verified. He also admitted various other suggestions.
548. He admitted that the state government of
Chhattisgarh had entered into MoUs with companies for
establishment of power plants which did not have existing
production capacities and assured them all help for establishing
such EUPs and supporting them in allocation of coal blocks for
their projects by recommending their case.
549. He admitted that all along it was the view of the
screening committee that a company not already engaged in
production of power could be allocated a coal block for its
proposed EUP.
550. DW-7 was further cross-examined by CBI to explain
some facts. In further cross-examination, he was shown D-34,
page 129 which is letter dt. 05.09.2007 and page 148 which is
letter dt. 11.09.2007. These letters are Ex. D-45/DW-7 (Colly.)
and Ex. D-46/DW-7 (Colly.).
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 187 of 343
PART – F
THE ARGUMENTS
551. Detailed final arguments in the matter were heard as
were addressed by Sh. A.P. Singh, Learned DLA on behalf of
CBI, by Sh. Umang Kataria, Learned Counsel on behalf of A-1
company, by Sh. Mudit Jain, Learned Counsel on behalf of A-2
and by Sh. Rahul Tyagi, Learned Counsel on behalf of accused
persons A-3 to A-5.
552. Written submissions, in support of the arguments,
were also filed. I have gone through the same as well. Additional
written submissions were also filed on behalf of A-2 and I have
gone through the same as well.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
553. Sh. A.P. Singh, learned DLA for CBI had stated as
Bar that prosecution was not pressing charge for offence u/s 409
IPC and 13(1)(c) PC Act against accused A-3 H.C. Gupta.
Consequently, it was also not pressing charge of conspiracy i.e.
u/s 120-B r/w 409 IPC & 13(1)(c) PC Act against any of the
accused persons. As such, the aforesaid offences are being kept
out of consideration. And now the charge of conspiracy was
restricted to offence u/s 120-B r/w 420 IPC & 13(1)(d) PC Act.
554. Learned DLA for CBI argued that the prosecution
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 188 of 343
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Referring to the
testimonies of the witnesses and the documents, he submitted
that the prosecution has proved the charges. He emphasized that
the conspiracy among the accused persons stands established and
the offences of cheating and criminal misconduct/corruption are
clearly made out.
555. Learned Prosecutor highlighted the relevant
documents and testimonies and submitted that CBI has
established that accused persons made misrepresentations to
MoC while making application, and also in the feedback form
and during presentation.
556. Learned DLA for CBI contended that JICPL/A-1
was the applicant company which was incorporated on
16.07.2002 and it belonged to the Abhijeet Group. A-2 Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal alongwith his brother Arbind Jayaswal were the
initial directors of the company. He pointed out that Sudhir
Gupta/PW-6 had signed on the application form [Ex. PW-1/A
(Colly.), D-3] as authorised signatory. The application was for
allocation of Mahuagarhi coal block situated in Jharkhand and
EUP was proposed at Burdwan, West Bengal.
557. Learned DLA referred to testimonies of PW-1
Harshad Pophali and PW-6 Sudhir Gupta and submitted that both
the witnesses have shown that the application and feedback form
and presentation were prepared under directions of A-2 Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 189 of 343
558. Learned DLA contended that in the application
various misrepresentations were made. One of such
misrepresentation is that JICPL was stated to be an SPV managed
by IISIPL and IL&FS. Learned DLA pointed out to various
documents to show that JICPL was not an SPV and certainly not
one managed by IISIPL and IL&FS. He also referred to evidence
of PW-9 Pankaj Sakhuja in this regard. Learned DLA highlighted
that the accused company did not annex any MoU with the
application to show that JICPL was an SPV or that it was
managed by IISIPL and IL&FS. He pointed out that IL&FS had
not subscribed to any shares or equity of JICPL and as such it
cannot be said that IL&FS was managing JICPL in any manner.
559. Learned DLA submitted that another
misrepresentation was regarding core business of applicant
company/A-1. He contended that it was not engaged in any such
work or business.
560. Another misrepresentation pointed out by Learned
DLA is that networth of IL&FS was also claimed as part of
networth of JICPL which was not legally justified. No document
was filed to show connection of IL&FS with JICPL and thus its
networth could not be joined with networth of JICPL.
561. The next misrepresentation pointed out is regarding
appraisal and syndication. Learned DLA submitted that it was
falsely claimed by the applicant in the application that DPR was
appraised. He pointed out that no appraisal report was annexed
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 190 of 343
with the application.
562. He also pointed out to misrepresentation regarding
non-disclosure of previous allocations. He submitted that it was
stated in the application that there was no previous allocation
whereas there were various allocations to companies of Abhijeet
Group. He referred to the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-6.
563. Learned DLA then pointed out misrepresentations in
the feedback form [Ex. PW1/E, D-34, Pg. 1383-1384]. He
submitted that in the feedback form it was again claimed that
syndication of total debt of Rs. 4445 crores was arranged which
was incorrect statement.
564. He further submitted that at the time of presentation,
the company made presentation for EUP at Bihar for which there
was no application.
565. Further, he submitted that A-3 to A-5 were hand in
glove with A-1 & A-2 and deliberately assisted them in achieving
their objective of allocation of coal block. Learned DLA
submitted that they were in conspiracy with private accused
persons and are guilty of many acts and omissions and thus
committed offence of criminal misconduct under PC Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-1 COMPANY
566. Sh. Umang Katariya, learned Counsel for Sh.
Kannan Tiruvengadam who is the Official Liquidator of accused
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 191 of 343
No. 1 company/JICPL made some brief submissions. He also
filed written submissions.
567. Learned Counsel for the OL pointed out that on
16.10.2019, Hon’ble NCLT, Kolkata Bench had ordered for
moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(“IBC”). Further, vide order dated 17.07.2020, the Hon’ble
NCLT directed for liquidation of accused No. 1 company JICPL
and Sh. Kannan Tiruvengadam was appointed as Official
Liquidator.
568. Learned Counsel referred to Sec. 32-A of IBC and
relied upon Manish Kumar Vs. UOI, (2021) 5 SCC 1. Learned
counsel also referred to an order of Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, the then
Ld. Special Judge, PC Act (CBI), CBC-01, RADC, New Delhi,
in the case of CBI Vs. M/s Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. & Ors.,
whereby learned Special Judge had discharged the company by
resorting to provisions of Sec. 32-A IBC.
569. Learned counsel contended that even if accused
No.1 company is convicted in the present matter, no purpose will
be served as no action can be taken against any property of the
company in terms of Sec. 32-A of IBC. He pointed out that A-1
company is under liquidation as on today.
570. Learned counsel also relied upon Directorate of
Enforcement Vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine
NCLAT 121 and as per the law laid down therein, the properties
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 192 of 343
of A-1 company have to remain available till the same are sold
during liquidation in terms of Sec. 32-A IBC.
571. He thus prayed for passing appropriate orders in
respect of A-1 company.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-2
572. Sh. Mudit Jain, learned Counsel for A-2/Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal made manifold submissions.
573. Learned Counsel submitted that IL&FS was a
constituent of the SPV namely JICPL and thus was its principal
as well. Further, IL&FS was also co-applicant for allocation of
coal block. As such its networth could be used. He contended
that there was no requirement of filing the MoU with the
application.
574. He submitted that the main allegations of
prosecution are that A-1 & A-2 misrepresented about networth of
JICPL by claiming that it was SPV managed by IISIPL and
IL&FS; that application of A-1 company was incomplete as
appraisal report and documents regarding syndication were not
filed alongwith the application; that IL&FS was wrongly shown
as promoter of JICPL; and that information about previous
allocation was concealed because performance in earlier cases
was below par.
575. Regarding issue of networth, learned counsel
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 193 of 343
pointed to the covering letter which accompanied the application
and submitted that everything was disclosed in the said covering
letter. He contended that nothing was concealed regarding the
SPV.
576. Regarding non-filing of appraisal report and
syndication documents, learned counsel argued that A-2 or A-1
company were never informed about any deficiency in the
application by MoC. He further submitted that non-filing of these
documents was no offence. Additionally, he contended that no
false statement was made qua these two issues. He explained that
in the application, it was indeed mentioned that appraisal was
done but it was never claimed that appraisal report was also
prepared. He wanted to convey that if it was claimed that
appraisal report was also prepared but the report was not filed,
then prosecution could have a case on this issue. Regarding
syndication, he contended that IL&FS had no where disputed that
it had not syndicated the debt. He referred to some documents to
show that syndication for loan amount worth Rs. 4450 crores had
been arranged by IL&FS.
577. Learned counsel further contended that there was no
requirement to annex any MoU with the application. He
contended that even otherwise IL&FS has never stated that there
was no MoU.
578. Regarding non-disclosure of previous allocation,
learned counsel contended that JICPL had applied as an SPV and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 194 of 343
not as a group company. As such, there was no requirement of
disclosing previous allocations. He argued that there was no
misrepresentation regarding previous allocation as no coal block
was earlier allocated to JICPL. He contended that JICPL was an
eligible company as it was engaged in power generation.
579. He vehemently submitted that as far as A-2 is
concerned, there is no evidence that he committed any offence
under PC Act. He pointed out that prosecution has failed to show
that there was any meeting of minds between A-2 and accused
public servants. He vehemently submitted that no case was made
out against A-2.
580. Learned counsel submitted that prosecution has
failed to establish that various informations in the application
form or feedback form or the presentation were filled
up/provided upon instructions of A-2. He contended that reliance
of prosecution on evidence of PW-1 is without any basis. He
contended that evidence of PW-1 is not reliable and his evidence
is full of contradictions and improvements.
581. Learned counsel prayed for his acquittal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-3 TO A-5
582. Sh. Rahul Tyagi, learned Counsel for accused public
servants A-3 to A-5, made detailed submissions.
583. Learned Counsel firstly challenged the trial
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 195 of 343
proceedings itself terming the same as void ab initio on the
ground that there was no sanction obtained by the prosecution u/s
19 of the PC Act against accused A-4 & A-5. He contended that
the course adopted by my learned Predecessor of deeming that
sanction had been granted as recorded in order dated 22.07.2015
was unsustainable in law. He submitted that there cannot be
deemed sanction under the law. He also submitted that the
question relating to sanction can be raised at any time.
584. Learned counsel further questioned the trial on the
ground no sanction was obtained by prosecution u/s 197 CrPC
against any of the three accused public servants. He contended
that all the three accused public servants cannot be denied
protection of Sec. 197 CrPC and thus trial for the offences under
IPC is also void.
585. Learned counsel further submitted that prosecution
has not proved the ingredients of the offences against any of the
accused public servants. He vehemently submitted that none of
the offences under any of the clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of Sec. 13(1)
(d) of PC Act is made out. Learned counsel contended that mens
rea is necessary even in case for offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act.
586. He countered the allegations of the prosecution that
the allocation of the coal block to JICPL was against public
interest. He contended that the allocation was for captive use and
it was for an EUP of power production which was in accordance
with the policy of the Govt. Therefore, there was no violation of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 196 of 343
public interest.
587. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that A-3 who
was the Chairman of the Screening Committee and A-4 who was
Member Convener cannot be singled out for the decisions taken
by the Screening Committee. He further submitted that A-5 who
was Director, CA-1 had joined MoC quite late and was not part
of initial processing of applications and therefore he too cannot
be held responsible. He contended that decision taken by the
Committee was decision of a group and not of any individual.
588. He emphasized that minutes of the meeting were
never challenged. The recommendation sheets also bear signature
of all the members of the Screening Committee and it was a
unanimous decision or at least a decision by a majority.
589. Regarding conspiracy, learned counsel argued that
prosecution has failed to establish any conspiracy between
accused public servants and private accused persons.
590. Learned Counsel vehemently submitted that all the
guidelines were followed while recommending allocation of coal
block to A-1 company. As to non-checking of applications for
completeness and eligibility, learned counsel highlighted that the
prosecution has misconception and has confused checking of the
applications with verification of the claims made therein. He
contended that what the prosecution is emphasizing is
verification of the information/claims made in the applications.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 197 of 343
According to learned counsel this was the task of administrative
ministry i.e. MoP and the concerned state governments. He
submitted that MoC was never supposed to verify the claims
made in the applications as it never had the expertise to do so. He
explained that checking for completeness as envisaged in the
guidelines was only to see that all the documents were annexed
with the application including demand draft of Rs. 10,000/-. And
checking for eligibility only meant that it was to be seen that the
EUP was for power production. Learned counsel referred to
various documents and testimonies to show that checking for
completeness and eligibility had indeed taken place.
591. Regarding misrepresentations made by A-1
company, learned counsel submitted that accused public servants
did not know any of those misrepresentations and as a matter of
fact they themselves have also been induced as they were part of
MoC itself. Learned counsel contended that accused public
servants being part of MoC were also misled.
592. For A-5, learned counsel additionally submitted that
A-5 had joined CA-1 Section on 26.03.2007. At the relevant time
it was Sh. Sanjiv Mittal who was Director, CA-1. It was during
tenure of Sh. Mittal that all the applications were received. As
such all the alleged acts or omissions prior to 26.03.2007 cannot
be attributed to A-5. He also pointed out that applications were
even sent to MoP prior to joining of A-5, however, MoP had
refused to receive the same and were sent back. Some
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 198 of 343
correspondence took place between MoP and MoC and only
thereafter applications were sent again on 17.04.2007. Learned
counsel contended that all the boxes which were lying as
received back on earlier occasion were sent to MoP in the same
condition. A-5 had no occasion or opportunity to see the same.
593. Learned counsel also pointed out that A-5 was not a
member of the Screening Committee in any capacity. He also
pointed out that against A-5, off late the PMO has been denying
sanction for prosecution after it understood that A-5 had no role
in sending the applications to administrative ministries.
594. Learned counsel prayed for acquittal of these
accused public servants.
REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS
595. Learned DLA rebutted all the contentions of the
learned defence counsels.
596. Regarding contentions raised on behalf of A-1,
learned DLA submitted that A-1 is yet to undergo liquidation and
Sec. 32-A IBC does not apply.
597. Regarding contentions raised on behalf of A-2,
learned DLA submitted that the same are misconceived and show
misinterpretation of documents.
598. Regarding contentions raised on behalf of accused
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 199 of 343
public servants i.e. A-3 to A-5, learned DLA contended that those
contentions have no weight and substance.
599. Further, learned defence counsels were also given
opportunity to explain few of the rebuttal submissions.
600. The contentions of respective learned counsels for
the parties will be noted in detail at the time of analysis and
discussion.
PART-G
THE ANALYSIS AND DECISION OF THE COURT
601. It may be mentioned here that various objections
were taken during recording of evidence as to mode of proof of
various documents. However, at the time of final arguments, no
such objections were pressed into service and thus are presumed
to have been given up.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
602. Based on the arguments and submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties, the following points for
determination arise in the present case:
I. Was there no proper sanction u/s 19 of PC Act and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 200 of 343
thus cognizance was bad against accused A-4 and A-5?
II. Whether cognizance was bad in respect of A-3 to A-
5 for want of sanction u/s 197 CrPC?
III. Whether offence of criminal misconduct/corruption
u/s 13(1)(d) of PC Act is made out against A-3 to A-5?
IV. Were there any misrepresentations? V. Whether those misrepresentations deceived any person? VI. Who is responsible for making those
misrepresentations and thereby deceiving and fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing the said person?
VII. Whether the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC is made
out against A-1 and A-2?
VIII. Whether there was any conspiracy among all the
accused persons?
603. The case can be broadly considered in two
compartments. One compartment relates to case against public
servants and the other relates to case against private individuals
and company. One common issue is regarding offence of
conspiracy.
604. Points for determination no. I to III are concerning
case against public servants. Points for determination no. IV to
VII relate to case against private accused persons. Point for
determination no. VIII is common and relates to all the accused
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 201 of 343
persons. This point for determination no. VIII will be discussed
in the last.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED PUBLIC SERVANTS
605. Firstly, the case against accused public servants is
being considered.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. I
Was there no proper sanction u/s 19 of PC Act and thus
cognizance was bad against accused A-4 and A-5?
606. Learned Counsel Sh. Rahul Tyagi for A-3 to A-5
vehemently submitted that cognizance was wrongly taken against
the accused public servants as there was no sanction u/s 19 of PC
Act in respect of A-4 and A-5. He contended that order dt.
22.07.2015 providing for deemed sanction is unsustainable.
607. Learned Counsel Sh. Rahul Tyagi for the accused
public servants contended that there was no sanction u/s 19 of
PC against accused A-4 and A-5 and as such cognizance was
taken without jurisdiction. He contended that the trial conducted
in the absence of the sanctions is void ab initio. He relied upon
Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186 and A.R.
Antulay Vs. S. Nayak & Anr., (1988) 2 SCC 602.
608. Learned Counsel criticized order dated 22.07.2015
vide which it was ordered that sanction against A-4 and A-5 was
deemed to have been granted. Learned Counsel submitted that
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 202 of 343
reliance placed by my Learned Predecessor on the judgment of
Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., (1998) 1 SCC 226 was
misplaced and misconceived. He referred to the recent decision
given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Rajmohan
Vs. CBI (Anti-Corruption Branch), (2023) 1 SCC 329. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has held in this case that delay in grant of
sanction by the Competent Authority beyond mandatory period
will neither result in quashing of the proceedings nor it will lead
to conclusion that sanction has been deemed to have been
granted.
609. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“23. Noticing that there is no legislation prescribing the
period within which a decision for sanction is to be
taken, this Court, in Vineet Narain (supra), sought to fill
the gap by setting a normative prescription of three
months for grant of sanction.
58. (1)(15) Time-limit of three months for grant of
sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to.
However, additional time of one month may be allowed
where consultation is required with the Attorney
General (AG) or any other law officer in the AG’S
office.
. . . . .
. . . . .
31. In the first place, non-compliance with a mandatory
period cannot and should not automatically lead to the
quashing of criminal proceedings because the
prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an
element of public interest having a direct bearing on the
Rule of law. This is also a non-sequitur. It must also be
kept in mind that the complainant or victim has no other
remedy available for judicial redressal if the criminal
proceedings stand automatically quashed. At the same
time, a decision to grant deemed sanction may cause
prejudice to the rights of the Accused as there would
also be non-application of mind in such cases.”
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 203 of 343
610. It further held that the only course of action
available when sanction is not granted in the stipulated time is
that the aggrieved party including complainant, accused or victim
may approach the writ Court seeking directions for action on the
request for sanction. It observed as under:
“37. In conclusion, we hold that upon expiry of the three
months and the additional one-month period, the
aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim,
would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court.
They are entitled to seek appropriate remedies, including
directions for action on the request for sanction and for
the corrective measure on accountability that the
sanctioning authority bears….”
611. He thus submits that it is a case of no sanction
against A-4 and A-5 and they must be discharged.
612. Learned DLA has not disputed the factual position
that there was no sanction granted by the Competent Authority
and it was only deemed to have been granted vide order dated
22.07.2015 but he submits that the judgment in Vijay Rajmohan
(supra) will apply only prospectively. He further submitted that
the objections have been raised belatedly and even otherwise
there has been no failure of justice. Learned DLA relied upon
Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of
2017 decided on 13.07.2017 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
613. The answer of Learned Counsel of the accused
public servants is that the judgment in Vijay Rajmohan (supra)
will apply retrospectively. Relying upon Dr. Suresh Chandra
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 204 of 343
Verma & Ors Vs. The Chancellor, Nagpur University & Ors.,
MANU/SC/0351/1990, he submitted that whenever Hon’ble
Apex Court interprets a provision of law, it declares law as it has
been from the inception. Learned Counsel argued that all
declarations of law are retrospective in its application unless
specifically declared otherwise. He also relied upon P.V. George
and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 557 in this
regard.
614. He further answered that issue of sanction can be
raised at any time. He referred to the observations made in the
case of Nanjappa (supra) which were as under:
“13. What is important is that, not only was the grant of
a valid sanction held to be essential for taking
cognizance by the Court,but the question about the
validity of any such order, according to this Court, could
be raised at the stage of final arguments after the trial or
even at the appellate stage. This Court observed:
“Ordinarily, the question as to whether a proper sanction
has been accorded for prosecution of the accused
persons or not is a matter which should be dealt with at
the stage of taking cognizance. But in a case of this
nature where a question is raised as to whether the
authority granting the sanction was competent therefore
or not, at the stage of final arguments after trial, the
same may have to be considered having regard to the
terms and conditions of service of the accused for the
purpose of determination as to who could remove him
from service.
Grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a
sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. It is
desirable that the question as regard sanction may be
determined at an early stage.
But, even if a cognizance of the offence is taken
erroneously and the same comes to the court’s notice at
a later stage a finding to that effect is permissible. Even
such a plea can be taken for the first time before an
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 205 of 343
appellate court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
615. Regarding no failure of justice shown by the
accused, Learned Counsel for the accused public servants
submitted that reliance on Girish Kumar Suneja (supra) by the
prosecution is misplaced. He submitted that Hon’ble Supreme
Court was not dealing with the issue of deemed sanction. He
contended that the requirements of showing failure of justice by
the accused with a reference to S. 19(3) of PC Act is only in the
cases of appeal or revision or confirmation proceedings. Learned
Counsel pointed out that a separate application has also been
filed in this regard.
616. I have considered these submissions..
617. When my Learned Predecessor passed the order
dated 22.07.2015 deeming that sanction had been granted, it must
be noticed that it was a possible course of action. My Learned
Predecessor had relied upon Vineet Narain ( supra) and
Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh & Another, (2012) 3
SCC 64.
618. Thus the said order cannot be faulted with now.
Moreover, what is important is that none of the accused public
servants had challenged the said order dated 22.07.2015 at any
point of time. They participated in the trial and now when the
matter was at the final stage, they have come up with this plea.
The judgment of Vijay Rajmohan (supra) has been delivered
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 206 of 343
recently. Therefore to my mind there is nothing wrong with the
order dated 22.07.2015.
619. There is another important aspect. This plea was
raised for the first time when the matter was at the stage of final
arguments. It is obvious that the provision of Sec. 19 of the PC
Act is in nature of shield for public servants to save them from
frivolous prosecutions. It is also notewothy that the requirement
of sanction is at the time of taking cognizance. It is so because
the protection will become ineffective if criminal prosecutions
are allowed to begin and then later on decision is taken regarding
protection of public servants. This course of action will make the
protection ineffective and useless. With aim of providing
protection at the very threshhold, requirement of sanction was
provided at the time of taking cognizance.
620. In the present case, deemed sanction was ordered
before taking cognizance. The accused public servants appeared
and participated in the proceedings. They did not raise any
objection that cognizance was taken against them without
sanction or that the order providing for deemed sanction was bad.
They continued participating in the trial. And now when the
matter has reached the final stage, they have come up with this
plea. It appears that this plea would not have been raised if the
judgment in Vijay Rajmohan had not come.
621. However, learned counsel for accused public
servants is right in submitting that question whether there
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 207 of 343
occurred failure of justice or not due to absence of, or error in,
any sanction is a matter to be seen by appellate court or
revisional court and not by the trial court. The aspect of failure of
justice is relevant when the question of sanction is being
considered before the appellate or revisional court. Therefore, it
follows that if an accused raises plea regarding absence of
sanction or its invalidity before the trial court, the prosecution
cannot take a plea that no failure of justice has occurred due to
such absence or invalidity. The prosecution has either to show
existence of sanction or to prove its validity. The concept of
failure of justice is to be applied in those cases in which there is
no sanction for prosecution but no objection is taken qua it before
the trial court and the matter reaches appellate court or revisional
court where it is so raised. The judgment in Girish Kumar Suneja
(supra) has to be considered accordingly. Thus learned Counsel
for accused public servants is right in submitting that question
whether there occurred failure of justice or not due to absence of,
or error in, any sanction is a matter to be seen by appellate court
or revisional court.
622. However, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is held that there is no error in order providing for
deemed sanction.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. II
Whether cognizance was bad in respect of A-3 to A-5 for want of
sanction u/s 197 CrPC?
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 208 of 343
623. Learned Counsel for the accused public servants also
focused on the lack of sanction u/s 197 CrPC against all the three
accused public servants. He relied upon A. Srinivasulu Vs. The
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 Live Law SC 485
and contended that sanction u/s 197 CrPC was must. He further
relied upon R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 1
SCC 478 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai & Ors.,
MANU/SC/1425/2009.
624. Learned DLA has replied that the issue regarding
lack of sanction u/s 197 CrPC was raised at the time of charge
also and was decided against the accused persons. He also relied
upon Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
MANU/SC/5415/2006 and contended that entering into
conspiracies cannot be considered as an act performed during the
discharge of official duties and as such there was no requirement
of sanction u/s 197 CrPC. He contended that the present case is a
case of abuse of power and as such no protection is available to
the accused public servants u/s 197 CrPC. He relied upon
Chaudhary Parveen Sultana Vs. State of WB, 2009 CriLJ 1318.
625. Learned Counsel for the accused persons refuted
these contentions and submitted that the judgment in the Prakash
Singh Badal (supra) was already discussed and clarified in the
judgment of A. Srinivasulu (supra). He referred to the following
observations made therein:
“47. For the purpose of finding out whether A-1 acted
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 209 of 343
or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty, it
is enough for us to see whether he could take cover,
rightly or wrongly, under any existing policy. Paragraph
4.2.1 of the existing policy extracted above shows that
A-1 at least had an arguable case, in defence of the
decision he took to go in for Restricted Tender. Once this
is clear, his act, even if alleged to be lacking in bona
fides or in pursuance of a conspiracy, would be an act in
the discharge of his official duty, making the case come
within the parameters of Section 197(1) of the Code.
Therefore, the prosecution ought to have obtained
previous sanction. The Special Court as well as the High
Court did not apply their mind to this aspect.
48. Shri Padmesh Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent placed strong reliance upon the observation
contained in paragraph 50 of the decision of this Court
in Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab. It reads as
follows:-
“50. The offence of cheating under Section
420 or for that matter offences relatable to
Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B can by no
stretch of imagination by their very nature
be regarded as having been committed by
any public servant while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of official
duty. In such cases, official status only
provides an opportunity for commission of
the offence.”
49. On the basis of the above observation, it was
contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that
any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an
offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been
committed while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of official duty.
50. But the above contention in our opinion is far-
fetched. The observations contained in paragraph 50 of
the decision in Parkash Singh Badal (supra) are too
general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio
flowing out of the said case. If by their very nature, the
offences under sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B cannot
be regarded as having been committed by a public
servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge
of official duty, the same logic would apply with much
more vigour in the case of offences under the PC Act.
Section 197 of the Code does not carve out any group of
offences that will fall outside its purview. Therefore, the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 210 of 343
observations contained in para 50 of the decision in
Parkash Singh Badal cannot be taken as carving out an
exception judicially, to a statutory prescription. In fact,
Parkash Singh Badal cites with approval the other
decisions (authorised by the very same learned Judge)
where this Court made a distinction between an act,
though in excess of the duty, was reasonably connected
with the discharge of official duty and an act which was
merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act.
Interestingly, the proposition laid down in Rakesh
Kumar Mishra (supra) was distinguished in paragraph
49 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal, before the
Court made the observations in paragraph 50 extracted
above.
51. No public servant is appointed with a mandate or
authority to commit an offence. Therefore, if the
observations contained in paragraph 50 of the decision
in Parkash Singh Badal are applied, any act which
constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of
the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty.
The requirement of a previous sanction will thus be
rendered redundant by such an interpretation.”
626. Learned Counsel thus argued that prosecution for
offences under IPC without sanction under 197 CrPC is bad in
law. He submitted that protection of Section 197 CrPC was
available not only to A-4 and A-5 but even to A-3 H.C. Gupta
who had retired.
627. My Learned Predecessor has already dealt with the
aspect of sanction u/s 197 CrPC at the time of order on charge.
He has already observed that the alleged acts as committed by A-
3 to A-5 cannot be called to have been done by them in the
discharge of official duties or in the purported discharge of their
official duties. He has held that their offices merely provided
them an opportunity to commit such acts of misdemeanour.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 211 of 343
628. It is also to be kept in mind that whether the sanction
u/s 197 CrPC was required or not is to be considered at the stage
of taking cognizance and, therefore, the allegations as they stood
on that date are to be taken note of. As on the date of cognizance,
considering the allegations against accused public servants, their
acts and omissions are not such which can be said to have been
performed in the discharge of official duties.
629. In the case Rajib Ranjan & Ors vs R. Vijay Kumar,
(2015) 1 SCC 513 and Inspector of Police & Anr. Vs
Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam & Anr., C.A. No. 129 of 2013
(SC), it has been categorically held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
that when a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or
indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part
is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and
therefore, provisions of Section 197 CrPC will not be attracted.
Reference in this regard can also be had to K. Satwant Singh vs
State of Punjab, 1960 (2) SCR 89; Amrik Singh vs State of
Pepsu, 1955 (1) SCR 1302 and Om Prakash Gupta vs State of
U.P., 1957 SCR 423.
630. There is another aspect of the present matter. At the
time of order on charge, the question regarding sanction u/s 197
CrPC was finally decided. The question was not kept open for
final stage. It was not deferred till recording of evidence. Thus
the same has attained finality.
631. In view of the above, it is held that there was no
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 212 of 343
requirement of sanction u/s 197 CrPC against any accused public
servant.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. III
Whether offence of criminal misconduct/corruption u/s 13(1)(d)
of PC Act is made out against A-3 to A-5?
632. As already mentioned, charge for offence u/s 409
IPC and 13(1)(c) PC Act against accused A-3 H.C. Gupta has
been given up.
633. The charge against accused public servants A-3 to A-
5 now is for offence u/s 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The said provision
has three clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). Learned Counsel for these
accused has submitted that all the three clauses make out separate
offences. He referred to Rajiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of UP &
Ors., MANU/SC/0932/2017.
634. Sh. Rahul Tyagi, learned counsel for accused public
servants contended that there is no case made out u/s 13 (1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the PC Act against A-3 to A-5. He relied upon the case
of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC
731 and Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of Gujarat &
Anr., MANU/SC/0273/2025. Learned Counsel has contended
that it is admitted case of prosecution that there was no demand
or acceptance of any illegal gratification or any pecuniary
advantage by any accused public servants. He submitted that no
such evidence was found during investigation or produced during
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 213 of 343
trial.
635. It was observed in Neeraj Dutta (supra) as under:
“74. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the
guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter
of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also
be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of
direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
public servant, the following aspects have to be borne
in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver
without there being any demand from the public servant
and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the
illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per
Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a
prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant
makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the
demand and tenders the demanded gratification which
in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of
obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand
for illegal gratification emanates from the public
servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer
by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant
respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 214 of 343
fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt
of an illegal gratification without anything more would
not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)
(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under
Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence,
there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe
giver which is accepted by the public servant which
would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by
the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and
in turn there is a payment made which is received by
the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment
under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.”
636. Learned Counsel referring to Neeraj Dutta (supra)
submitted that the Constitution Bench has now settled the law
and it has held that ……. ” To hold a public servant guilty of an
offence u/s 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) it must be proved that the said
public servant must have made a demand and the bribe giver
must have accepted the demand and he tenders demanded
gratification which in turn is accepted by the public servant. This
is the case of ‘obtainment’ which is an offence u/s 13(1)(d)(i) &
(ii) PC Act.”
637. Learned DLA has argued that judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta (supra) was clarified in the
subsequent judgment while applying the said principles of law to
the individual case of Neeraj Dutta which was reported as Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC Online SC 280.
638. Having perused the judgment of the Constitution
Bench, there remains no doubt that proof of demand and
acceptance of gratification is must for securing conviction u/s 13
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 215 of 343
(1)(d)(i) & (ii) PC Act. This is because in case of abuse of official
position, there cannot be obtainment unless there is demand from
the side of public servant. In the present case, there is neither
any allegation nor any evidence of any demand by any accused
public servant. As such the offence u/s 13(1)(d)(i) or (ii) PC Act
is not made out against the accused public servants A-3 to A-5.
639. However, as far as offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act is
concerned, prosecution may have an arguable case.
640. Learned Counsel for the accused referred to Madhu
Koda Vs. CBI, MANU/DE/1079/2020, passed by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court and submitted that mens rea is required for proving
offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act. He contended that from the
judgment, it is clear that mens rea is an essential part of offence
u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act. He contended that it is corruption which
is to be punished and not perceived bad, arbitrary or wrong
administrative decisions. He also referred to C. Surendranath Vs.
State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 210.
641. He referred to R. Balakrishnan Pillai vs. State of
Kerala, MANU/SC/0212/2003 and C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State
through CBI, MANU/SC/0962/2012 wherein it was observed:
“17 ……..
That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under
section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e.
corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a
public-servant’. A similar view has also been expressedCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 216 of 343
by this Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar US. State of
Kerala MANU/SC/0164/1962 : (1963) Supp. (2) SCR
724 while considering the provisions of section 5 of Act
of 1947. If the totality of the materials on record
indicate the above position, we do not find any reason
to allow the prosecution to continue against the
Appellant. Such continuance, in our view, would be an
abuse of the process of court and therefore it will be the
plain duty of the court to interdict the same.”
642. He contended that there was no quid-pro-quo.
643. The issue of requirement of guilty intention/ mens
rea for the offence of criminal misconduct as provided u/s 13(1)
(d)(iii) PC Act has been discussed by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI, MANU/DE/6909/2011.
It has been observed that if the other requirements of the
provisions i.e. Section 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act are fulfilled then there
is no requirement of mens rea or guilty intention to prove the said
offence. The Hon’ble Court while discussing the provisions of PC
Act in detail inter alia observed as under:
“79. What then is the behaviour or act which attracts
such opprobrium as to result in criminal responsibility?
It is not every act which results in loss of public
interest, or that is contrary to public interest, that is a
prosecutable offence. There can be no doubt that all
acts prejudicial to public interest, can be the subject
matter of judicial review. In those cases, courts consider
whether the decision maker transgressed the zone of
reasonableness, or breached the law, in his action.
However, it is only those acts done with complete and
manifest disregard to the norms, and manifestly
injurious to public interest, which were avoidable, but
for the public servant’s overlooking or disregarding
precautions and not heeding the safeguards he or she
was expected to, and which result in pecuniary
advantage to another that are prosecutable underCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 217 of 343
Section 13(1)(d)(iii). In other words, if the public
servant is able to show that he followed all the
safeguards, and exercised all reasonable precautions
having regard to the circumstances, despite which there
was loss of public interest, he would not be guilty of the
offence. The provision aims at ensuring efficiency, and
responsible behaviour, as much as it seeks to outlaw
irresponsibility in public servant’s functioning which
would otherwise go unpunished. The blameworthiness
for a completely indefensible act of a public servant, is
to be of such degree that it is something that no
reasonable man would have done, if he were placed in
that position, having regard to all the circumstances. It
is not merely a case of making a wrong choice; the
decision should be one such as no one would have
taken.
80. In this context, it would be useful to notice the
following passage from the work Errors, Medicine and
the Law by Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith:
“Criminal punishment carries substantial moral
overtones. The doctrine of strict liability allows
for criminal conviction in the absence of moral
blameworthiness only in very limited
circumstances. Conviction of any substantial
criminal offence requires that the accused person
should have acted with a morally blameworthy
state of mind. Recklessness and deliberate
wrongdoing, levels four and five are classification
of blame, are normally blameworthy but any
conduct falling short of that should not be the
subject of criminal liability. Common-law systems
have traditionally only made negligence the
subject of criminal sanction when the level of
negligence has been high — a standard
traditionally described as gross negligence.
* * *
Blame is a powerful weapon. When used
appropriately and according to morally defensible
criteria, it has an indispensable role in human
affairs. Its inappropriate use, however, distorts
tolerant and constructive relations between
people. Some of life’s misfortunes are accidents
for which nobody is morally responsible. Others
are wrongs for which responsibility is diffuse. Yet
others are instances of culpable conduct, and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 218 of 343
constitute grounds for compensation and at times,
for punishment. Distinguishing between these
various categories requires careful, morally
sensitive and scientifically informed analysis.”
81. As noticed previously, the silence in the statute,
about the state of mind, rules out applicability of the
mens rea or intent standard, (i.e. the prosecution does
not have to prove that the accused intended the
consequence, which occurred or was likely to occur).
Having regard to the existing law Section 13 (1) (e)
(which does not require proof of criminal intent) as
well as the strict liability standards prevailing our
system of law, therefore, a decision is said to be without
public interest, (if the other requirements of the
provision, i.e. Section 13(1)(d)(iii) are fulfilled) if that
action of the public servant is the consequence of his or
her manifest failure to observe those reasonable
safeguards against detriment to the public interest,
which having regard to all circumstances, it was his or
her duty to have adopted.
82. It would be useful to in this context, take recourse
to certain examples. For instance, in not adopting any
discernible criteria, in awarding supply contracts, based
on advertisements calling for responses, published in
newspapers having very little circulation, two days
before the last date of submission of tenders, which
result in a majority of suppliers being left out of the
process, and the resultant award of permits to an
unknown and untested supplier, would result in
advantage to that individual, and also be without public
interest, as the potential benefit from competitive bids
would be eliminated. Likewise, tweaking tender
criteria, to ensure that only a few applicants are
eligible, and ensure that competition (to them) is
severely curtailed, or eliminated altogether, thus stifling
other lines of equipment supply, or banking on only one
life saving drug supplier, who with known inefficient
record, and who has a history of supplying sub-standard
drugs, would be acts contrary to public interest. In all
cases, it can be said that the public servant who took the
decision, did so by manifestly failing to exercise
reasonable proper care and precaution to guard against
injury to public interest, which he was bound, at all
times to do. The intention or desire to cause the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 219 of 343
consequence may or may not be present; indeed it is
irrelevant; as long as the decision was taken, which
could not be termed by any yardstick, a reasonable one,
but based on a complete or disregard of the
consequence, the act would be culpable.
83. “The test this Court has indicated is neither
doctrinaire, nor vague; it is rooted in the Indian legal
system. A public servant acts without public interest,
when his decision or action is so unreasonable that no
reasonable man, having regard to the entirety of
circumstances, would have so acted; it may also be that
while deciding or acting as he does, he may not intend
the consequence, which ensues, or is likely to ensue,
but would surely have reasonable foresight that it is a
likely one, and should be avoided. To put it differently,
the public servant acts without public interest, if his
action or decision, is by manifestly failing to exercise
reasonable precautions to guard against injury to public
interest, which he was bound, at all times to do,
resulting in injury to public interest. The application of
this test has to necessarily be based on the facts of each
case; the standard however, is objective. Here, one
recollects the following passage of Justice Holmes in
United States v. Wurzbach 1930 (280) US 396:
“Wherever the law draws a line there will be
cases very near each other on opposite sides. The
precise course of the line may be uncertain, but
no one can come near it without knowing that he
does so, if he thinks, and if he does so it is
familiar to the criminal law to make him take the
risk.””
644. From this judgment, it is apparent that no mens rea
is required for the offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act.
645. Thus guided, the guilt of the accused public servants
A-3 to A-5 for the offence under PC Act has to be determined.
Whether the offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act is made out?
646. Learned DLA pointed out various acts and omissions
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 220 of 343
on the part of accused public servants to show that they are guilty
of the offence under consideration. He referred to the charge
framed against them as well as to the order on charge dt.
07.12.2016.
647. Learned DLA referred to the guidelines issued by
MoC [Ex. PW-11/A-7 (Colly.), D-37, Pg. 73-94/c] and pointed
out that it was clearly stated therein that the applications after
receipt would be checked for their completeness and eligibility
before further processing. He pointed out that it was further
provided therein that the applications without the specified
accompaniments would be treated as incomplete and were to be
rejected. Learned DLA contended that application of A-1
company was incomplete and was liable to be rejected forthwith
but instead of doing so, the same was processed by A-3 to A-5
and ultimately coal block was allocated to A-1.
648. Learned DLA elaborated that the application of A-1
JICPL was incomplete as (i) in the application, in column no. 1, it
was not mentioned that JICPL was a JV or SPV, (ii) in column
no. 6 of the application, it was falsely claimed that JICPL was
SPV managed by IISIPL and IL&FS Group and that core
business included Iron & Steel making and providing finances
and company was diversifying into Coal Mining and Power
Generation, (iii) in column no. 10 of the application networth of
IISIPL and IL&FS was mentioned and (iv) in column no. 21 of
the application, it was mentioned that DPR was appraised but
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 221 of 343
appraisal report was not annexed. He argued that it was
requirement that if DPR was appraised, then the appraisal report
was also to be annexed.
649. Learned DLA alleged that no checking was done
prior to sending the applications to MoP and state governments.
He referred to the letter dated 30.07.2007 of Sh. Anil Razdan,
Secretary MoP [Ex. PW-11/G-6, D-29, Pg. 215-218/c] vide
which it was specified by MoP to MoC that the claims/particulars
of applicant companies be got separately verified before
allocation of coal blocks.
650. Learned DLA vehemently contended that accused
public servants A-3 to A-5 did not ensure scrutiny of the
applications to see their completeness and eligibility. They did
not bother to note that the application of A-1 JICPL was liable to
be rejected outrightly being incomplete. Rather, the accused
public servants processed the said application and recommended
allocation of coal block to the company.
651. Learned DLA also submitted that a meeting was
held in MoC on 11.05.2007 which was also attended by all the
three public servants A-3 to A-5. This meeting was called to
discuss the modalities for scrutiny and evaluation of the
applications for allocation vide OM dated 07.05.2007 [Ex. PW-
11/C-4, D-38, Pg. 87-88/c]. Learned DLA wanted to convey that
from this meeting, it is apparent that all the three public servants
were very much aware of the fact that no scrutiny of the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 222 of 343
applications had been carried out by MoC.
652. He also referred to letter dated 11.05.2007 sent by
Sh. Anil Razdan, Secretary MoP to A-3 [Ex. PW-11/G-2, D-29,
Pg. 135/c] intimating him that at MoP scrutiny of the applications
had not been carried out. Learned DLA referred to letter dated
20.06.2007 of Sh. Anil Razdan to A-3 [Ex. PW-11/G-1, D-29, Pg.
136-137/c] through which MoP informed MoC that MoP had not
made case by case examination of the applications and had also
not made any recommendations till that date. He further referred
to response of A-3 dated 30.06.2007 [D-29, Pg. 139/c]. Learned
DLA submits that from these correspondences also, it is apparent
that A-3 was aware that scrutiny of the applications had not been
carried out till that date.
653. Learned DLA pointed out that recommendations of
MoP were received on 30.07.2007 at 1200 hours vide letter Ex.
PW-11/G-6 [D-29, Pg. 215-218/c]. In the letter though
recommendations were made by MoP yet it had also informed
that authenticity of the data/documents supplied by the applicant
companies needed to be separately verified.
654. Learned DLA referred to letter dated 02.08.2007
[Ex. PW-11/G-8, D-29, Pg. 151/c] sent by A-5 K.C. Samria to
CIL for deputing financial experts for scrutinizing financial
details of applicant companies. A-5 had also written letter dated
02.08.2007 to Coal Controller [Ex. PW-11/G-9, D-29, Pg. 155/c]
for deputing four officials for scrutinizing applications for coal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 223 of 343
blocks. Letters were also sent to various State Governments.
655. Learned DLA thus contended that all through this
process, A-3 to A-5 were fully aware that scrutiny of the
applications had not been conducted but still went ahead to
recommend allocation of the coal block.
656. Learned DLA extensively referred to evidence of
PW-11 V.S. Rana to show that no checking was done to ascertain
completeness and eligibility before sending them to
administrative ministry i.e. MoP and various state governments.
He referred to letter dated 19/28.02.2007 sent to Govt. of
Jharkhand [Ex. PW-11/A-10 (Colly.), D-37, Pg. 130-140/c], letter
dated 19/28.02.2007 sent to Govt. of West Bengal [Ex. PW-11/A-
11 (Colly.), D-37, Pg. 183-190/c], letter dated 19/28.02.2007
sent to Govt. of Bihar [Ex. PW-11/A-12 (Colly.), D-37, Pg. 220-
222/c] and letter dated 19/28.02.2007 sent to CMPDIL [Ex. PW-
11/A-13, D-37, Pg. 199/c]. He contended that before sending
these letters, no checking was done for completeness and
eligibility.
657. It is to be noted that MoP had refused to receive the
applications and the applications were sent later vide letter dated
17.04.2007 [Ex. PW-11/K-1, D-38, Pg. 2/c]. Learned DLA
submitted that even before 17.04.2007, no scrutiny was done for
completeness and eligibility.
658. Learned DLA forcefully argued that the first time
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 224 of 343
MoC took step for scrutiny was on 02.08.2007 when letters were
sent to state governments as well as CMPDIL. He submitted that
the reports so received from the state governments was never
placed before the Screening Committee.
659. Learned DLA submitted that the data which was got
verified from financial experts was never put before the
Screening Committee nor discussed during Screening Committee
meeting on 13.09.2007. He alleged that it was falsely got
recorded in the minutes of the meeting of Screening Committee
dated 13.09.2007 that financial strength of the applicant
companies was got scrutinized independently with help of
financial experts of CIL and the information received was
compiled and placed before the Screening Committee. He
referred to statements of PW-12 Bhaskar Khulbe in this regard.
These facts, according to learned DLA, show that accused public
servants deliberately did not place the reports for consideration of
the Screening Committee members to help the accused company.
660. Learned Prosecutor further submitted that even after
recommendations were made by the Screening Committee, and
when only limited applications remained, accused public servants
did not get them checked for completeness and eligibility. This
was again done to conceal the defects in the application of A-1
company.
661. Learned DLA stressed upon the fact that no
document was filed alongwith the application to show that JICPL
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 225 of 343
was SPV. As such, the applicant company/JICPL could not have
joined networth of IISIPL and IL&FS. He contended that accused
public servants also failed to take notice of this fact and
considered networth of these two companies as networth of
JICPL. He pointed out that only during search, one MoU dated
15.11.2006 [Ex. PW-3/A, D-17, Pg. 1-3] and MoU dated
08.01.2007 [Ex. PW-3/B, D-17, Pg. 5-12] were seized.
662. Learned DLA also referred to letter dated
24.08.2007 sent by Govt. of West Bengal [Ex. PW-11/H-1, D-35,
Pg. 22-50/c] and letter dt. 30.08.2007 sent by Govt. of Bihar [Ex.
PW-11/H-4, D-35, Pg. 82-200/c] to MoC in response to letters
dated 02.08.2007 sent to them [Ex. PW-11/G-10 (Colly.), D-29,
Pg. 174-175/c and Ex. PW-11/G-11 (Colly.), D-29, Pg. 195-196/c
respectively] of MoC asking them to verify the informations
supplied by applicant companies. He asserted that from the
reports of the said governments, it was apparent that there was no
preparedness on part of A-1 company.
663. Learned DLA referred to various documents and
statement of witnesses to show that A-3 to A-5 were in
conspiracy with A-1 to A-2 and deliberately processed
incomplete application of an ineligible applicant. Learned DLA
contended that prosecution has proved the offence u/s 13(1)(d)
(iii) PC Act. He submitted that it is a clear case of abuse of
position as public servants. He contended that accused public
servants were fully aware that A-1 company was never eligible
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 226 of 343
for allocation of any coal blocks in view of the provisions of
CMN Act, 1973 as it was not engaged in any of the specified end
uses but still recommended allocation in its favour. He argued
that recommendation to an illegible company amounts to an
abuse of official position and caused obtainment against public
interest.
664. He thus contended that offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) of
PC Act is made out against A-3 to A-5.
665. Per contra, learned counsel Sh. Rahul Tyagi
forcefully argued that even the offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act
is not made out at against A-3 to A-5 as none of the ingredients
of the said offence have been satisfied.
666. Learned Counsel contended that prosecution case
against public servants is founded upon several erroneous
assumptions of law as well as assumptions of facts (which do not
exists). He argued that it is a case based on inferences. He
contended that A-3 to A-5 did nothing to cause any obtainment.
He submitted that ingredients of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) also have
not been satisfied.
667. Regarding checking of the applications, learned
counsel highlighted that the word ‘checking’ and ‘verification’
have been confused with the word ‘scrutiny’ in the order on
charge dated 07.12.2016. He argued that checking and
verification cannot be equated with scrutiny. He submitted that
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 227 of 343
the word scrutiny is not used in any of the guidelines. He
contended that checking of the applications for completeness and
eligibility was to be done by MoC whereas verification of the
claims made in those applications was to be done by the
administrative ministries and the state governments. He
submitted that checking of the applications was done before
sending the applications to administrative ministries and state
governments.
668. Learned counsel submitted that reliance of
prosecution on testimony of PW-11 V.S. Rana to show that
checking was not done is misplaced as V.S. Rana himself was not
the person who had done the checking. Learned counsel pointed
out that main person who actually handled and supervised the
said work were R.N. Singh (Section Officer) and R.S. Negi
(Dealing Assistant). But both of them have not been examined by
the prosecution. He highlighted that even statement of R.S. Negi
was not recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
669. He referred to statement u/s 161 CrPC of R.S. Negi
recorded in another case i.e. CBI Vs. Vandana Vidhyut which
was recorded by the same IO i.e. Insp. Himanshu Bahuguna and
which shows that checking of the applications was done not only
at the time of receiving them but also later on before sending
them to other stake holders.
670. He further contended that PW-11 never stated in his
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 228 of 343
statement u/s 161 CrPC that checking of the applications was
never done. He argued that PW-11 has deposed falsely in the
court when he said that checking of the applications for
completeness and eligibility did not take place at the time of 35 th
& 36th Screening Committee meetings.
671. He referred to notesheet page 3-4/n in file D-37
wherein R.N. Singh vide his note dated 04.11.2006 had proposed
detailed guidelines which specifically provided for checking of
the applications before sending them to other stake holders. This
note was of CA-1 Section and approved by the Secretary (Coal).
It had come to knowledge of PW-11 also. Learned counsel has
referred to evidence of PW-11 wherein he stated that they had not
given any directions to the staff to not check the accompanying
annexures.
672. Learned counsel further pointed out that the process
for checking of the applications for completeness and eligibility
was adopted from previous round relating to 31 st to 34th
Screening Committee. He contended that as checking was done
at the time of 34th Screening Committee, PW-11 cannot take a
stand that it was not done at the time of 35 th Screening
Committee particularly when the same procedure was to be
adopted. He referred to judgment in the case of Grace Industries
of Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, the then learned Special Judge PC Act,
CBI, Coal Block Cases-01, RADC wherein it was held that
checking was indeed conducted at the time of 34 th Screening
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 229 of 343
Committee. Learned counsel also referred to order dated
04.04.2025 of this Court in the case of Kohinoor Steel in which
also it has been held that checking was done at the time of 34 th
Screening Committee. He referred to statement of Sh. Prem Raj
Kuar recorded u/s 161 CrPC in the case of Kohinoor Steel in
which also it was stated that checking was done. He also pointed
out that A-3 & A-4 both had directed to carry out checking in the
same manner as was done at the time of 34 th Screening
Committee and therefore it must be held that checking was done
at the time of 35th Screening Committee also.
673. Learned counsel pointed out that PW-11 V.S. Rana
had taken stand that no checking was done at the time of 34 th
Screening Committee but he stands exposed and falsified after he
was confronted with documentary evidence i.e. the two lists
prepared for incomplete and complete applications at the time of
34th Screening Committee. Learned counsel contended that when
PW-11 has deposed falsely about checking not being done at the
time of 34th Screening Committee, it is no great deal that PW-11
has deposed falsely about checking not being done at the time of
35th Screening Committee as well.
674. Learned Counsel for the accused persons submitted
that the applications were checked by the officials of CA-I
Section as it was their job. Learned Counsel submitted that as the
same procedure was followed for the 35th Screening Committee,
as was followed for the 34th Screening Committee, it must be
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 230 of 343
held that checking of the applications had taken place. He
referred to cross-examination of PW-11 Sh. V.S. Rana also in this
regard.
675. Learned Counsel contended that PW-11 has stated
that a cursory glance was given to the documents as were
available in all the five sets. He also pointed out that
incomplete applications were not entertained.
676. Learned Counsel contended that while scrutiny of
the applications was job of MoC but verification of information
given in the applications was the task of Administrative
Ministries/State Govts. He submitted that the CBI is confusing
scrutinty of information with scrutiny of applications. He argued
that accused public servants cannot be held responsible for any
fault in verification of information given in the applications. In
the present case, said responsibility lied with MoP which was
Administrative Ministry and Govts. of West Bengal, Jharkhand
and Bihar.
677. Learned Counsel highlighted that PW-11 could not
show any file noting to the effect that the fact of alleged non-
checking was brought to notice of any superior officer. He
submits that the natural inference should be that applications
were checked for completeness and eligibility. He referred to
various notings in this regard such as communication dated
22.01.2007 of A-5 and detailed response dated 31.01.2007 of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 231 of 343
PW-11 [Ex. PW-11/DX-13 (Colly.)]; note dated 19.02.2007 at
page 10/n in D-37; note dated 29.03.2007 of R.S. Negi at page
16/n of D-37; and note dated 04.06.2007 of Section Officer at
page 1/n in D-34. Learned counsel contended that the phrase
‘preliminary scrutiny’ means nothing but checking the
applications for completeness and eligibility. Learned counsel
referred to the explanation given by R.S. Negi about his note
dated 29.03.2007 in his statement u/s 161 CrPC in Vandana
Vidhyut case and his explanation is as under:
“I had mentioned in my note that in view of work
pressure relating to scrutiny of applications, it has
not been possible to establish the actual date of
receipt in the Ministry. As I have already stated I
was busy in receiving and checking the
applications for quite some time and by scrutiny I
meant checking of the applications for
completeness and availability of Demand Drafts as
stated earlier. I meant the same while referring to
work pressure relating to scrutiny of applications in
my said note.”
678. He further referred to testimony of PW-11 wherein
he admitted that directions were given to the officials deputed to
receive the applications to cursorily check the applications to see
if the annexures were there or not. It has also come that cursory
glance was given to the documents as were available in all the
five sets. He also admitted that while ascertaining the EUP,
annexures must also have been seen by the officials.
679. Learned counsel also emphasized that PW-11 had
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 232 of 343
stated that during his 161 CrPC statement recorded in case of
Vikash Metal Pvt. Ltd. that incomplete applications were not
entertained by MoC. He thus forcefully submitted that checking
was carried out.
680. As to letter of Sh. S.K. Shahi (PW-18) wherein it
was stated that applications were not checked for completeness
and eligibility before these were sent to other stakeholders,
learned counsel contended that PW-18 has himself has admitted
that he was not posted in MoC at the relevant time and therefore
his assertion means nothing. He further submitted that this letter
which was sent to CBI by PW-18 cannot be looked into as it is
hit by Sec. 162 CrPC.
681. Regarding claim of PW-11 V.S. Rana that a meeting
was held in the office of JS (Coal) to discuss the modalities for
receiving the applications and in that meeting direction was given
to only segregate the applications and not to check them, learned
counsel submitted that it is a completely false claim. He referred
to the note dated 04.11.2006 of Sh. R.N. Singh, Section Officer
[Pg. 3-4/n of D-37] wherein detailed guidelines were proposed
which provided for checking also and, therefore, there was no
need to hold any such meeting as deposed to by PW-11. Learned
counsel pointed out that this alleged meeting was never referred
to in any of the notings or correspondences in MoC files. He also
pointed out that PW-11 did not seek confirmation of such oral
directions purportedly given in the said meeting. He argued that
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 233 of 343
it was so because no such meeting was held. He referred to cross-
examination of PW-11 wherein he has been confronted regarding
various facts stated by him. He was confronted with his previous
statements given to CBI and statements made in the court during
evidence in various cases.
682. He argued that misrepresentations were not known
to accused public servants. He also submitted that guidelines of
MoC were not binding and their violation cannot lead to
prosecution. He submitted that even otherwise prosecution did
not specify which guideline was violated. He also submitted that
UMPP criteria was not in the knowledge of A-3 to A-5 as it was
never communicated to MoC. He contended that networth
criteria adopted by CEA/MoP was only internal mechanism of
MoP and it was not in the knowledge of A-3 to A-5. He stressed
that there is no allegation of any demand on the part of accused
public servants and there is no quid pro quo. He forcefully
submitted that there was no initiative on the part of accused
public servants to cause allocation of the coal block. He argued
that which guidelines of the MoC were violated has not been
specified in the order on charge. He further submitted that there
is no evidence of conspiracy. There was no duty upon A-3 to A-5
to check the applications for their eligibility and completeness.
He contended that charge as was framed was also defective.
683. Another contention of learned Counsel is that if
MoC was cheated, so were A-3 to A-5 as they were also part of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 234 of 343
the MoC.
684. He also contended that there was no demand or
acceptance by any of the accused public servants. Learned
Counsel argued that PW-11 Sh. V.S. Rana has deposed that A-3
to A-5 did not ensure checking of applications for eligibility and
completeness. However, Learned Counsel submitted that it was
not the duty of A-3 to A-5 to check the same. The immediate
superior of Sh. V.S. Rana was Director who was Sh. Sanjeev
Mittal at the relevant time and not K.C. Samria/A-5.
685. Learned Counsel also pointed out that A-3 to A-5 did
not see the applications before the Screening Committee meeting.
He contended that it was responsibility of the Section Officer to
scan through the applications.
686. He pointed out that additional information was being
given by the applicant companies to the Administrative Ministry
i.e. MoP and the said ministry added names to its
recommendations vide subsequent communications sent to MoC.
According to him, this also shows that verification of
informations was task of MoP and not MoC.
687. Another contention of learned Counsel for A-3 to A-
5 was that recommendations of the Nodal
Ministry/Administrative Ministry and all the State Govts. were
not binding on the Screening Committee. Further
recommendations of the Screening Committee were not binding
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 235 of 343
on MoC. He referred to the letters dated 11.05.2007 and
20.06.2007 of D-23 and pointed out that MoP had undertaken
some responsibilities. He also pointed out that MoP guidelines
were never sent to the MoC or the applicant companies. There
was no criteria for minimum networth. He argued that MoP
guidelines were not binding as there were MoC guidelines
already available. He also highlighted that the guidelines do not
use the term ‘promoter’ and rather it uses the term ‘principal’.
688. He questioned the reliability of evidence of PW-11
Sh. V.S. Rana submitting that he does not remember many facts
and suffers from poor memory and is thus not reliable. Learned
Counsel contended that prosecution did not declare him hostile
despite he stated many facts against prosecution case.
689. He also expressed his views on the word ‘engaged
in’ as appearing in the CMN Act. He highlighted that since 1993
coal blocks were being given to companies proposing to engage
in power production. He also highlighted that no witness has
stated that coal block was to be given to the company already
engaged in the production of power, cement, iron and steel.
690. Another contention of learned Counsel is that
allocation only happened after acceptance by MoC and not
before that. He argued that merely by making recommendation,
the Screening Committee did not actually allocate the coal block
to the company. He contended that only upon allocation of coal
block there could be a case of criminal misconduct. He pointed
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 236 of 343
out that the Minister of Coal i.e. the then Prime Minister had
approved the recommendation of the Screening Committee and
only thereafter obtainment happened.
691. Learned Counsel also vehemently contended that
there was no challenge to the minutes of the meetings of 35 th
Screening Committee. As per the minutes, charts were supplied
whereas as per PWs charts were not supplied. He contended that
after 12 years, minutes cannot be challenged in this manner. He
argued that prosecution has failed to establish that charts were
not placed before the Screening Committee. He submitted that
recommendation sheet bear signatures of member of the
Screening Committee. He contended that the signature on the
said sheet signifies consent/assent of the members of the
Screening Committee to the said recommendations. He further
contended that there is presumption that a person has read the
document and understood it and thereafter affixed his signatures.
He relied upon i) Mathu V. Cherchi, MANU/KE/0515/1989, ii)
Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. V. Agarwal Steel,
MANU/SC/1763/2009, iii) Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay V. P.S. Malvenkar, MANU/SC/0288/1978 and iv) Jose
Mathew & Ors xxxxxx, MANU/KE/0112/2016. Referring to
cross-examination of PW-12 Bhaskar Khulbe, learned counsel
submitted that PW-12 had admitted that by signing the minutes,
all the members had agreed with the recommendations of the
Committee.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 237 of 343
692. Referring to the work of the Screening Committee,
he submitted that when Chairman takes a decision and no
member objects then the decision is final and unanimous. He
argued that if the recommendation is false, the fault lies with the
State Govt. or the Administrative Ministry.
693. He also vociferously argued that case against
accused public servants has been made out of ignorance of legal
principles about decision making in the Govt. He referred to
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kripalu Shankar & Ors.
MANU/SC/0166/1987 wherein it was observed:
“13. It cannot be disputed that the appeal raises an important
question of law bearing upon the proper functioning of a
Democratic Govt. A Govt. functions by taking decisions on
the strength of views and suggestions expressed by the
various officers at different levels, ultimately getting finality
at the hands of the Minister concerned. Till then, conflicting
opinions, views and suggestions would have emanated from
various officers at the lower level. There should not be any
fetter on the fearless and independent expression of opinions
by officers on matters coming before them through the files.
This is so even when they consider orders of courts. Officers
of the Govt. are often times confronted with orders of courts,
impossible of immediate compliance for various reasons.
They may find it difficult to meekly submit to such orders.
On such occasions they will necessarily have to note in the
files, the reasons why the orders cannot be complied with and
also indicate that the courts would not have passed these
orders if full facts were placed before them. The expression
of opinion by the officers in the internal files are for the use
of the department and not for outside exposure or for
publicity. To find the officers guilty for expressing their
independent opinion, even against orders of courts in
deserving cases, would cause impediments in the smooth
working and functioning of the Govt. These internal notings,
in fact, are privileged documents. Notings made by the
officers in the files cannot, in our view, be made the basis of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 238 of 343
contempt action against each such officer who makes the
notings. If the ultimate action does not constitute contempt,
the intermediary suggestions and views expressed in the
notings, which may sometimes even amount ex-facie
disobedience of the courts orders, will not amount to
contempt of court. These notings are not meant for
publication.
xxxxx
xxxxx
16. Articles 166(1) requires that all executive action of the
State Govt. shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the
Governor. This clause relates to cases where the executive
action has to be expressed in the shape of a formal order or
notification. It prescribes the mode in which an executive
action has to be expressed. Noting by an official in the
departmental file will not, therefore, come within this Article
nor even noting by a Minister. Every executive decision need
not be as laid down under Article 166(1) but when it takes the
form of an order it has to comply with Article 166(1). Article
166(2) states that orders and other instruments made and
executed under Article 166(1), shall be authenticated in the
manner prescribed. While clause (1) relates to the mode of
expression, clause (2) lays down the manner in which the
order is to be authenticated and clause (3) relates to the
making of the rules by the Governor for the more convenient
transaction of the business of the Govt. A study of this
Article, therefore, makes it clear that the notings in a file get
culminated into an order affecting right of parties only when
it reaches the head of the department and is expressed in the
name of the Governor, authenticated in the manner provided
in Article 166(2).”
694. He also relied upon Sethi Auto Service Station &
Ors. v Delhi Development Authority & Ors.,
[MANU/SC/8127/2008] wherein it was observed:
“17. From the afore-extracted notings of the
Commissioner and the order of the Vice Chairman, it is
manifest that although there were several notings whichCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 239 of 343
recommended consideration of the appellants’ case for
relocation but finally no official communication was
addressed to or received by the appellants accepting
their claim. After the recommendation of the Technical
Committee, the entire matter was kept pending; in the
meanwhile a new policy was formulated and the matter
was considered afresh later in the year 2004, when the
proposal was rejected by the Vice Chairman, the final
decision making authority in the hierarchy. It is, thus,
plain that though the proposals had the
recommendations of State Level Co-ordinator (oil
industry) and the Technical Committee but these did
not ultimately fructify into an order or decision of the
DDA, conferring any legal rights upon the appellants.
Mere favourable recommendations at some level of the
decision making process, in our view, are of no
consequence and shall not bind the DDA. We are,
therefore, in complete agreement with the High Court
that the notings in the file did not confer any right upon
the appellants, as long as they remained as such. We do
not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the
learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division
Bench, warranting interference.”
695. He also submitted that it was a decision of the
Screening Committee and not of an individual officer. He
referred to the testimony of PW-12 Sh. Bhaskar Khulbe in this
regard. Particularly referring to the role of A-4 K.S. Kropha,
learned Counsel submitted that as per Shackleton, convening
means ’causes to come together’. His limited role is to get
notices issued and take steps for holding the meetings.
696. He referred to R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha &
Ors., MANU/SC/0956/2003 and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs.
District Collector, Raigad, MANU/SC/0186/2012.
697. He submitted that members of the Screening
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 240 of 343
Committee had attended meetings and they took part in it and
also appended their names and signatures to the
recommendations therefore it was a collective decision.
698. He also contended that rules of the game cannot be
changed midway. He argued that prosecution wrongly pleaded
that UMPP criteria adopted by CEA/MoP was to be applied by
the Screening Committee. He pointed out that this criteria of
minimum networth was not present in the guidelines of MoC. He
argued that the criteria adopted by MoP after publication of the
advertisement, submission of applications and recommendations
of State Govts. and presentations of the applications was itself
illegal as rules of the game cannot be changed midway. He
referred to Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 287;
Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, 2008 (7) SCC 11; and
Nitu Gogoi Vs. State of Assam, MANU/GH/0984/2017.
699. He also contended that guidelines published by MoC
did not have force of law and they were not issued under MMDR
Act or CMN Act. There was no duty cast under any law which
was to be performed. He contended that it was mere non-
observance of some administrative guidelines and as such cannot
be called illegal or criminal. He submitted that it may lead to
departmental action but certainly not criminal action. He referred
to the case of Dr. P.B. Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
MANU/SC/0937/2013.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 241 of 343
700. Regarding Govt. of Jharkhand, learned counsel
submitted that representative of the said government was present
who was Sh. Aditya Swarup but he was not called as a witness.
Learned counsel pointed out that even Sh. Aditya Swarup had
agreed with the recommendation in favour of JICPL as he had
also signed the recommendation sheet. He contended that failure
to examine this witness must lead to adverse inference against
prosecution. He relied upon Habeeb Mohd. Vs. State of
Hyderabad, MANU/SC/0034/1953. He further submitted that the
burden was on the prosecution to prove its case and prosecution
cannot contend that defence should have called any particular
witness. He relied upon S.K. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra,
MANU/SC/0139/1976.
701. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that JICPL
had not withdrawn its application for EUP in West Bengal. He
countered learned DLA’s insistence that JICPL had abandoned its
EUP at West Bengal and therefore recommendation for
Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal was
unjustified. Learned counsel contended that prosecution did not
ask PW-12 who represented State of West Bengal or PW-11 who
was Under Secretary, MoC as to whether presentation for EUP at
West Bengal was made or not. He also pointed out that
presentation for West Bengal EUP was found and same is Ex.
PW-5/E (Colly.) [D-21]. Learned counsel pointed out to the
report sent by Govt. of West Bengal vide its letter dated
24.08.2007 [Ex. PW-11/H-1 (Colly.), D-35, Pg. 22-49] alongwith
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 242 of 343
which the letter/information sent by JICPL dated 23.08.2007 was
also enclosed. The same is available at page 36. In its letter,
JICPL had given information about the steps taken by it for its
EUP at West Bengal. He also highlighted that in the report of the
Govt. of West Bengal at page 23, reference has been made to the
information given in the feedback form by A-1 JICPL for its EUP
at West Bengal. He thus submitted that said EUP was not
abandoned.
702. Learned counsel referred to the minutes of the 18 th
Screening Committee meeting as per which the administrative
ministry was not supposed to name the coal block for any
applicant as it would facilitate the Screening Committee in
allotting a suitable block to a company objectively.
703. Regarding reliance of prosecution on
communications post allocation of coal block for EUP at West
Bengal sent by A-1 company and from which prosecution wanted
to show that no presentation was made for West Bengal EUP,
learned counsel contended that same is an instance of misreading
the said communications.
704. Learned counsel also submitted that offence of
conspiracy is not made out at all against any accused public
servant.
705. Regarding non-filing of appraisal report, learned
counsel submitted that A-3 & A-4 were never informed about it.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 243 of 343
He pointed out that even PW-11 came to know about
incompleteness only during the course of investigation. He also
pointed out that the administrative ministries and the state
governments also did not bring out this fact to their notice that
appraisal report was not there and rather recommended name of
JICPL for allocation of coal block. He alternatively submitted
that appraisal report was not an eligibility criterion and non-filing
of it was to not lead to disqualification. He also contended that
failure to notice non-filing of appraisal report was only an
inadvertent error and which does not qualify as a criminal
omission on the part of accused public servants.
706. Regarding verification of the information given in
the application, learned counsel strenuously argued that the same
was to be done by the administrative ministries under state
governments as per decisions taken in the 14th and 18th Screening
Committee meetings. He again referred to the observations of Sh.
Arun Bhardwaj, the then learned Special Judge PC Act, CBI,
Coal Block Cases-01, RADC in Grace Industries case as well as
of this Court in the case of NPPL and Kohinoor Steel.
707. He referred to testimony of PW-12 Bhaskar Khulbe
who deposed about carrying out such an exercise at the level of
State Govt. of West Bengal. He also referred to testimony of
DW-7 Shiv Raj Singh who told that Energy Department of Govt.
of Chhattisgarh had also examined the applications before
making recommendations.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 244 of 343
708. He also pointed out that MoP which was supposed to
verify the information did not do so. And when accused public
servants came to know about it, they directed for verification of
the information as recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated
30.07.2007. This verification was got done through state
governments and two financial experts of CIL. He referred to
note dt. 31.07.2007 at page 11/n in D-34. Pursuant thereto,
letters dt. 02.08.2007 [Ex. PW-11/G-8 and G-9] were sent to CIL
(for deputing two financial experts) and Coal Controller (for
deputing four officials to assist them). Letters dt. 02.08.2007
were also sent to state governments of West Bengal and Bihar for
verification. He submitted that reports received from them were
compiled in the form of a chart titled “Informations furnished by
the State Governments” and the same were placed before the
Screening Committee in the final meeting on 13.09.2007. He
referred to note dt. 14.09.2007 at page 16/n in D-34 in this
context. He pointed out to para 9 of minutes of the said meeting
[Ex. PW-11/J-4] wherein this finds mention.
709. He argued that prosecution allegation that this
chart/information was not placed before the Screening
Committee members is false. He referred to testimonies of PW-
12 Bhaskar Khulbe and PW-11 V.S. Rana. He asserted that PW-
12 initially claimed no document was supplied in the meeting dt.
13.09.2007 but in cross-examination, his said claim was exposed
and it has come out that such information was supplied. PW-11
was confronted with his previous statement given to CBI in
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 245 of 343
another case [Ex. PW-11/DX-24] wherein he had stated that
compiled reports of state governments were placed before the
Screening Committee. He also reasoned that as the meeting dt.
30.07.2007 was deferred for obtaining verification reports, it was
unimaginable that in the very next meeting dt. 13.09.2007 no one
would ask for the said reports.
710. He also contended that the CIL expert has tried to
disown the verification charts shown to her as the same which
were prepared by her and her colleague on the ground that the
charts were prepared on an electronic typewriter and not on
computer. One expert namely Sushmita Sengupta was examined
as PW-13. Learned counsel also referred to testimony of DW-4
Nirmal Manchanda who had actually assisted these persons and
who has deposed that the same were prepared on computer. DW-
4 also told that electronic typewriters were used only till the year
2000.
711. He also submitted that the figures of networth of
JICPL as calculated by these two experts are correctly mentioned
in the charts Ex. D-21 (Colly.) which shows that these are the
same charts which were placed before the Screening Committee.
712. He also countered the contention of learned DLA
that as these charts are not mentioned in any MoC files, it should
be assumed that these were not placed before the Screening
Committee. Learned counsel contended that there were many
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 246 of 343
documents which were not mentioned in MoC files but which
have been relied upon by prosecution such as various
applications, feedback forms, presentations, charts of CMPDIL
etc. He informed that all MoC files were not collected during
investigation and many files got burnt in fire at MoC office.
713. As to scrutiny of applications after making of
recommendations, learned counsel contended that it was not
contemplated anywhere in any guidelines or practices.
714. He also contended that subsequent change of
location of EUP from West Bengal to Bihar cannot be taken as a
circumstance against accused public servants.
715. Learned counsel alternatively argued that even going
by the principles laid down in Runu Ghosh‘s case ( supra), no
offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act is made out as the acts of the
accused public servants cannot be termed unreasonable and those
acts did not lead to allocation of coal block without public
interest. He explained that accused public servants had taken all
the decisions in conformity with course of action of a reasonable
and prudent person. He argued that accused public servants did
not favour A-1 company at all. He submitted that making
recommendation in favour of A-1 JICPL was justified as the
company was eligible to apply and had earned recommendation
from MoP and Govt. of West Bengal. Learned counsel has
mentioned the following reasons in his written submissions as
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 247 of 343
justification for recommending name of JICPL:
(i) Application of the company was for West
Bengal EUP.
(ii) There was a formal recommendation
from the State Government of West Bengal in
favour of M/s JICPL and its EUP in West
Bengal; it was extending full support for
establishment of the EUP in West Bengal.
(iii) Representative of West Bengal
Government was present in the Screening
Committee and would have strongly pitched for
allocation of coal block for West Bengal EUP
for its recommended company i.e. M/s JICPL,
especially when his recommendation qua
Gourangdih ABC coal block was not accepted
by the Screening Committee.
(iv) Ministry of Power had recommended
M/s JICPL and Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.
for allocation of Patal East coal block.
(v) Government of Jharkhand, the coal-
bearing state, had also recommended Patal East
for M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.
(vi) Since Patal East had limited mineable
reserves, in view of common recommendations
of both the Administrative Ministry and the
coal-bearing State, this coal block was
allocated to M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.
exclusively. Even after exclusive allocation to
Bhushan, the block had a mine-capacity of 43%
of Bhushan’s coal requirement. Therefore,
Screening Committee was not able to allocate
the Patal East block jointly with M/s Bhushan
Power for M/s JICPL’s EUP in Bihar.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 248 of 343
(vii) Hence, primarily to accommodate a
candidate recommended by MoP, M/s JICPL
was accommodated in Mahaugarhi coal block
with the consensus of all concerned
stakeholders, i.e. MoP, and Governments of
Jharkhand and West Bengal, all of whom were
present in the Screening Committee meeting. In
this manner, the recommendations of all the
three stakeholders – MoP, Jharkhand and West
Bengal were reconciled and consensus
emerged.
(viii) This is also confirmed by PW-12 Sh.
Bhaskar Khulbe, who stated that the
recommendations of the Screening Committee
were unanimously made after reconciling the
views and recommendations of the
Administrative Ministry and the State
Governments concerned.
(ix) Further, even after the decisions were
arrived at after the reconciliation of differing
views, no member of the Screening Committee
expressed any dissent against the
decisions/recommendations made at that time
or even afterwards, as was stated by PW-12 Sh.
Bhaskar Khulbe.
(x) In terms of relative merit between M/s
JICPL’s EUPs for Bihar and West Bengal, the
Screening Committee found that both were
similarly placed. Both the State governments
had recommended and assured to extend all the
help in setting up the EUPs in their respective
states. IL&FS, present in the Committee, was
supporting and willing to finance both the
projects and assured the Screening Committee
for backing M/s JICPL. Water was available for
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 249 of 343
both the projects. Land was not acquired for
either of the projects but land was being offered
by the respective state governments for both the
projects.
(xi) Since the coal-block is situated in
Jharkhand, only the representative from
Government of Jharkhand could have
expressed dissent over the recommendation
being made for Mahuagarhi coal block.
However, LW-16 Sh. Aditya Swarup, the only
representative from Government of Jharkhand,
had also supported the decision as is borne out
by the fact that he had signed the
Recommendation Sheet and had also stated so
in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. recorded by
CBI, where he reaffirmed that despite some
difference of opinion qua allocation of coal
blocks to only those projects which were
proposed to be set up in Jharkhand, he did not
disagree with the final recommendation as a
number of companies recommended by the
Government of Jharkhand were accommodated
through a process of reconciliation.
716. In respect of A-5, learned counsel made few
additional submissions. He vehemently pointed out that A-5 had
joined CA-I Section on 26.03.2007. Prior to that he was posted in
CA-II Section. He submitted that the applications were received
during tenure of Sh. Sanjiv Mittal, Director CA-I. Sh. Mittal
remained as Director till February/March 2007. He thus
contended that for acts and omissions prior to 26.03.2007 cannot
be attributed to A-5. He referred to various notings and
correspondences and pointed out that identification of coal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 250 of 343
blocks, earmarking of coal blocks for power and non-power
sectors, finalization of guidelines for allocation of captive coal
blocks, methodology for processing of applications, issuance of
advertisement dated 13.11.2006, and receipt of applications till
12.01.2007, checking of applications and forwarding them to
concerned administrative ministries and state governments had
already been taken place before A-5 joined CA-I Section.
717. Regarding sending of applications to MoP, learned
counsel pointed out that same could not be sent earlier as MoP
had refused to receive the same which is apparent from notesheet
pages in file Ex. PW-11/A-1 (Colly.), D-37. He submitted that
PW-11 V.S. Rana has also confirmed this fact. He referred to note
dated 19.03.2007 at page 12/n in file Ex. PW-11/A-1 (Colly.), D-
37, wherein fact of refusal by MoP is recorded. The Director,
CA-I at that time was Sh. Sanjiv Mittal and not A-5. A DO letter
was sent on 23.03.2007 to Additional Secretary, MoP upon
instructions of A-4 and applications were directed to be sent by
28.03.2007. Learned counsel pointed out that applications which
were ready since February 2007 were ultimately sent on
17.04.2007 as noted at page 18/n. He thus contended that A-5
had no role therein.
718. He further contended that A-5 was not a member of
the Screening Committee. He described the role of CA-I Section
as that of secretarial assistance to the Screening Committee. He
vehemently submitted that A-5 never evaluated or verified any
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 251 of 343
application nor recommended any applicant company.
719. He also submitted that case was not fairly
investigated regarding role of A-5. He also pointed out that the
IO had submitted a list dated 07.10.2014 regarding details of
officials of MoC who were associated with the 35 th Screening
Committee relating to allocation of coal blocks to A-1 company
and one company namely JLD Yavatmal and in that list name of
A-5 was wrongly mentioned as officer dealing with stage of
checking of applications for completeness and scrutiny. He
submitted that A-5 has been wrongly prosecuted.
720. Learned counsel thus submitted that offence u/s
13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act is not made out against any accused public
servant.
721. Learned DLA rebutted all these contentions. He
submitted that the guidelines were not under MMDR Act but
they were certainly under CMN Act.
722. Learned DLA submitted that it cannot be said that
the recommendation for allocation of Mahuagarhi coal block in
favour of JICPL was not against public interest. He elaborated
that as no checking was done to determine eligibility and
completeness, as applications were forwarded to MoP and state
governments without such checking, as incomplete applications
were placed before the 35th Screening Committee for
presentation, as presentation was made for EUP at Pirpainti,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 252 of 343
Bhagalpur, Bihar and not for Burdwan, West Bengal which
shows that JICPL did not intend to set up EUP in West Bengal, as
MoP did not recommend JICPL for EUP in West Bengal for
Mahuagarhi coal block and rather recommended JICPL for EUP
in Bihar for Patal East coal block which shows that MoP was not
satisfied with preparedness/progress of the company of for its
EUP in West Bengal, as Govt. of West Bengal did not
recommend JICPL for coal block situated in West Bengal, as
Govt. of Jharkhand did not recommend JICPL for any coal block,
it cannot be said that the recommendation of the Screening
Committee was not against public interest.
723. He also pointed out that a letter dated 08.06.2007
[Ex. PW-11/D, D-30, Pg. 65] was received from Govt. of Bihar
supporting EUP of the company in Bihar. He submitted that this
letter was seen by A-4 and A-5 but despite this, recommendation
was made for EUP in West Bengal.
724. Learned DLA pointed out to various letters received
from A-1 company and on the letterhead, there was logo of
‘Abhijeet’ showing association of the company with Abhijeet
Group.
725. He referred to Ex. D-21 (Colly.) and contended that
even if these charts are considered, it shows that there was no
preparedness for EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal. Despite this
recommendation was made for EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 253 of 343
and both A-3 and A-4 did not object.
726. Learned DLA submitted that A-3 and A-4
deliberately recommended JICPL for EUP at Burdwan, West
Bengal as they could not have recommended the said company
for EUP at Bhagalpur, Bihar because there was no application of
the company for Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at Bhagalpur,
Bihar. He submitted that presentation was made by the company
for EUP at Bhagalpur, Bihar and not for Burdwan, West Bengal.
Further, he pointed out that vide another letter dated 17.08.2007
[D-35, Pg. 83], the company again changed location of EUP to
Banka, Bihar. Learned DLA contended that the company was
continuously changing location of its EUP.
727. Regarding deemed sanction, learned DLA contended
that it was a possible course of action at that point of time.
728. Regarding decisions in the 14th & 18th Screening
Committee meetings, learned DLA contended that after issuance
of the advertisement, those decisions lost relevance and now it
was upon MoC to verify all the claims.
729. Regarding charts prepared by CIL experts, learned
DLA alleged that the same were destroyed in all probability as
there is no noting about them in any of the MoC files.
730. Regarding contentions relating to Runu Ghosh’s
judgment (supra), learned DLA submitted that various acts and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 254 of 343
omissions are there on the part of accused public servants
showing that the recommendation for allocating Mahuagarhi coal
block to A-1 company for its EUP in Burdwan, West Bengal was
against public interest. He highlighted that (a) No checking was
done to ascertain eligibility and completeness, (b) Incomplete
applications were sent to state governments and administrative
ministries i.e. MoP, (c) Incomplete applications were placed
before the 35th Screening Committee for the purpose of
presentations, (d) Mahuagarhi coal block was sought by A-1
company for its EUP in Burdwan, West Bengal as per the
application whereas presentation was made for EUP in
Bhagalpur, Bihar, (e) MoP had recommended A-1 company
JICPL for Patal East coal block for EUP in Bhagalpur, Bihar, (f)
Govt. of Jharkhand did not recommend name of JICPL for any
coal block and (g) Govt. of West Bengal did not recommend any
coal block situated in that state to JICPL and rather
recommended Mahuagarhi coal block which was situated in
Jharkhand.
731. Learned DLA argued that recommendation in favour
of JICPL for Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP in Burdwan, West
Bengal was wrong for various reasons. He elaborated that A-1
company JICPL had filed six applications out of which four
applications related to EUP in Bihar and two applications related
to EUP in West Bengal. There was no application for Mahuagarhi
coal block for EUP at Bhagalpur, Bihar. Learned DLA referred to
guidelines [Ex. PW-11/A-7 (Colly.), D-37, Pg. 73-94/c] and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 255 of 343
according to guidelines titled ‘How to Apply’, an applicant
company was required to file separate application for every coal
block and for every EUP.
732. Learned DLA highlighted that presentation was
made only for EUP at Bhagalpur. He contended that accused
public servants were very well aware of the said fact but despite
this, they recommended Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at West
Bengal. He submitted that after the allocation letter, A-1
company filed application for amendment in the allocation letter
and for changing the EUP from Burdwan, West Bengal to
Bhagalpur, Bihar. He contended that this shows that company
was never intending to set up any EUP in West Bengal.
733. Learned DLA also argued that the Screening
Committee recommended Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at
West Bengal because the Committee could not recommend
allocation of said coal block for EUP at Bhagalpur because there
was no application for said EUP. He referred to the minutes of
the meeting dt. 13.09.2007 [Ex. PW-1/J-4, D-31, Pg. 1-41] in this
regard. He pointed out that for Gourangdih coal block, Govt. of
West Bengal had sought its allocation for its government
company/corporation namely WBMTDC but Screening
Committee noted that as there was no application on behalf of
WBMTDC, no allocation could be recommended in its name.
Drawing the same analogy, learned DLA contended that there
was no application on behalf of JICPL for Mahuagarhi coal block
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 256 of 343
for its EUP at Bihar.
734. Learned DLA also referred to the feedback form Ex.
PW-1/E (D-34). In the feedback form also, location of the EUP is
mentioned as Bhagalpur, Bihar.
735. Learned Counsel for the accused however countered
the submission of learned DLA that these guidelines can be said
to have been issued under CMN Act. He referred to the
testimony of PW-11 Sh. V.S. Rana wherein he stated that there is
no reference of any Act, Rule or Regulations in any of the
notings leading to the finalization of the guidelines. He relied
upon G. J. Fernandez Vs. State of Mysore,
MANU/SC/0050/1967; Chief Commercial Manager, South
Central Railway, Secunderabad Vs. G. Ratnam
MANU/SC/7843/2007 and Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. Vs.
Union of India, MANU/SC/0848/2014.
736. I have considered the submissions.
737. The contentions of the learned defence Counsel that
recommendation of Screening Committee was not of any value is
misconceived. The Screening Committee was empowered to
make recommendation as per the policy decision of the Govt.
The function of the Screening Committee cannot be said to be
merely expressing opinions. The Screening Committee undertook
a complex exercise which required decision making at various
steps. A-3 being the Chairman, A-4 being the Convener and A-5
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 257 of 343
being the Director, CA-I Section, MoC must own their actions.
Moreover, it is a case of conspiracy and the actions of A-3 to A-5
have to be appreciated in the light of these circumstances.
738. The objection of learned Counsel that adoption of
UMPP criteria by CEA/MoP is not worth consideration. It is true
that criteria of minimum networth was not present in the
guidelines of MoC, but it cannot be said that for this reason no
minimum criteria could be fixed by MoP/CEA. It must be noted
that MoC had sent the applications for views/ comments/
recommendations of MoP. Due to large number of applications
MoP adopted a pre-qualification criteria which can be said to be
justified in these circumstances. The CEA/MoP adopted the
UMPP criteria which was 0.50 crores per MW. It cannot be said
that this amounted to change of rule of the game midway. The
guidelines of MoC had taken capacity of minimum 500 MW in
respect of power plant.
739. The CMN Act, 1973 was amended in 1993 so as to
provide for allocation of captive coal blocks to companies in
private sector also which were engaged in specified end uses. At
that time, an inter-departmental/inter-governmental body called
the “Screening Committee” was constituted in MoC to screen all
such proposals as were received in MoC seeking allocation of
captive coal blocks. Beside MoC which was the Nodal Ministry,
various other Administrative Ministries such as Ministry of Steel,
Ministry of Power or Department of Industrial Promotion and
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 258 of 343
Policy, various State Govts. of states where coal blocks which
were proposed to be allocated were situated or where the
proposed end use project was to be situated were members of
Screening Committee. CMPDIL, CIL and its other subsidiary
companies were also part of the Screening Committee. The
purpose was to have views of all concerned at one single
platform so as to not only expedite the coal block allocation
process but to also have a body which may screen the proposals
in an objective and transparent manner. Thus the various
Screening Committees started laying down its own procedures to
screen the proposals and to make its recommendations in an
objective and transparent manner.
740. Initially no advertisement used to be issued by MoC
for inviting applications for allocation of captive coal blocks but
the 34th Screening Committee issued an advertisement in the year
2005 inviting applications for allocation of captive coal blocks.
The past practices and procedure as used to be followed by the
earlier Screening Committees were also compiled at one place
and with suitable additions/modifications and guidelines were
issued to govern the coal block allocation process. Similarly at
the time of 35th and 36th Screening Committee also, applications
were invited by way of an advertisement. After making suitable
modifications in the earlier guidelines issued and besides
incorporating the recommendations of 7th Energy Co-ordination
Committee headed by Prime Minister and as were communicated
to MoC vide I.D. note of PMO dated 25.07.2006 [Ex. PW 11/A-3
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 259 of 343
(Colly.), D-37, Pg. 38-40/c], fresh guidelines governing
allocation of captive coal blocks were issued by MoC. Thus these
guidelines issued at the time of inviting applications in
November 2006 were to govern the allocation of captive coal
blocks by 35th and 36th Screening Committees.
741. It is pertinent to mention that the said guidelines
were issued by MoC purportedly to provide a mechanism to
implement the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 and that of CMN
Act, 1973 as it stood amended in the year 1993. Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the said order, proceeded further to consider
various acts undertaken by MoC and the Screening Committee in
the allocation of various captive coal blocks assuming that
Central Govt. had powers to allot captive coal blocks under
MMDR Act, 1957 and CMN Act, 1973. Thus the exercise being
undertaken by this Court in the present proceedings is also
primarily confined to examination of various acts of omission
and commission of accused MoC officers as were undertaken by
them in the coal block allocation process which led to allocation
of Mahuagarhi coal block in favour of M/s JICPL, with the
assumption that the Central Govt. was acting under the two Acts
believing bonafidely that it had power to so act. Thus what is
required to be seen in the present case is whether the
rules/regulations or procedures as were devised by MoC for
allocating captive coal blocks were adhered to by the accused
MoC officers and by the Screening Committee and if not, then
reasons therefor and the intention in not doing so. However it is
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 260 of 343
certainly true that before proceeding to examine the aforesaid
aspects, it also needs to be seen as to whether the guidelines so
issued by MoC governing allocation of captive coal blocks were
binding in nature or not, for only then the issue relating to any
violation of the guidelines can be more appropriately examined.
742. The very purpose of issuance of guidelines by MoC
to govern allocation of captive coal blocks and their subsequent
uploading on the website of MoC was to bring them to the notice
of public at large. A bare reading of said guidelines shows that
the same not only controlled but also regulated the exercise of
discretion by MoC and the Screening Committee in allocation of
captive coal blocks. The purpose was also to inform the public at
large as to how the allocation of captive coal blocks would be
made by MoC.
743. It is clarified that in the present proceedings what is
being examined is whether the actions of accused public servants
i.e. of MoC officers involved in the process of allocation of
Mahuagarhi coal block in favour of company M/s JICPL had any
element of culpability in the said actions or not.
744. It is in the light of aforesaid well settled proposition
of law that it needs to be seen as to whether the guidelines issued
by MoC governing allocation of captive coal blocks were binding
upon the MoC officers and also upon the Screening Committee
or not.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 261 of 343
745. As earlier also mentioned, the guidelines so issued
by MoC, and as were also uploaded on the website of MoC for
information of the public at large, were clearly issued to regulate
the exercise of discretion by the MoC officers and that of the
Screening Committee in the matter of allocation of captive coal
blocks. The purpose was to rule out any element of arbitrariness
in the said exercise of discretion. The said guidelines
undisputedly provided the logical and reasoned steps as to how
the MoC officers and the Screening Committee shall undertake
the decision making process vide which allocation of captive coal
blocks in favour of private applicant companies will be made. Yet
another important purpose of issuance of guidelines was also to
inform the public at large as to how the exercise of allocation of
captive coal blocks shall be undertaken and that the discretion of
Ministry of Coal or that of Screening Committee was not
unfettered. It was thus represented to the public at large that MoC
will undertake the said exercise fairly without discrimination and
by following a fair procedure.
746. From the aforesaid observations, it is thus clear that
in so far as the officers of the department which issued those
guidelines are concerned, they were clearly bound to follow the
said guidelines. The said officers can always be punished by the
Govt. or department concerned for violation of the said
guidelines by them. It is altogether a different matter that such a
violation of the guidelines may in a given case entail initiation of
departmental enquiry only but at the same time the violation of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 262 of 343
said guidelines in a given case may also show existence of
commission of an offence on the part of public servants
concerned and in which case penal action may also be initiated
against them.
747. Thus in the light of aforesaid circumstances, it is
held that the guidelines issued by MoC governing allocation of
captive coal blocks though may not be termed as law under
Article 13 of the Constitution of India but were clearly binding
upon the accused MoC officers. The said guidelines clearly
sought to control the exercise of discretion by MoC and of the
Screening Committee in disbursing the largesse i.e. allocation of
nationalized natural resource (Coal) of the country by way of
allocation of captive coal blocks and it was represented by MoC
to the public at large as to how the applications are to be
submitted or how the same will be dealt with by MoC and by the
Screening Committee. It clearly cast a mandatory duty upon the
accused public servants to act in accordance with the said
guidelines. By no stretch of imagination, the accused MoC
officers can claim that even though the guidelines were issued by
them intimating the public at large as to how captive coal blocks
shall be allocated but while exercising the said discretion they
were not bound to follow the said guidelines. In fact the said
guidelines in no way took away the discretion either from the
MoC officers or from the Screening Committee but simply
regulated the exercise of such discretion so vested in them, lest
their actions may venture into the arena of unreasonableness,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 263 of 343
arbitrariness or in any sort of illegality.
748. The guidelines clearly mandated certain eligibility
conditions and certain requirements to be fulfilled by the
applicant companies, failing which, it was mentioned in the
guidelines itself that the applications would be rejected. It was
also clarified in the guidelines itself as to in what manner the
inter se priority of various competing applicant companies which
had applied for any given coal block should be arrived at. In fact
mentioning of these very factors in the guidelines were the prime
reasons for various applicant companies to inflate their various
claims so as to show a better status/stage of preparedness qua
their proposed end use project. A legitimate expectation thus
arose in the mind of various applicant companies that their
applications would be considered objectively and in a transparent
manner in accordance with the guidelines so issued by MoC. In
these circumstances, it cannot be claimed by accused MoC
officers that they were not bound by the guidelines so issued by
MoC governing allocation of captive coal blocks and as were
also uploaded on the website of MoC.
749. It is worth noting that when the guidelines were
issued by the MoC, it was the common belief that coal blocks
could be allocated by the Central Govt. by Screening Committee
route. It was understanding of the Govt. of the day that allocation
could be made under CMN Act in that manner. It is further
worth noting that coal blocks were being allocated earlier also in
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 264 of 343
similar manner. It was only when judgment in Manohar Lal
Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516 was
pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court that this practice of
allocation of coal blocks was termed illegal. Therefore, the
validity and sanctity of the guidelines will have to be adjudged as
per the common practice and procedure which was prevalent at
that time.
750. Considered as such, there remains no doubt that the
guidelines issued by the MoC were issued under CMN Act and
were mandatorily to be followed. Any violation of those
guidelines will have to be scrutinized and not just ignored.
751. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that the guidelines
were not issued under CMN Act, still the same were binding on
the MoC and the Screening Committee. At least in respect of
allocation of coal block the guidelines were very much binding
and applicable because the same were issued for the said
purpose. If not bound by the guidelines, what other Rule or
Regulation was binding on the Screening Committee for
recommending coal blocks?
752. A-3 to A-5 cannot take the defence that guidelines
were not binding. They were bound to follow the said guidelines
in the process of making recommendations for allocation. Any
violation of the guidelines will invite action whether
administrative or criminal.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 265 of 343
753. The next issue is whether the guidelines were
followed or not. In other words, whether the applications were
checked in MoC for completeness and eligibility before being
sent to administrative ministries/state Govts.?
754. Before finding out whether checking for
completeness and eligibility was done or not, it is essential that
meaning of ‘completeness’, ‘eligibility’ and ‘checking for
completeness and eligibility’ must be clear.
What is the meaning of ‘completeness’?
755. As far as completeness is concerned, the meaning of
the said word is to be ascertained on the basis of the material
available on record. The guidelines provide that an application
was to be accompanied with the following documents:
“II The following documents should be enclosed
along with the application form:
Certificate of registration showing that the applicant is
a company registered under Section-3 of the Indian
Companies Act. This document should be duly signed
and stamped by the Company Secretary of the
Company. (1 copy)
Document showing the person/s who has/have been
authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant company
while dealing with any or all matters connected with
allocation of the sought coal block/s for captive mining
with the Government/its agencies. This document
should be duly signed and stamped by the Company
Secretary of the Company. (5 copies)
Certified copy of the Memorandum and Articles of
Association of the applicant Company. (5 copies.)CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 266 of 343
Audited Annual Accounts/reports of last 3 years. (5
copies)
Project report in respect of the end use plant. If the
project report is appraised by a lender, the appraisal
report shall also be submitted. (5 copies)
Detailed Schedule of implementation for the proposed
end use project and the proposed coal mining
development project including Exploration programme
(in respect of regionally explored blocks) in the form of
Bar Charts. (5 copies)
Scheme of disposal of unusable containing carbon
obtained during mining of coal or at any stage
thereafter including washing. This scheme must include
the disposal/use to which the middlings, tailings, rejects
etc from the washery are proposed to be put. (5 copies)
The above details are required to be submitted in
respect of all the concerned companies in case of
SPV/JV or Mining company.
Demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of PAO,
Ministry of Coal payable at New Delhi
A soft copy of details, as filled in the Application Form,
is also to be furnished in the specified Database Form
(in MS-Excel format) in a CD along with the
Application.”
756. The contention of learned DLA is that completeness
meant not only that application was having all the documents
annexed with it as were required but also that the claims made in
the application were based on facts. He contended that it was the
duty of the accused public servants to check the aspect of
completeness of the applications after issuance of advertisement
and guidelines.
757. On the other hand, learned Counsel for A-3 to A-5
contended that completeness only meant that all the documents
were annexed with the application as was specified in the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 267 of 343
guidelines/advertisement.
758. Guideline (III) provides as under:
“(III) Applications without the above accompaniments would
be treated as incomplete and shall be rejected.”
759. From the guideline (III), it is apparent that
completeness cannot mean anything but availability of specified
documents as mentioned in guideline (II). It cannot travel beyond
that. If any of the specified document was not annexed, it was
provided in guideline (III) that the application would be treated
as incomplete and was liable to be rejected. This shows that
completeness meant availability of documents. It did not extend
to ascertaining truthfulness or correctness of the
claims/informations mentioned in the application.
What is the meaning of ‘eligibility’?
760. Now it is to be seen what is the meaning of
eligibility?
761. Regarding eligibility, learned DLA submitted that
the applicant should have been a company registered under the
Companies Act and it must have also been engaged in the
production of power which was the EUP for coal blocks
considered by 35th Screening Committee. According to him, a
company proposing to engage in power production was not
entitled to apply for allocation of coal block. Learned DLA
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 268 of 343
referred to Sec. 3(3)(a)(iii) of CMN Act. He also referred to
following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Manohar Lal Sharma (supra):
“160. The entire exercise of allocation through
Screening Committee route thus appears to suffer from
the vice of arbitrariness and not following any objective
criteria in determining as to who is to be selected or
who is not to be selected. There is no evaluation of
merit and no inter se comparison of the applicants. No
chart of evaluation was prepared. The determination of
the Screening Committee is apparently subjective as the
minutes of the Screening Committee meetings do not
show that selection was made after proper assessment.
The project preparedness, track record etc., of the
applicant company were not objectively kept in view.
Until the amendment was brought in Section 3(3) of the
CMN Act w.e.f. 9-6-1993, the Central Government
alone was permitted to mine coal through its companies
with the limited exception of private companies
engaged in the production of iron and steel. By virtue of
the bar contained in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act,
between 1976 and 1993, no private company (other than
the company engaged in the production of iron and
steel) could have carried out coal mining operations in
India. Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, which was
amended on 9-6-1993 permitted private sector entry in
coal mining operations for captive use. The power for
grant of captive coal block is governed by Section 3(3)
(a) of the CMN Act, according to which, only two kind
of entities, namely, (a) Central Government or
undertakings/corporations owned by the Central
Government; or (b) companies having end-use plants in
iron and steel, power, washing of coal or cement can
carry out coal mining operations. The expression
“engaged in” in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) means that the
company that was applying for the coal block must have
set up an iron and steel plant, power plant or cement
plant and be engaged in the production of steel, power
or cement. The prospective engagement by a private
company in the production of steel, power or cement
would not entitle such private company to carry out coal
mining operation. Most of the companies, which have
been allocated coal blocks, were not engaged in the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 269 of 343
production of steel, power or cement at the time of
allocation nor in the applications made by them any
disclosure was made whether or not the power, steel or
cement plant was operational. They only stated that they
proposed to set up such plants. Thus, the requirement of
end-use project was not met at the time of allocation.”
762. On the other hand, learned Counsel for A-3 to A-5
vehemently submitted that companies which were proposing to
engage in the generation of power were also entitled to apply
because that was an accepted position at the relevant time. He
submitted that at the relevant time, this was the common
understanding of all the concerned authorities as well. Further, he
has referred to one judgment titled Welfare Society of Orissa Vs.
UOI & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Ori 67 : AIR 2010 Ori 183.
Relying upon this judgment, learned Counsel submitted that even
the Hon’ble Orissa High Court while considering the provisions
of CMN Act had observed that the guidelines read with statutory
provisions did not provide anywhere that a person must have the
experience in the field of power generation at the time of
submission of its application. It held the concerned company as
eligible applicant for allocation of coal block.
763. To ascertain this requirement, one has to only look at
the advertisement [Ex. PW-11/A-7 (Colly.), D-31, Pg. 73-94/c]
and the CMN Act.
764. The advertisement provided as under [at Pg. 74/c]:
” The Ministry of Coal, Government of India intend to
allocate 38 coal blocks for captive coal mining by
companies engaged in generation of power, production
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 270 of 343
of iron and steel and production of cement. Out of
these, 15 coal blocks are earmarked for power
generation and 23 coal blocks would be available for
other specified end uses……”
765. Sec. 3(3)(a)(iii) of CMN Act provides as follows:
“3. ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS OF OWNERS IN
RESPECT OF COAL MINES.
(1) xxxx
(2) xxxx
(3) On and from the commencement of Section 3 of
the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act,
1976:–
(a) no person, other than–
(i) x x x x
(ii) x x x x
(iii) a company engaged in–
(1) the production of iron and steel,
(2) generation of power,
(3) washing of coal obtained from a mine, or
(4) such other end use as the Central
Government may, by notification, specifyshall carry on coal mining operation, in India, in any
form;”
766. Thus to be an eligible applicant, it was required to be
a company engaged in the specified end uses e.g. power sector in
the present case.
767. The emphasis of learned DLA is that the company
must have been already engaged in power generation. According
to him, prospective engagement was not envisaged.
768. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court made certain
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 271 of 343
observations in this regard in Welfare Society‘s case ( supra)
which run as follows:
“22. With regard to the above rival contentions, the
following questions are framed for consideration of this
Court:
(i) Whether the JPL, in whose favour award of
the contract of coal blocks was made for
establishment of power generation plant, is a
eligible person to submit the application pursuant
to the notification under Annexure-3?
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) xxxxx
23. To answer the first question, it is necessary for us to
refer the guidelines at Annexure-6 and the same are
considered in the backdrop of the statutory provisions
of Sub-Section (3) to Section 3 of the Act, 1973. On
careful reading of the notification and guidelines, it
appears that the applications were invited by opposite
party No. 1 for the purpose of allotment of coal blocks
for generating power by establishing the plant. In our
considered view, the contention urged by the
petitioner’s counsel that the JPL is ineligible as it did
not have engaged itself in any power generation as on
the date of filing the application, cannot be accepted by
this Court for the reason that the guidelines are read
with the statutory provisions referred to supra, did not
provide anywhere that a person must have the
experience in the filed of power generation at the time
of submission of its application. Such type of
interpretation of the notification by the learned counsel
for the petitioner cannot be accepted. If such an
interpretation is given, the same would be contrary to
the statutory provisions and the guidelines. As long as
the statutory provision and the guidelines are intact, this
Court cannot go beyond the same and fix a criteria that
if a person not having existing power generation plant
cannot submit the application as contended by the
petitioner, which would run contrary to the statutory
provisions and defeat the purpose for which the
applications were invited by the opposite party no. 1 for
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 272 of 343
allotment of coal blocks in favour of a successful
Tenderer for establishment of power generating plant.
Accordingly the first question is answered against the
petitioner.”
769. According to Sh. Rahul Tyagi, from this cited
judgment, it follows that a company proposing to engage in
production of power was also entitled to apply.
770. From the judgment of Hon’ble Orissa High Court,
there remains no doubt that it was understood at that point of
time that a company proposing to engage in power production
was entitled to apply. However, later on, Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide its judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma‘s case ( supra) had held
that various allocations of coal blocks made to various companies
as illegal. Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that many of the
companies were not engaged in specified end uses.
771. The fact that Hon’ble Orissa High Court had
considered company proposing to engage in power production as
an eligible applicant shows that this was a common
understanding at the relevant time or at least a possible
connotation/interpretation.
772. It is a fact that many of the allocatees were the
companies which were only proposing to engage in production of
power. The MoC had considered those companies as eligible. In
such a fact situation, will it be proper to ascertain guilt for an
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 273 of 343
offence under PC Act on the basis of a later interpretation
contrary to the prevalent understanding of the provisions and
guidelines? When Hon’ble Orissa High Court could take a view
(although which has subsequently been overruled) that company
proposing to engage in power production was an eligible
company, same is the possibility with the authorities also that
they also understood the provisions and guidelines on those lines.
In my view, criminal liability should not be decided only on the
basis of taking a particular view about the guidelines and the
provisions especially when such a view was a possible view.
773. As regarding eligibility, the primary requirement for
every applicant was that it should be a company registered under
Indian Companies Act. The second requirement of being eligible
was that the company should be engaged either in generation of
power or production of iron or steel or in production of cement.
The present case relates to power sector.
774. What Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided was civil
consequences of administrative action. Hon’ble Apex Court had
not decided criminal liability for those actions.
775. The interpretation of Sec. 3(3)(a)(iii) of CMN Act
given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2014 was relevant
for cancellation of allocation of coal blocks but the same cannot
be basis for drawing inference about criminal liability for acts
done and omissions made in 2007.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 274 of 343
776. It thus follows that the eligibility of the company has
to be decided as per the guidelines and provisions of CMN Act
but with the understanding which existed at that point of time i.e.
that companies proposing to engage in power production were
eligible to apply for allocation of coal block.
777. Considered so, it is apparent that companies
proposing to engage in power production were also eligible to
apply for allocation of coal block. No doubt, there were some
applicants who had one or the other EUP either fully or partly
operational but most of the companies were only proposing to
establish their EUPs. Thus, no fault can be found in the approach
of the companies in firstly ensuring supply of coal through
allocation of coal block.
778. As already mentioned above, criminal liability is not
to be decided from the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Manohar Lal Sharma‘s case (supra) as only civil consequences
were determined in that judgment. Hon’ble Apex Court itself had
mentioned in para No. 6 that the consideration of the matter was
confined to prayer for quashing of the allocation of the coal
blocks to private companies and it did not touch upon directly or
indirectly the investigation being conducted by CBI and ED into
the allocation matters. The same read as under:
“6. The present consideration of the matter is confined
to the first prayer i.e. for quashing the allocation of coal
blocks to private companies made by the Central
government between the above period. At the outset,
therefore, it is clarified that consideration of the present
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 275 of 343
matter shall not be construed, in any manner, as
touching directly or indirectly upon the investigation
being conducted by CBI and ED into the allocation of
coal blocks.”
779. The judgment in Welfare Society‘s case (supra) was
not brought to notice of this Court earlier. Consequently, the
earlier view of this court regarding eligibility needed to be
modified and which was done in the case of CBI Vs. Y. Harish
Chandra (NPPL‘s case). The company which was proposing to
establish specified EUP was also eligible.
What is the meaning ‘checking for completeness and eligibility’?
780. Having shed light on meaning of completeness and
eligibility, now it is to be considered what is meant by ‘checking’
for completeness and eligibility?
781. The addition of word ‘checking’ before
completeness and eligibility does not change the scope of the
exercise. It will still be checking for (i) availability of documents
(which is relating to completeness) and (ii) registration status of
applicant i.e. it must be a company and the nature of its End Use
Project (which is relating to eligibility).
782. Further, at some places in the notings, the word
‘scrutiny’ has been used. Scrutiny to ascertain completeness and
eligibility is similar to checking for completeness and eligibility.
However, scrutiny of applications for evaluation is an exercise
which was verification of truthfulness and correctness of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 276 of 343
claims/information made/given by the applicant companies.
However, it was the domain of the administrative ministry and
state governments.
783. In my view, the stress of learned DLA that
application was not scrutinized is rather relating to verification of
truthfulness and correctness of the claims made in the
application. Verification of the claims was to be done by
administrative ministry in consultation with the state government
concerned. The decisions taken in the 14 th and 18th meeting of
the Screening Committee provide a clue on this issue and are also
of relevance. The same were referred to in the judgment in
Manohar Lal Sharma‘s case (supra). The same are as follows:
“124. In its 14th meeting held on 18/19.06.1999, the
Screening Committee decided as follows:
“(i) The Administrative Ministries will
assess the soundness of the proposals in
consultation with the State Govt. before
sending their comments/recommendations
to the Screening Committee for
consideration of allotment of a captive
mining block; and
(ii) The Administrative Ministries should
consult State Governments as well as use
their own agencies for assessing the
progress of the implementation of end 98
use plants for which blocks have already
been allotted by the Screening Committee
and send a report to the Screening
Committee for further action.”
124.1 x x x
128. In the 18th meeting held on 05.05.2003, the
Screening Committee, for the first time, considered
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 277 of 343
the issue of determining inter se merit of applicants
for the same block as well as certain other issues to
bring in transparency and felt that guidelines for
determining inter se priority among claims for blocks
between public sector and private sector for captive
use and between public sector for non-captive use and
private sector for captive use need to be evolved. The
Chairman of the Committee put the following few
general guidelines for consideration:
(i) The blocks in captive list should be
allocated to an applicant only after the
same have been put in the pubic domain
for a reasonable time and not immediately
upon their inclusion in the list of block
identified for captive mining, so as to give
an opportunity to interested parties to apply
for the same and make the process more
transparent. The need for giving very
cogent and detailed reasons before
withdrawal of a block from captive list by
CIL was also emphasized.
(ii) The Administrative Ministries were
requested to appraise the projects from the
point of view of the genuineness of the
applicant, techno-economic viability of the
project and the state of
preparedness/progress in the project while
indicating the quantity and quality of coal
requirement of the project and
recommending allocation of captive block
to the applicant. In case there were more
than one applicant for the same block the
Administrative Ministry should rank them
based on the project appraisal and the
past/track record of the applicant without
necessarily naming the block to be allotted.
This would facilitate the Screening
Committee in allotting a suitable block to
the applicant more objectively.
(iii) Only those power projects would be
considered for allocation which are
included in the Xth Plan Period.”
784. The meeting of 11.05.2007 held in the chamber of
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 278 of 343
A-3 pursuant to OM dt. 07.05.2007 [Ex. PW-11/C-4, D-38, Pg.
87-88/c] was with a view to consider the criteria / detailed
modalities for allocation. This exercise was for the purpose of
scrutiny/verification of the claims made in the applications. It
could be done by technical experts of various sectors only. The
technical expertise for power sector was available with MoP and
not MoC. This exercise was not to be done before sending the
applications. It was decided in that meeting that respective
administrative ministries would suggest some criteria based on
specific parameters. However, MoP i.e. the concerned
administrative ministry did not suggest anything. MoP got
evaluated the applications through CEA and made
recommendations. It was also decided in the meeting that all the
applicants would be given opportunity to make presentations.
785. It must be mentioned here that earlier this Court was
also under the impression the checking for completeness and
eligibility included verification of claims made in the
applications. However, now after the judgment in Welfare
Society‘s case was brought to notice of this Court, the earlier
view regarding checking needs to be modified. The aspect of
checking for eligibility is restricted to ascertaining whether the
applicant was a company registered under the Companies Act
and whether its existing or proposed EUP was for power sector or
not.
786. If the meaning as put forward by learned DLA is
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 279 of 343
adopted, then that would mean that the truthfulness and
correctness of the claims were also to be verified by MoC, and
that too before sending the applications to MoP and state
governments (as per the guidelines). However, truthfulness and
correctness of the claims or in other words the
verification/scrutiny of the claims was not possible without
assistance of MoP and state governments as they possessed the
technical expertise for it. And if their assistance was needed,
then the copies of the applications and documents were required
to be supplied to them by MoC because without copies of the
applications and documents, they could not have evaluated the
claims made in the applications. Therefore, the meaning which
learned DLA wants to suggest was unworkable and would lead to
anomalous situation.
787. The role of administrative ministry and state
governments was still traceable to 14th and 18th Screening
Committee meetings. The verification or scrutiny of claims
made in the applications was the task of these stakeholders.
788. Thus checking for completeness and eligibility
merely meant that (a) applications were to be checked to see
availability of required documents and (b) status of applicant as a
company and purpose of its existing or proposed EUP.
Whether checking was done?
789. The guidelines [Ex. PW-11/A-7 (Colly.), D-37, Pg.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 280 of 343
73-94/c] provided that the applications after being received in
MoC were to be checked for their completeness and eligibility
before being sent to Administrative Ministries and concerned
State Govts.
790. The guidelines issued by MoC clearly mandated
under the title “Processing of application” that the applications
received in MoC in five copies after being checked for their
eligibility and completeness would be sent to the Administrative
Ministries and State Govts. concerned for their evaluation and
recommendation. The guidelines also specified certain
documents which were required to be annexed by every applicant
company alongwith its applications. It was also stated that
applications without the said accompaniments would be treated
as incomplete and shall be rejected. Thus in the light of aforesaid
nature of guidelines, it becomes clear that before copies of the
applications were to be sent to Administrative Ministries/State
Govts., the same were required to be checked in MoC as regard
their completeness and eligibility.
791. It can be said that it was job of CA-I Section to
check the applications but it must also be said that it was
responsibility of A-3 to A-5 to ensure that such an exercise was
indeed carried out. Even as per Manual of Office Procedure, the
responsibility of a Secretary is absolute.
792. Learned DLA, as already noted, has contended that
application of JICPL was incomplete as (i) in the application, in
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 281 of 343
column no. 1, it was not mentioned that JICPL was a JV or SPV,
(ii) in column no. 6 of the application, it was falsely claimed that
JICPL was SPV managed by IISIPL and IL&FS Group and that
core business included Iron & Steel making and providing
finances and company was diversifying into Coal Mining and
Power Generation, (iii) in column no. 10 of the application
networth of IISIPL and IL&FS was mentioned and (iv) in column
no. 21 of the application, it was mentioned that DPR was
appraised but appraisal report was not annexed. He argued that it
was requirement that if DPR was appraised, then the appraisal
report was also to be annexed.
793. The instances of incompleteness as mentioned in (i),
(ii) and (iii) above are not connected with incompleteness and are
rather instances of false statements or incorrect statements. The
only instance of incompleteness worth consideration is (iv)
which is relating to not furnishing appraisal report despite
claiming that DPR was appraised.
794. The testimony of PW-11 is heavily relied upon by
the prosecution to show that no checking was done. However,
there are various circumstances indicating that it was done.
795. Vide note dt. 04.11.2006 [at Pg. 3-4/n in D-37], R.N.
Singh had proposed detailed guidelines which provided for
checking of applications before sending them to other
stakeholders. In the previous round i.e. 31 st to 34th Screening
Committee, it is now more than apparent that checking was done
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 282 of 343
and two lists of complete and incomplete applications were
prepared. It has been so held by Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, the then
learned Special Judge PC Act, CBI, Coal Block Cases-01, RADC
in Grace Industries case and also by me in the case of Kohinoor
Steel Pvt. Ltd. It appeals to common sense that when a
procedure followed in earlier round is specifically included for
fresh round also, it must have been followed. It is noteworthy
that there is no noting in MoC file that no checking was ever
done. There is further no noting that fact of non-checking was
ever brought to notice of superior officers.
796. PW-11 initially denied that checking was done at the
time of 34th Screening Committee but his statement has been
rendered false when he was confronted with documents showing
preparation of lists and uploading of those lists on website of
MoC. His denial of fact of checking for 35 th Screening
Committee is also to be viewed with suspicion.
797. Further, communication dated 22.01.2007 and its
response dated 31.01.2007 by PW-11 [Ex. PW-11/DX-13
(Colly.)] showing some time schedule for checking of
applications, and notings such as dated 19.02.2007 [at Pg. 10/n in
D-37] showing applications were ready to be dispatched; dated
29.03.2007 [at Pg. 16/n in D-37] showing discussion about some
applications and it talks about work pressure relating to scrutiny
of applications; and dated 04.06.2007 [at Pg. 1/n in D-34]
showing discussion about holding meeting of 35 th Screening
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 283 of 343
Committee, all indicate that some kind of checking or scrutiny or
screening or filtering had taken place.
798. PW-11 had also acknowledged that directions were
given to cursorily glance the documents filed with the
applications at the time of receipt of applications. He also
admitted that he had stated in the case of Vikas Metal that
incomplete applications were not entertained by MoC.
799. The assertion of PW-11 that a meeting was held in
the office of A-4 i.e. JS (Coal) to discuss the modalities for
receiving applications has been shown to be an imaginary
assertion. When detailed guidelines were proposed vide note dt.
04.11.2006, where was the need to hold this meeting. This
meeting is nowhere reflected in any noting or there is any
confirmation of directions given vide this meeting. Everything is
oral account qua this meeting. It is difficult to believe.
800. The notings highlighted by learned DLA are actually
relating to verification exercise which was primarily to be done
by MoP assisted by state governments but which was taken up
later on by MoC as MoP had not co-operated and asked MoC to
get verification done. This scrutiny of informations given/claims
made in the applications cannot be equated with checking for
completeness and eligibility. The state governments had carried
out this verification which was subsequent to checking of
applications.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 284 of 343
801. The above discussion shows that some checking for
completeness and eligibility was done. It must be kept in mind
that this checking is not to be confused with scrutiny of
applications for the purpose of evaluation because that exercise
related to finding out truthfulness and correctness of the claims.
Whether recommendation is justified?
802. Having found that applications were checked for
completeness and eligibility, now it is to be seen as to whether
the recommendation is justified or not? To put it differently,
whether A-3 to A-5 acted reasonably in processing application of
JICPL/A-1 and recommending its name for allocation of
Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal?
803. After checking, the application of JICPL was sent to
MoP as well as Govt. of West Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar. The
MoP recommended name of JICPL for Patal East coal block for
its Bhagalpur EUP (on the basis of feedback form). State govt.
of West Bengal recommended JICPL for Mahuagarhi coal block
for Burdwan EUP (though for a captive power plant). State govt.
of Jharkhand did not recommend JICPL for any coal block.
Rather it recommended M/s CESC Limited and M/s Maithili
Energy Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of Mahuagarhi Coal Block.
804. It is an admitted position that MoP had not informed
MoC about criteria adopted by CEA for pre-qualifying the
applicants. So the MoC officials or Screening Committee
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 285 of 343
members cannot be faulted for considering applications which
did not fall into criteria of CEA/MoP.
805. In the meeting of 30.07.2007 when MoP informed
that authenticity of the data needed to be separately verified, the
meeting was deferred awaiting reports of the state governments.
806. Notices were sent to concerned state governments.
Their reports were received. Accused public servants have taken
the plea that those reports were placed before the members of the
Committee on 13.09.2007. Whereas, prosecution alleges that
those reports were not so placed. Prosecution heavily relies upon
testimony of PW12 Bhaskar Khulbe.
807. PW-12 had claimed that recommendations of MoP
were not supplied in the meeting dt. 30.07.2007. However, when
he was confronted with his own letter dt. 03.08.2007 [Ex. PW-
12/DX-12] which he had sent after attending the said meeting to
his superior, his claims fell to the ground like a pack of cards.
From that letter, he admitted that it was clear that the
recommendations as were made by CEA and were endorsed by
the MoP were circulated and deliberated upon in the meeting.
808. He had further claimed that nothing was discussed in
the meeting dt. 13.09.2007. This claim was also belied when he
was shown his letter dt. 13.09.2007 [Ex. PW-12/DX-11] which
was also sent to his superior and it was apparent from it that
recommendations in respect of other states (Orissa, Jharkhand,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 286 of 343
Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh) were finalised by reconciling
between the states’ evaluation, power ministry opinion and the
criteria suggested by the Chairman. This reconciliation was not
possible at all without taking into consideration the reports of the
state governments. This shows that discussions took place
between members of the Screening Committee.
809. Regarding not placing of reports of State Govts. and
of CIL experts before the members of the Screening Committee,
the prosecution has tried to establish that such charts were not
placed before the Screening Committee through oral testimonies
of PW-11 and PW-12. Oral testimonies of these witnesses
regarding events which took place around 14-15 years ago is not
good evidence as the same suffers from errors of memory as well
as the same are against file notings and other documentary
evidence. Reference may be made to note dated 14.09.2007 made
by Sh. R.N. Singh, Section Officer, CA-I [D-34, Pg. 15-20/n].
The same fact is also mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of
35th Screening Committee held on 13.09.2007 [Ex. PW-11/J-4,
D-31, Pg. 1-41).
810. None of these witnesses had objected to minutes of
the meeting and had accepted its correctness. In the minutes, it is
recorded that the reports of state governments were compiled and
placed before the members. Thus prosecution cannot allege that
these charts were not supplied.
811. If even after checking, some incomplete applications
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 287 of 343
have been treated as complete and were forwarded to MoP and
state governments, then it is not to be taken as a criminal act or
omission on part of A-3 to A-5. It was fault of CA-I Section. On
their part as well, it was rather an error. Moreover, A-5 is not
responsible at all for this lapse as he joined CA-I Section much
later. On 17.04.2007 when applications were sent to MoP, the
trunks which were already lying were ready since February, 2007
were only dispatched.
812. It is also worth noting that it has come on record that
no special treatment was given to any company. No application
was treated with any preference. It has to be kept in mind that A-
3 being Secretary Coal and A-4 being Joint Secretary Coal were
not supposed to personally check the applications for
completeness and eligibility. It was the task of CA-I Section
whose Director at relevant time was Sh. Sanjiv Mittal and not A-
5.
813. The applicant company JICPL/A-1 was a registered
company under the Companies Act, 1956. It had applied for
allocation of coal block for its power plant which was yet to be
established. In other words, JICPL was also proposing to
establish power plant of 2240 MW. Viewed thus, it is held that
JICPL was an eligible company to apply for allocation of coal
block.
814. PW-11 had no clue that appraisal report was missing
in the application. It shows that the checking was done casually
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 288 of 343
by staff of CA-I Section.
815. When the application was treated as complete even
though erroneously and the applicant has been found to be an
eligible applicant, and allocation was recommended to a
company which had recommendation from state government of
West Bengal and MoP (though for a different coal block), the
accused public servants cannot be held accountable for any
offence. For any lapse on their part, the accused public servants
may be administratively liable but are certainly not criminally
liable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
816. The exercise done by CIL experts looses relevance
as figures of networth were not incorrect. The real issue was
about joining networth of two entities.
817. Moreover, even if the worst case is taken against A-3
and A-4, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the
recommendation was made by the Screening Committee. A
decision of a committee is a collective decision for which one or
two persons cannot not be singled out and held responsible for
the said decision. None of the members have ever objected to the
recommendations written on the recommendation sheet and
everyone had signed the same. Thus after so many years, it
cannot be stated that the said decision was of A-3 and A-4 alone.
818. A-5 was not posted in CA-I Section initially. The
exercise of checking took place before he joined the said Section.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 289 of 343
As such, for any lapse in checking, A-5 cannot be held
responsible. Regarding acts and omissions of later period i.e.
after he joined CA-I Section, it is relevant to note that A-5 was
not member of the Screening Committee. As such, again, he is
not liable.
819. Learned DLA had forcefully contended that A-3 and
A-4 had acted in dual capacity i.e. both were officials of MoC as
well as members of the Screening Committee and as such must
be held responsible. Further A-5 was Director, CA-I Section and
must be held responsible as well.
820. I do not find any merit in this contention as
ultimately the recommendations were made by the Screening
Committee of which A-3 was the Chairman and A-4 was
Member Convener. Their alleged acts or omissions as Secy. Coal
and Jt. Secy. Coal do not amount to criminal acts. A-5 was
certainly not member of the Screening Committee.
821. The accused public servants did not force either
MoP or any state governments to make recommendation in
favour of A-1 company. The MoP and state governments did so
on their own and on the basis of their evaluation. Their
representatives were also present in the meetings of the
Screening Committee.
822. The record of MoC reveals that there were
contesting recommendations both from the administrative
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 290 of 343
ministry as well as concerned state governments. There were
instances where for one coal block, some companies/applicants
had recommendation in their favour from MoP only and some
from concerned state government only. The Screening
Committee was thus tasked with working out a solution and
necessarily it had to balance the interests of all the stakeholders.
As a consequence, allocation of coal blocks was made in favour
of some companies which had recommendation of only MoP and
some which had recommendation of only the concerned state
government.
823. The alleged acts and omissions on the part of A-3 to
A-5 may come under the category of lapses but such lapses, at
the most, are only administrative lapses for which they may be
departmentally liable but certainly not criminally liable.
824. As already observed in the case of Kohinoor Steel,
this court had taken note of a strange trend. It was observed that
apparently non-scrutiny/non-checking of the applications has
been highlighted as a major lapse on the part of accused public
servants in cases in which the public servants have been
chargesheeted like the present case. However, non-scrutiny/non-
checking of the applications has been completely ignored where
only private parties are being prosecuted. One of such case
concerning private parties only, and relating to 35 th Screening
Committee, was CBI Vs. Himachal EMTA Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,
CC/319/2019, RC 219 2014 E0020, which has been decided by
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 291 of 343
this court on 31.08.2022. The said case also related to allocation
of coal block for power plant. The administrative ministry was
Ministry of Power in that case also. Perusal of the judgment of
the said case shows that it relates to exactly the same processing
procedure which is subject matter of the present case. The same
office notings have been referred to in both the cases. However,
in case of Himachal EMTA, nothing adversely is stated against
the accused public servants. The minutes of the meeting dated
13.09.2007 are relied upon as correctly recorded in that case. The
case of CBI in that case was that the said company and other
accused induced even these public servants who have been
chargesheeted in the present case.
825. The difference in approach of CBI in these two cases
is because of the fact that while in the present case, the CBI
found that the documents annexed with the application were
incomplete whereas in the case of Himachal EMTA, the
documents were found to be complete. Non-scrutiny/non-
checking of applications was common to both the cases but the
CBI adopted selective approach. This was only because the
documents and the application in one case were found to be
incomplete while in the other they were found to be complete.
The same minutes of meeting are referred to as wrongly recorded
in one case i.e. the present case whereas the same minutes are
relied upon to show consideration of information supplied by the
applicant company in the other case i.e. case of Himachal EMTA.
This is completely perplexing. Either the non-scrutiny/non-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 292 of 343
checking was to be taken adversely or it has to be ignored
completely in both type of cases. The fate of accused public
servants cannot hinge upon per chance discovery of
completeness or incompleteness of documents filed with the
application. This variance is also noted in cases related to 34 th
Screening Committee cases as well.
826. Moreover, in the present case itself, the minutes of
13.09.2007 are being labelled by the prosecution as ‘wrongly
recorded’ when considered for case against public servants; and
when these are being considered for case against private accused
persons, the prosecution is relying upon these very minutes
(particularly para 10 and 13) to show consideration of various
informations supplied by applicant companies.
827. The conclusion is that the minutes of the meeting dt.
13.09.2007 were apparently recorded correctly. The informations
provided by the state governments were placed before the
members of the committee. The claims made in the applications
by the applicant companies were considered and deliberated
upon and only thereafter recommendations were made.
828. It is thus held that no offence u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act
is made out against any accused public servants.
CASE AGAINST PRIVATE ACCUSED PERSONS
829. Now the case against the private accused persons is
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 293 of 343
being discussed. The points of determination no. IV to VII can
be considered together.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION NO. IV TO VII
IV). Were there any misrepresentations?
V). Who is responsible for making those
misrepresentations?
VI). Whether those misrepresentations deceived any
person and thereby fraudulently or
dishonestly induced any person?
VII). Whether the offence of cheating is made out
against A-1 and A-2?
830. Section 415 of IPC reads as under:
“415. Cheating.–Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to
“cheat”.
Explanation.–A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.”
831. Section 420 IPC reads as under:
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.–
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 294 of 343
person deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine.”
832. From perusal of the above-noted provisions, it is
found that the ingredients of the offence of cheating are:
(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of a person by deceiving him;
(ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced
to deliver any property to any person, or to consent
that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be
intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived; and
(iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b) above, the act or
omission should be one which causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property.
(As held in Ram Jas v. State of UP (1970) 2 SCC 740)
833. It will also be fruitful to note definitions of
‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’.
834. Dishonestly has been defined under S. 24 IPC as
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 295 of 343
under:
24. “Dishonestly”.–Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful
loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
835. Fraudulently has been defined under S. 25 IPC as
under:
25. “Fraudulently”.–A person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but
not otherwise.
836. What is wrongful gain and wrongful loss are
provided in S. 23 IPC. as under:
23. “Wrongful gain”.–“Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful
means of property to which the person gaining is not legally
entitled.
“Wrongful loss”.–“Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful
means of property to which the person losing it is legally
entitled.
Gaining wrongfully, losing wrongfully.–A person is said to
gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as
well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is
said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept
out of any property, as well as when such person is
wrongfully deprived of property.
837. What is the meaning of the phrase “deceiving any
person” as used in the definition of cheating as provided in
Section 415 IPC.
838. In the case of Swami Dhirendra Brahamchari Vs.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 296 of 343
Shailendra Bhushan, 1995 Cr. L.J. 1810 (Delhi), Hon’ble Delhi
High Court while dealing with the word deceiving as used in S.
415 IPC, observed that generally speaking “deceiving” is to lead
into error by causing a person to believe what is false or to
disbelieve what is true and such deception may be by words or
by conduct. A fraudulent representation can be made directly or
indirectly.
839. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of P.M.
Natrajan Vs. Krishna Chandra Gupta, 1975 Cr. L.J. 899 (All.)
explained the word “deceive” as indicating inculcating of one so
that he takes the false as true, the unreal as existent, the spurious
as genuine.
840. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ellerman &
Bucknall Steamship Co. Ltd. vs Sha Misrimal Bherajee, AIR
1966 SC 1892, explained “deceit” as a false statement of a fact
made by a person knowingly or recklessly with the intent that it
shall be acted upon by another who does act upon it and thereby
suffers damage.
841. Thus, it is clear that in all such cases of deception,
the object of the deceiver is fraudulent. He intends to acquire or
retain wrongful possession of that to which some other person
has a better claim. So, where a person parts away with a property
while acting on such a representation of an accused believing in
the truth thereof, it clearly amounts to deceiving the person.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 297 of 343
However, it is also important that the person practicing the deceit
knows or has reason to believe the said representation to be false.
Though in the true nature of things, it is not always possible to
prove dishonest intention by direct evidence. It can be, however,
proved by number of circumstances only from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn. Further the explanation to
Section 415 IPC i.e. cheating states that a dishonest concealment
of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
842. Deception is not defined under Indian Penal Code.
However, it is now well settled through various decisions that a
person deceives another when he causes that another to believe
what is false or misleading as to a matter of fact, or leads him
into error. A willful misrepresentation of a definite fact with
intent to defraud constitutes an offence of cheating. Further, it is
not sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made
but it must be proved that the representation was false to the
knowledge of the accused and was made to deceive the
complainant.
843. The deception within the meaning of section 415
IPC can happen through misrepresentation. In the present case,
the prosecution has alleged that various misrepresentations were
made by the accused persons.
844. As regards inducing fraudulently or dishonestly,
Hon’ble Supreme Court after extensively referring to various case
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 298 of 343
law on the issue in the case of Dr. Vimla (supra), observed that
while the definition of “dishonestly” involves a pecuniary or
economic gain or loss but as regard “fraudulently”, it is primarily
the intent to defraud which is an important ingredient. The word
“defraud” includes an element of deceit. It was also observed that
by way of their very definition as provided under IPC, the word
“fraudulently” by its construction excludes the element of
pecuniary economic gain or loss.
845. It was observed that if the expression “fraudulently”
were to be held to involve the element of injury to the persons or
the persons deceived, it would be reasonable to assume that the
injury should be something other than pecuniary or economic
loss. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to
another and vice-versa, it need not necessarily be so. It should be
held that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but
also some injury to the person deceived. It would be thus
appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of
“dishonestly” that to satisfy definition of “fraudulently” it would
be sufficient if there was a non-economic advantage to the
deceiver or non-economic loss to the deceit. Both need not co-
exist. It was also observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
Juxtaposition of the two expressions “dishonestly” and
“fraudulently” used in the various sections of the Code indicate
their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give
colour to the other. The aforesaid observations of Hon’ble
Supreme Court culling out the difference between the words
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 299 of 343
“dishonestly” and “fraudulently” have been followed consistently
in all subsequent cases involving the issue of cheating.
846. It is essential to find out whether there were any
misrepresentation(s) or not because only if there were such
misrepresentation(s), the prosecution can sustain its case. This is
because only if there was/were misrepresentation(s), there could
be deception and ultimately dishonest inducement.
847. In the present case, various misrepresentations have
been alleged by the prosecution to have been made by private
accused persons i.e. A-1 and A-2. One of the misrepresentation is
regarding networth. Then it is information about promoters of
JICPL. These two are closely related and involve issue of
location of EUP also. The other is regarding appraisal and
syndication. Another misrepresentation in the form of
concealment is regarding non-disclosure about previous
allocations to group/associate companies.
848. Learned DLA referred to various documents such as
the application, the feedback form, the presentation, etc. He
further referred to testimonies of various witnesses.
849. Learned DLA has submitted that networth of an
applicant company was a vital factor in deciding inter se merit
amongst various applicant companies. Learned DLA submitted
that private accused persons were having the knowledge of
importance of networth.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 300 of 343
850. He pointed out to application alongwith covering
letter dated 05.01.2007 [Ex. PW-1/A (Colly.), D-3] which was
submitted to MoC on 12.01.2007.
851. Learned DLA contended that IL&FS cannot be
termed promoter of JICPL as it did not have any shareholding in
A-1 company on 12.01.2007. As such, the claim made in the
application dated 12.01.2007 that JICPL was managed by IISIPL
and IL&FS was a misrepresentation. Learned DLA submitted
that even the networth of IISIPL was wrongly used in the
application. Therefore, use of figures of networth of IISIPL and
of IL&FS was also unjustified. There was no document
suggesting that JICPL was SPV of which IISIPL and IL&FS
were principals.
852. Learned DLA further referred to feedback form [Ex.
PW-1/E, D-34, Pg. 66-67/c] and the presentation [Ex. PW-1/F, D-
34, Pg. 68-79/c]. He pointed out that IL&FS has been described
as one of the promoters of JICPL which was again a
misrepresentation. He submitted that in these documents,
networth of IL&FS was again joined with networth of JICPL and
IISIPL.
853. Learned DLA argued that IL&FS had not subscribed
to share capital of JICPL even on date of presentation i.e.
20.06.2007 and thus cannot be called promoter. Consequently,
networth of IL&FS could not have been joined with networth of
JICPL. He relied upon testimonies of witnesses from IL&FS i.e.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 301 of 343
PW-7 S. Bhaskaran, PW-8 Sanjay Mundley and PW-9 Pankaj
Sakhuja.
854. Learned DLA again raised the issue of location of
EUP and contended that there was no SPV for EUP at Pirapainti,
Bhagalpur, Bihar. He also referred to the MoUs wherein the
location of EUP was agreed to as at Jharkhand or Orissa or West
Bengal. During presentation, however, EUP at Bihar was
highlighted. He further pointed out that when Govt. of West
Bengal, during exercise of verification pursuant to letter dated
02.08.2007 of MoC, sought response of JICPL, a letter dated
23.08.2007 [D-35, Pg. 36] was sent by the said company and
therein it gave details of the progress made by the company for
its EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal. This letter of JICPL forms part
of letter dt. 24.08.2007 sent by Govt. of West Bengal [Ex.
PW11/H-1 (Colly.), D-35, Pg. 22-49]. Learned DLA argued that
despite its interest only in the EUP at Bihar, the company still
gave details of its EUP in West Bengal which shows that the
company wanted a coal block at all cost.
855. Learned DLA contended that the MoP had
considered the networth figures to make its recommendation in
favour of JICPL. He referred to testimonies of PW-14 Anil
Kumar Kutty and PW-15 Manjit Singh Puri who are from MoP
and CEA respectively. Learned DLA submitted that CEA had
also considered these figures. Learned DLA wanted to convey
that accused persons obtained recommendation of MoP only on
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 302 of 343
the basis of these networth figures. He pointed out that networth
of JICPL was only Rs. 1 lakh for the financial years 2003-04,
2004-05 and 2005-06. He submitted that thus it is apparent that
JICPL by its own networth was not eligible to earn
recommendation of MoP which had followed criteria of networth
of 0.5 crore per MW i.e. of UMPP.
856. Learned DLA thus argued that accused persons
dishonestly used figures of networth of IL&FS to induce MoP
and MoC to obtain recommendation for allocation of coal block.
He contended that misrepresentation was thus made regarding
networth as well as promoters/principals and also about location
of EUP.
857. Learned DLA submitted that another
misrepresentation by the accused persons was regarding appraisal
and syndication. He referred to the application form [Ex. PW-1/A
(Colly.), D-3] and feedback form [Ex. PW-1/E, D-34, Pg.
66-67/c] wherein it had been claimed by the company that DPR
had been appraised by IL&FS group but appraisal report was not
annexed with the application. He alleged that there was no
appraisal report as in fact no appraisal had been done. He
referred to testimony of PW-9.
858. Regarding syndication, learned DLA referred to
feedback form and contended that debt was yet to be syndicated
but it was falsely claimed that it had been syndicated. In the
feedback form it was claimed that syndication had been arranged
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 303 of 343
for Rs. 4445 crores but no supporting document was annexed.
859. Another misrepresentation pointed out by learned
DLA is concealment of previous allocation. In the application Ex.
PW1/A (Colly.), in para 29 and 30, it was mentioned that there
was NO previous allocation to applicant company and to any
group or associated company. Learned DLA argued that there
were previous allocations to companies of Abhijeet group to
which JICPL also belonged. He referred to IFS dated 31.07.2008
[Ex. PW-3/F, Part of D-20] and asserted that JICPL belonged to
Abhijeet Group which was under control of A-2 Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal.
860. He referred to MoU dated 31.03.2006 [Ex. PW-2/B,
D-24] which was between NECO Group of Companies and
Abhijeet Group of Companies. He further referred to IFS dt.
31.07.2008 [Ex. PW-3/F, Part of D-20] which acknowledged that
JICPL was part of Abhijeet Group. He referred to evidence of
PW-3 Sanjay Dey. He pointed out that M/s AIL had been
allocated Brinda, Sisai and Miral coal blocks whereas M/s CIAL
had been allocated Chitarpur coal block. This fact was also
confirmed vide letter dated 04.06.2013 of PW-18 S.K. Shahi
which is Ex. P-6/PW-17 [D-42].
861. Learned DLA explained that disclosure about
previous allocation was necessary as it provided information
about performance of a company which was group or associate
company of the applicant. He referred to testimony of PW-4 R.K.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 304 of 343
Sutradhar who is from office of Coal Controller and produced
record about development of coal blocks earlier allocated to
group companies of Abhijeet Group. Such record is Ex. PW-4/B
(Colly.), Ex. PW-4/C (Colly.), Ex. PW-1/B (Colly.) and Ex. PW-
1/C (Colly.) [D-47, D-48, D-49 and D-50 respectively]. Referring
to these reports, learned DLA contended that the reports show
that development of the earlier allocated coal blocks was poor
and to hide this fact, previous allocations were not disclosed.
862. Learned DLA referred to the testimony of PW-1
Harshad Pophali and submitted that all the misrepresentations
were made upon instructions of A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He
also referred to testimony of PW-3 Sanjay Dey who had attended
meetings of the Screening Committee alongwith A-2 and who
has deposed that the presentation was also made upon
instructions and directions of A-2.
863. Learned DLA submitted that A-2 was also
instrumental in execution of MoU dated 15.11.2006 between
JICPL & IISIPL [Ex. PW-3/A, D-17, Pg. 1-3], MoU dated
08.01.2007 between IISIPL and IL&FS [Ex. PW-3/B, D-17, Pg.
5-12] and MoU dated 02.04.2007 again between IISIPL and
IL&FS [Ex. PW-3/C, D-7, Pg. 1-7].
864. He thus, contended that A-1 & A-2 have committed
the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Learned DLA thus argued
that prosecution has proved the charge for the offence u/s 420
IPC.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 305 of 343
865. The submissions of Sh. Umang Katariya, learned
counsel for A-1/JICPL have already been noted.
866. Sh. Mudit Jain, learned counsel for A-2 Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal strongly refuted the contentions of learned
DLA.
867. Learned counsel termed the testimony of PW-1 as
unreliable. He contended that false accusations have been made
by PW-1 against A-2. He submitted that earlier PW-1 had stated
that various applications for allocation were prepared as per
instructions of A-2 as well as Dr. V.S. Garg. However, later on he
changed his stand and put the entire blame upon A-2 only.
Learned counsel contended that there is no evidence to show that
A-2 had given instructions for filling up the informations in the
application, feedback form and presentation. He contended that
PW-1’s statement is a result of improvement and embellishments
and thus cannot be relied upon. He referred to testimony of PW-6
who had stated that application was prepared by PW-1.
868. Learned counsel thus contended that A-2 had no role
in preparation of the application, the feedback form or the
presentation.
869. Regarding networth and promoter issue, learned
counsel argued that everything was disclosed by the accused in
the covering letter which is also part of the application. He relied
upon Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 306 of 343
293 and contended that there was no intention to cheat.
870. He countenanced the stand of prosecution that there
was no SPV. Learned counsel heavily relied upon MoU dated
08.01.2007 [ Ex. PW-3/B, D-17, Pg. 5-12] showing that there
was agreement between IL&FS one one side and IISIPL and
JICPL on the other side that JICPL would be SPV for
establishing the power plant. Learned counsel pointed out that it
was also agreed between the executants of the MoU that
networth of IL&FS could be used and mentioned in the
application and other documents.
871. Learned counsel referred to general guidelines
issued by MoC [Ex. PW-11/A-7 (Colly.), D-37, Pg. 73-94/c] and
particularly referred to guideline No. 9 wherein it was provided
that networth of the principals of JV/SPV company was to be
considered to determine inter se priority. Learned counsel
vehemently submitted that IL&FS as well as IISIPL were
principals of SPV namely JICPL and thus their networth could be
mentioned and considered. He further submitted that there was
no restriction in the MoU dated 08.01.2007 [Ex. PW-3/B, D-17,
Pg. 5-12] about use of networth of IL&FS.
872. Learned counsel referred to testimony of PW-14
A.K. Kutty and contended that financial strength of financial
institutions could be taken into consideration as per policy and as
told by PW-14.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 307 of 343
873. Learned counsel forcefully highlighted that officials
of IL&FS were present during Screening Committee meetings
relating to presentations. One was Sanjay Mundley (PW-8) and
the other was Ankur Rajan. Learned counsel again pointed out
that Ankur Rajan has not been examined by the prosecution and
adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution. Learned
counsel contended that these two officials of IL&FS did not
object to any of the contents of the presentation. They did not
dispute that IL&FS was a co-promoter of JICPL or about use of
its networth. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of this
court delivered in the case of Y. Harish Chandra (NPPL‘s case)
and submitted that under similar facts, it was held that presence
of official of co-applicant/co-promoter indicated consent to use
of networth.
874. Learned counsel additionally submitted that
networth was not the only criteria for allocation of the coal block.
Further, there was no minimum threshold of networth provided
anywhere by MoC. He contended that the MoP had adopted
UMPP criteria on its own and which was not within the
knowledge of applicant companies. He also emphasized that
meaning of the word ‘networth’ was not specified by MoC and
its definition was never put in public domain as has been stated
by PW-11 in cross-examination. Similarly, he contended that
there was no clarity regarding SPV or JV as well as Principal.
875. Learned counsel also referred to cross-examination
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 308 of 343
of IO/PW-17 wherein he admitted that during investigation it
could not be substantiated that JICPL had fraudulently claimed
itself to be SPV managed by IISIPL and IL&FS in order to
embellish its claim about networth.
876. Learned counsel also referred to testimony of DW-1
Manish Rajvaidya who told that it was understanding between
the constituents of SPV that IL&FS will be co-applicant and co-
promoter and its networth could be used.
877. Learned counsel specified that the figures of
networth provided in the application are not incorrect. He
submitted that the figures are correct. However, the issue is
regarding whether the networth figure of IL&FS could even be
mentioned or not. According to learned counsel, there is enough
material on record to show that networth figure of IL&FS could
be mentioned alongside networth figures of IISIPL and JICPL.
878. Regarding location of the EUP, first and foremost
contention of learned counsel is that no charge was framed
regarding the said aspect. There are only some observations in
the order on charge and prosecution was allowed to lead evidence
on it.
879. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that since the
beginning, it was the intention of the applicant company that
EUP would be set up in Bihar only. He referred to covering letter
[D-3], presentation [D-34, Pg. 68], feedback form [D-34, Pg. 66-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 309 of 343
67], Disbursement Memo [D-11, Pg. 1], letter dated 14.09.2007
[D-18, Pg. 64-65] and letter dated 17.09.2007 [D-18, Pg. 77-78].
880. Learned counsel pointed out that it was specified in
the covering letter that depending on the allocation of coal block,
plant will be set up in Bihar or West Bengal. He referred to the
MoU dated 08.01.2007 [Ex. PW-3/B, D-17, Pg. 5-12] and to
Clause 5(a) wherein roles and responsibilities were described. It
was specified that it was role and responsibility of IL&FS to
submit application to MoC for allocation of coal block as a co-
promoter. It was further mentioned in the proposal of IL&FS [D-
7, Pg. 19] that IL&FS would assist the SPV in selecting the most
appropriate site for the power project. Learned counsel submitted
that there was agreement between the parties to set up the power
plant/EUP in Bihar. He asserted that the Screening Committee
wrongly noted that EUP was to be in West Bengal which was
clarified later on and has been taken note of vide noting dated
15.05.2008 [D-34, Pg. 49/n]. He pointed out that Govt. of Bihar
had issued letter of support dated 25.04.2007 which was
mentioned in the feedback form itself [D-34, Pg. 36/c]. He
pointed out that in the presentation also, location of EUP was
mentioned as Bihar.
881. Learned counsel referred to the Disbursement Memo
[D-11, Pg. 1] issued by IL&FS and pointed out that in this
document also, location of the power plant was mentioned as
Bihar.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 310 of 343
882. He also referred to letter dated 14.09.2007 [D-18,
Pg. 64] sent by JICPL to the Hon’ble PM and wherein also, the
company emphasized that location of its EUP was in Bihar and
thus sought change of location. Another letter sent in this regard
is dated 17.09.2007 sent by JICPL to MoC [D-18, Pg. 77] and
thereby change of location of EUP to Bihar was sought.
883. Learned counsel referred to Clause 2 of MoU dated
15.11.2006 [Ex. PW-3/A, D-17, Pg. 1-3] and Clause 3 of MoU
dated 08.01.2007 [Ex. PW-3/B, D-17, Pg. 5-12] and contended
that conjoint reading of the two clauses would show that
intention was that coal mine was to be located either in
Jharkhand, Orissa or West Bengal and not the EUP. He submitted
that the word ‘and’ had inadvertently crept in the sentence in later
MoU. He also contended that there is no evidence that change of
location was made upon instructions of A-2.
884. Learned counsel thus contended that no
misrepresentation was made with respect to location of the EUP.
885. Regarding appraisal, learned counsel put forth that
the prosecution has not substantiated the said allegation. He
argued that no evidence has been led on this issue. Learned
counsel contended that this allegation was not part of allegations
as appear in the FIR nor it is part of the closure report. It was
only in the order on charge that the said issue has cropped up.
Learned counsel submitted that there is no explicit allegation that
appraisal report was fraudulently withheld. He pleaded that no
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 311 of 343
misrepresentation was made regarding appraisal. He referred to
the application [Ex. PW1/A (Colly.), D-3] and also to serial
number 21 in the form and submitted that it was correctly
mentioned that DPR had been appraised by IL&FS group. He
argued that no evidence has been led that DPR was not so
appraised by IL&FS. He referred to the covering letter as well as
the feedback form wherein also it was so claimed. He further
referred to the presentation affirming the said fact.
886. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that filing of
appraisal report was not mandatory. He contended that filing of
appraisal report was required only if appraisal report was
prepared after appraisal. According to him, merely if appraisal
was done, there was no obligation to file the appraisal report
because the report was not in existence.
887. He also emphasized that the duty to appraise the
DPR and prepare the appraisal report was upon IL&FS and not
JICPL. Therefore, for the absence of the appraisal report,
JICPL/A-1 or A-2 cannot be held responsible. He again pointed
out that officials of IL&FS were present during presentations and
they did not raise any objection at any point of time. He also
pointed out that no question was asked from A-2 regarding
appraisal report in his statement u/s 313 CrPC which is fatal to
the prosecution case. He relied upon Naresh Kumar Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi, 2024 INSC 464.
888. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that non-
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 312 of 343
filing of the appraisal report was merely a procedural omission
and it was not an offence.
889. Regarding syndication, learned counsel contended
that the said issue was not part of FIR or closure report. Same
was also not impressed upon in the order on charge but there was
only slight reference.
890. Learned counsel submitted that there are various
documents showing that syndication of debt had been arranged.
He referred to proposal of IL&FS dated 08.01.2007 [D-7, Pg. 16-
30] wherein IL&FS had offered to develop financial model using
its syndication experience. He referred to the application form
[Ex. PW-1/A (Colly.), D-3] wherein there is no averment
regarding syndication and hence no false statement was made.
He also pointed out that in the guidelines issued by MoC [D-37,
Pg. 88/c] there is no reference to syndication. At the most, it
could be considered as parameter of financial preparedness. He
further referred to letter dated 11.01.2007 [D-17, Pg. 4] written
by Sh. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Assistant Vice President-
Syndication, IL&FS and in which IL&FS promised to syndicate
Rs. 4450 crores. Learned counsel referred to the feedback form
[Ex. PW1/E, D-34, Pg. 66/c] wherein also it was stated that
IL&FS had arranged syndication of Rs. 4450 crores; and to the
presentation [Ex. PW-1/F, D-34, Pg. 68/c to 79/c] wherein it was
stated that syndication for more than USD 1.8 billion had been
arranged. He further contended that prosecution has not led any
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 313 of 343
evidence showing that A-2 had instructed to make these claims.
891. Learned counsel further argued that officials of
IL&FS were present during presentations and did not object to
any such claim. Again reference was made to judgment of this
Court in NPPL‘s case.
892. Learned counsel referred to letter dated 11.01.2007
of IL&FS [D-17, Pg. 4] and argued that in this letter IL&FS had
undertaken to syndicate Rs. 4450 crores as debt requirement. He
also referred to another letter dated 23.04.2007 of IL&FS [D-18,
Pg. 73] wherein again commitment for arranging the debt was
made on behalf of IL&FS. He further pointed out that this letter
is signed by Sh. D.K. Mittal, Managing Director of IL&FS.
Learned counsel contended that prosecution did not examine Sh.
D.K. Mittal to show that any other inference can be drawn about
letter dated 23.04.2007.
893. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no
evidence that this information was even considered by the
Screening Committee. He again complained that no question was
asked from A-2 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC on this issue.
894. Regarding issue of previous allocation, learned
counsel argued that nothing was required to be disclosed as
JICPL had applied as an SPV and not as a group company. He
contended that no concealment was made. Further, no
inducement was caused due to such non-disclosure.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 314 of 343
895. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that JICPL
was an SPV as a matter of fact. The said SPV cannot be called a
group company. He also argued that it was nowhere provided in
the guidelines or otherwise that previous allocation would
operate as a disqualification for a fresh allocation.
896. Learned counsel extensively referred to internal file
notings of the CBI wherein there was discussion about this issue
and it was opined that disclosure of previous allocation was not
mandatory nor it was discussed during Screening Committee
meetings. Learned counsel pointed out that no company was
disqualified due to this issue.
897. Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW-18
S.K. Shahi and to his Letter/Office Memorandum dated
03.05.2013 [Ex. P-4/PW-17(Colly), D-26] wherein purpose of
seeking information about previous allocation was not stated and
only possible relevance was described for performance/track
record.
898. He also contended that meaning of ‘group’ or
‘associate’ company was nowhere explained and there was state
of confusion among applicant companies. He further submitted
that information about previous allocation was not of any value
for the purpose of deciding allocation. He pointed out that even
MoC did not know the purpose of seeking such information
about previous allocation.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 315 of 343
899. He referred to testimony of DW-1 and contended
that even otherwise it cannot be said that JICPL was a company
of Abhijeet Group. He submitted that Memorandum of
Association and Articles of Association of JICPL were annexed
with the application giving all the relevant informations. He thus
contended that there was no misrepresentation on this issue as
well.
900. Learned Counsel for A-2 highlighted that IL&FS
had agreed to invest in the project through the above referred
MoUs. He further emphasised that it has come in evidence that
IL&FS used to be associated with such projects for allocation of
coal blocks and used to allow its networth to be mentioned in the
application.
901. Learned DLA rebutted all these contentions also.
902. Regarding consideration of claim of appraisal of
DPR by the Screening Committee, learned DLA referred to para
10 and 13 of the minutes of the meeting dated 13.09.2007 of the
35th Screening Committee [Ex. PW-11/J-4 (Colly.), D-31, Pg. 1 to
41] wherein it has been recorded that based on the data furnished
by the applicant, and the feedback received from state
governments and MoP, the Committee assessed the applications,
and that the Screening Committee deliberated at length over the
information furnished by the applicant companies in the
application forms, during presentations and subsequently.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 316 of 343
903. Regarding non-filing of appraisal report, he referred
to the guidelines wherein it was provided that if the project report
was appraised by a lender, then appraisal report was to be filed.
He referred to testimony of PW-9 to show that DPR was never
appraised by IL&FS. Learned DLA contended that MoU dated
08.01.2007 was also concealed to hide the fact that EUP was not
to be located in Bihar. He further pointed out to letter dated
23.04.2007 of Sh. D.K. Mittal of IL&FS [D-18, Pg. 73] from
which it appears that IL&FS was still working on achieving
financial closure. He further referred to letter dated 11.01.2007
[D-17, Pg. 4] from which it is apparent that even DPR was not
prepared.
904. Learned DLA has contended that networth of IL&FS
was used by accused persons so as to become eligible for
processing of applications by outshining others. He referred to
the MoP criteria of 0.50 crore per Mega Watt. He contended that
JICPL could not have pre-qualified the MoP criteria if it had not
used networth of IL&FS.
905. Regarding meaning of the word ‘principal’, learned
DLA referred to the order on charge dated 07.12.2016 and
contended that this issue has already been explained in that order.
He also referred to para 9 of the guidelines (D-37). He
highlighted that filing of appraisal report was mandatory if the
project report was appraised by a lender.
906. He has referred to evidence of PW-9 Pankaj Sakhuja
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 317 of 343
wherein the witness has stated that to his knowledge, DPR was
not appraised by IL&FS.
907. Regarding parity with the case of NPPL, learned
DLA pointed out various dissimilarities between the two cases.
Rather learned DLA submitted that this case is on parity with the
case of JLD. Learned DLA argued that in NPPL‘s case, copy of
MoU was annexed with the application which is not the case
here. He also pointed out that copy of MoU was not filed and
rather concealed to hide that JICPL was a group company of
Abhijeet Group. As various allocations were made to other
companies of Abhijeet Group, and as progress in those cases was
not good, A-1 & A-2 decided to conceal the fact that JICPL was
group company of Abhijeet Group. He also submitted that NPPL
had made progress on various fronts which is also absent in the
present case. Further, the state govt. and the administrative
Ministry both had recommended allocation in favour of NPPL
whereas in case of JICPL, MoP had made recommendation for
Patal East coal block for EUP in Bihar and state govt. of West
Bengal had made recommendation for Mahuagarhi coal block for
EUP in Burdwan District, West Bengal but said EUP was
replaced with EUP in Bihar at the time of presentation.
908. Regarding non-examination of Sh. D.K. Mittal from
IL&FS as a witness by the prosecution, learned DLA relied upon
Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP, Crl. A. No. 339/2014
decided on 04.02.2022 and contended that if Sh. Mittal was
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 318 of 343
important witness for the defence, they could have called him.
909. Regarding reliability of PW-1 Harshad Pophali,
learned DLA submitted that he is a reliable witness and his
testimonies have been accepted in the case of JLD (by this Court)
and in the case of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [by the Court
of Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, the then Learned Special Judge, PC Act
(CBI), CBC-01, RADC].
910. Regarding relevance of networth, learned DLA
argued that networth was of extreme importance. He pointed out
that networth of JICPL was only Rs. 1 lakh and it thus used
networth of IL&FS and IISIPL to obtain allocation of coal block.
911. Referring to MoU dt. 08.01.2007 (Ex. PW-3/B, D-
17, Pg. 5-12), learned DLA pointed out that the project as per this
MoU was to be set up either in Jharkhand or Orissa or West
Bengal. There was no mention of any project in Bihar.
912. Learned DLA highlighted that six applications were
filed by A-1 company out of which four applications were for
EUP at Aurangabad, Bihar and two were for EUP at Burdwan,
West Bengal. He pointed out that in the application for
Mahuagarhi coal block, EUP was mentioned as at Burdwan, West
Bengal whereas during presentation same was changed to
Pirpainti, Bihar. He submitted that there was no application for
EUP at Pirpainti, Bihar. The EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal was
admittedly given up during presentation. He referred to meeting
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 319 of 343
notice dt. 06.06.2007 (D-30, Pg. 43) in which it was provided
that applicant company was to make presentation for all its
applications. Learned DLA thus highlighted that presentation was
made for EUP at Pirpainti for which there was no application. He
also referred to various letters to show that JICPL was company
of Abhijeet Group. He also referred to one letter dated
17.08.2007 sent by JICPL to govt. of Bihar [D-35, Pg. 83] in
which place of EUP was mentioned as at Banka, Bihar again for
which there was no application.
913. Learned counsel for A-2 repelled all these
contentions as well. He had filed additional writtten submissions
in the form of rebuttal submissions and therein contended that
presentation was made for EUP in West Bengal also. He
contended that location of EUP was changed from West Bengal
to Bihar and it was duly intimated during presentation and
mentioned in the feedback form. He relied upon Geeta vs. State
of UP & Ors., 2007 CriLJ 2222 and contended that there was no
cheating as alternative option was mentioned by the applicant
company. He submitted that the company was simultaneously
making efforts to establish EUP at Bihar and West Bengal. He
further contended that prosecution has not proved that A-2 had
any connection with letter dt. 23.08.2007 [D-35, Pg. 36] sent to
govt. of West Bengal.
914. I have considered the submissions.
915. I shall firstly deal with submissions of learned
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 320 of 343
counsel for JICPL/A-1.
916. Learned counsel for A-1 company has taken resort to
Sec. 32A of IBC. It will have to be seen firstly whether the said
provision is applicable to the facts of the present case or not.
917. The relevant provision of Sec. 32A IBC reads as
under:
“32A. Liability for prior offences, etc.–(1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other
law for the time being in force, the liability of a corporate
debtor for an offence committed prior to the commencement
of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall cease,
and the corporate debtor shall not be prosecuted for such an
offence from the date the resolution plan has been approved
by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31, if the
resolution plan results in the change in the management or
control of the corporate debtor to a person who was not–
(a) a promoter or in the management or control of the
corporate debtor or a related party of such a person; or
(b) a person with regard to whom the relevant investigating
authority has, on the basis of material in its possession,
reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired for the
commission of the offence, and has submitted or filed a
report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or
Court:
Provided that if a prosecution had been instituted during the
corporate insolvency resolution process against such
corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of
approval of the resolution plan subject to requirements of this
sub-section having been fulfilled:
Provided further that every person who was a “designated
partner” as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Limited
Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), or an “officer
who is in default”, as defined in clause (60) of section 2 of
the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), or was in any mannerCBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 321 of 343
incharge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the
conduct of its business or associated with the corporate
debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly
involved in the commission of such offence as per the report
submitted or complaint filed by the investigating authority,
shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted and punished for
such an offence committed by the corporate debtor
notwithstanding that the corporate debtor’s liability has
ceased under this sub-section.
(2) xxxx”
918. Thus for Sec. 32A to be applicable, it is required that
(i) the Resolution Plan has been approved by the Adjudicating
Authority under Sec. 31, and (ii) the same should result in change
in Management or control of corporate debtor. Further such new
management (or controlling persons) must not consist of or be
persons as are mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of Sec. 32A(1).
919. Section 32-A of IBC specifically provides that the
new management of a company undergoing revival/
reconstruction will not be prosecuted for previous acts. There is a
reason for enacting such provision. If the new management
which is taking over a sick company is allowed to be prosecuted
for previous acts of the sick company, same will act as
discouragement for such new management. No new management
will come forward to take care of sick companies if they are
going to be prosecuted for previous acts of such sick companies.
It is only for encouraging new management to come forward to
help sick companies that such a beneficial provision was enacted.
920. Nothing has been shown by learned counsel which
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 322 of 343
indicates that resolution plan has been approved by the
Adjudicating Authority u/s 31 IBC or if approved plan has
resulted in change in management of the kind envisaged under
the provision of Sec. 32A IBC. Hence, contentions of learned
counsel are rejected. JICPL/A-1 cannot evade liability only on
the ground as taken by learned counsel for the OL. If the offence
is made out, the company JICPL/A-1 will be squarely liable.
921. Now as to the case on merits against A-1 and A-2, as
per the certificate of incorporation, company JICPL/A-1 was
incorporated on 16.07.2002. The Memorandum of Association
and Articles of Association are on record in D-3 as per which
initial directors were A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and his brother
Arbind Jayaswal.
922. Networth was an important factor although it was
not the sole factor for recommending allocation of coal block.
The networth of an applicant company provided insight
regarding capacity of the company to complete the project.
Importance of networth cannot be undermined. A-1 and A-2
knew the importance of networth and therefore joined IL&FS to
use its networth.
923. The accused persons have been charged with
mentioning the networth of M/s IL&FS in the application form
and the feedback form wrongly. The wrongfulness does not relate
to the figures of the networth. Rather it relates to the very act of
considering the said networth worth mentioning in the
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 323 of 343
application form and feedback form alongside networth of JICPL
and IISIPL. In other words, the prosecution has alleged that
accused persons wrongly relied upon the networth of M/s IL&FS
and was not entitled to mention the same in the application form
and feedback form.
924. Two MoUs were executed between the three
companies. Firstly, MoU dt. 15.11.2006 was executed between
JICPL and IISIPL which is Ex. PW-3/A [D-17, Pg. 1-3].
Secondly, MoU dt. 08.01.2007 was executed between IISIPL and
IL&FS which is Ex. PW-3/B [D-17, Pg. 5-12]. By virtue of first
MoU, IISIPL proposed to set up Integrated Energy Project (IEP)
of 1215 MW and JICPL agreed to be the SPV. By virtue of the
second MoU, IL&FS agreed to join the said SPV.
925. However, it is important to note that as per clause 3
of MoU dt. 08.01.2007, the IEP was to be located in state of
Jharkhand/Orissa/West Bengal only. Further, as per the
definition of ‘The Project’ in 2(f), the IEP was to be located in
these three states only.
926. Therefore, when A-2 says that it was mentioned in
covering letter that EUP could be set up in Bihar also, then the
said EUP was out of purview of the two MoUs and as such, there
was no SPV for Bihar project. It has been argued that the
company always intended to set up power plant in Bihar only. If
this is the case, then it must be stated that there was no SPV for
project at Bihar.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 324 of 343
927. It was primarily the reason for non-filing of the
MoUs also alongwith the application. Because application was
filed for West Bengal project but company intended to set up
project in Bihar and for Bihar there was no MoU.
928. Learned counsel also made an interesting argument.
He contended that what was envisaged in the MoUs was location
of coal mine at Jharkhand/Orissa/West Bengal and not location of
EUP.
929. The MoU dt. 15.11.2006 provided as under:
“2. ISIPL wish to develop an Integrated Energy
Project of 1215 MW capacity based on a captive coal
mine to be located in the State of Jharkhand / Orissa/
West Bengal (“Project”) …”
930. The MoU dt. 08.01.2007 provided as under:
” (3) The Parties wish to partner with each other to
develop an Integrated Energy Project of 1215 MW
capacity based on a captive coal mine and to be located
in the State of Jharkhand / Orissa / West Bengal (“the
Project”)…..”
931. Learned counsel argued that from MoU dt.
15.11.2006, it is apparent that location of captive coal mine was
to be either in Jharkhand or Orissa or West Bengal. He
contended that in the MoU dt. 08.01.2007 also, the intention was
the same but inadvertently, the word ‘and’ was typed and which
probably conveyed that location of EUP was to be at Jharkhand
or Orissa or West Bengal whereas it was still location of captive
coal mine.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 325 of 343
932. I am not impressed with this arguments. This
contention is without any substance at all. The perusal of the
sentences in the MoUs clearly show that what was intended was
location of the project and not the coal mine. In both the MoUs,
location of IEP was being described as either at Jharkhand or
Orissa or West Bengal.
933. IL&FS was an established funds supplier or
arranger. It was a government company. Association of IL&FS
definitely contributed to present better preparedness.
934. No one from IL&FS was director or shareholder in
JICPL and thus IL&FS was not principal/promoter of JICPL. For
this reason, networth of IL&FS or for that matter networth of
IISIPL could not been included in networth of JICPL. It is true
that reliance of financial strength of IL&FS could be taken into
consideration but it was always subject to such association being
legally valid. As there was no SPV for Bihar project, networth of
IL&FS could not have been joined.
935. The presence of Sanjay Mundley/PW-8 and one
Ankur Rajan (both from IL&FS) in the Screening Committee at
the time of presentation does not bolster the case of the defence.
Though they did not dispute any of the assertions made in the
presentation for EUP in Bihar yet it does not mean that there was
an SPV for EUP in Bihar either in fact or in law.
936. Further, place of setting up of EUP could not have
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 326 of 343
been kept flexible. A fixed place of EUP was required to be
stated. It was provided in the guidelines that separate application
was required for each separate EUP and Coal Block. It means
that if Coal Block ‘X’ was sought for two different EUPs ‘Y’ and
‘Z’, then two applications were required. Similarly, if for EUP
‘X’ different Coal Blocks ‘Y’ or ‘Z’ were sought, still separate
applications were required.
937. JICPL/A-1 had filed six applications for power
plant. One application was for Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at
Burdwan, West Bengal [Ex. PW1/A (Colly.), D-3; and another
copy is also marked as Ex. PW6/E (Colly.), D-18]; others were
for Amarkonda Murgadangal for EUP at Aurangabad, Bihar [Ex.
PW6/B (Colly.), D-18, Pg. 1-7], Patal East for EUP at
Aurangabad, Bihar [Ex. PW6/C (Colly.), D-18, Pg. 19-27],
Ashok Karketa Central for EUP at Aurangabad, Bihar [Ex.
PW6/F (Colly.), D-18, Pg. 39-45], Ganeshpur for EUP at
Aurangabad, Bihar [Ex. PW6/G (Colly.), D-18, Pg. 46-52] and
Gourangdih ABC for EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal [Ex. PW6/H
(Colly.), D-18, Pg. 53-59].
938. As per feedback form [Ex. PW1/E, D-34, Pg. 1383-
1384], location of EUP was mentioned as Pirpainti, Distt.
Bhagalpur, Bihar. Firstly, there was no application of
Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
Secondly, for Patal East coal block, EUP was mentioned as
Aurangabad, Bihar whereas in feedback form, location of EUP
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 327 of 343
was Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, Bihar. Thus there was no application
for the said EUP at Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
939. In the additional written submissions, it is mentioned
that alternative location was also mentioned as Burdwan, West
Bengal. However, there is no substance in this submission
because there was no provision for mentioning alternative
location. If the company intended to mention alternative
location, it should have filed separate application for that.
940. Learned counsel for A-2 has forcefully relied upon
Disbursement Memo, D-11 wherein location of EUP is
mentioned as Bihar. Again, this reliance is also misconceived as
there was no application for Mahuagarhi coal block for Bihar
EUP.
941. The grievance of learned counsel about not putting
any question regarding letter dt. 23.08.2007 in statement u/s 313
CrPC to give opportunity to A-2 to explain his stand is ill-
founded. It must be pointed out that letter dt. 24.08.2007 of
Govt. of West Bengal [Ex. PW11/H-1 (Colly.), D-35, Pg. 22-49]
of which letter dt. 23.08.2007 formed part of [at Pg. 36] was put
to the accused and sufficient opportunity was given for
explanation. After putting letter dt. 24.08.2007 to A-2, as
mentioned in Q. No. 253, the information supplied by JICPL to
govt. of West Bengal was specifically put to A-2 in Q. No. 254.
As such, no prejudice has been caused to A-2.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 328 of 343
942. Regarding grievance of learned counsel about no
charge being framed about location of EUP, it must be mentioned
that in the charge itself, reference was made to order on charge
dt. 07.12.2016. Further, the misrepresentation regarding
networth has a co-relation with location of EUP as well. Thus no
prejudice has been caused to the accused in this regard.
943. JICPL/A-1 was the applicant which ultimately came
to Abhijeet Group as is visible from Fifth Schedule of IFS dt.
31.07.2008 [Ex. PW-3/F, D-20, Pg. 99]. There are various letters
on letterhead of JICPL where name of Abhijeet is also mentioned
by the side. Further, in the MoU dt. 08.01.2007 itself, IISIPL has
been described as a part of Abhijeet Group. These circumstances
do show association of JICPL and IISIPL with Abhijeet Group.
As such, JICPL should have disclosed about previous allocation
of coal blocks to other companies of the Abhijeet Group. Non-
disclosure has to be viewed with suspicion.
944. The motive of concealment of previous allocation is
also apparent. The progress of development of those coal blocks
was dismal. Therefore, to hide this failure, previous allocations
were concealed.
945. Reference to internal notings of the files of CBI
prepared during investigation is uncalled for and such notings
cannot be used for any purpose.
946. Regarding appraisal and syndication, it appears that
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 329 of 343
misrepresentations were made.
947. As far as appraisal is concerned, the argument of
learned counsel for A-2 – that only fact of appraisal was stated
and fact of preparation of appraisal report was not stated – seems
fanciful. If it was stated that appraisal was done then appraisal
report had to be filed. If report was not prepared, it should have
been got prepared and filed. That was the requirement of the
guidelines. The absence of appraisal report strongly indicates
that no appraisal was done.
948. As far as syndication is concerned, again false
statement was made. Learned counsel for the A-2 has greatly
relied upon some documents to show the syndication of Rs. 4450
Crores had been arranged. However, letter dt. 11.01.2007 [D-17,
Pg. 4] itself has exposed the falsity in those claims.
949. This letter itself shows that though IL&FS had
undertaken to syndicate Rs. 4,450 Crores as debt but it was also
stated that this syndication was subject to preparation of Detailed
Project Report, etc. Thus on 11.01.2007, even the DPR was not
ready and available. How could be there appraisal and appraisal
report and where was the occasion for syndication?
950. The claims made in documents such as proposal of
IL&FS dated 08.01.2007 [D-7, Pg. 16-30]; feedback form [Ex.
PW1/E, D-34, Pg. 66/c]; and presentation [Ex. PW-1/F, D-34, Pg.
68/c to 79/c] are rendered false from letter dt. 11.01.2007 [D-17,
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 330 of 343
Pg. 4] and from the fact that there was no DPR for EUP at
Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, Bihar. Also, letter dt. 23.04.2007 of IL&FS
[D-18, Pg. 73] further shows that IL&FS was still working on
achieving financial closure.
951. The circumstance of appraisal not being done was
put to A-2 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC also vide Q. No. 136.
There should be no grievance on this issue.
952. The present case relates to allocation of Mahuagarhi
coal block to A-1 company. In the beginning an advertisement
[Ex. PW 11/A-7 (Colly.). D-37, Pg. 73-94/c] was issued
regarding 38 coal blocks out of which 15 coal blocks were
reserved for power sector and the rest were for other end uses.
953. A-1 company submitted application [Ex. PW-1/A
(Colly.), D-3] seeking allocation of Mahuagarhi coal block. It
was signed by PW-6 Sudhir Kumar Gupta.
954. The application of JICPL was sent to Govt. of West
Bengal and Bihar. The application was also sent to MoP.
Presentation was made by JICPL/A-1 on 20.06.2007. Feedback
form was also submitted.
955. Alongwith the application form [Ex. PW-1/A
(Colly.), D-3], the accused company had also sent covering letter
dt. 05.01.2007 [at Pg. 8-9 in D-3]. As per list of annexures [at
Pg. 7 in D-3], various documents were annexed but MoUs were
not annexed which could show existence of SPV.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 331 of 343
956. In the application, Mahuagarhi coal block was
sought for EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal. However, in
presentation and feedback form, EUP was changed to Pirpainti,
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
957. MoP recommended Patal East coal block for EUP at
Bhagalpur, Bihar [vide Ex. PW-14/B-1 (Colly.), D-41, Pg. 49-
78]. Govt. of West Bengal recommended Mahuagarhi for EUP at
Burdwan, West Bengal [vide Ex. PW 11/D-2 (Colly.), D-30, Pg.
215-219]. Govt. of Jharkhand did not recommend any coal block
for JICPL. Govt. of Bihar supported EUP in Bihar [vide Ex. PW
11/D-3, D-30, Pg. 65].
958. It is most important to note that when Govt. of West
Bengal undertook verification exercise pursuant to letter of MoC,
JICPL gave information of progress made for EUP at Burdwan,
West Bengal vide letter dt. 23.08.2007 [in file Ex. PW-11/H
(Colly.), D-35, Pg. 36].
959. It is apparent that though it was being claimed that
the EUP would be set up in Bihar still the company claimed to
have made progress in EUP in West Bengal. This act of the
company is the most clinching circumstance showing
inducement. Despite claiming to set up EUP in Bihar, the
company did not give up EUP in West Bengal and thus induced
MoC into belief that it would set up EUP in Burdwan, West
Bengal. The report of Govt. of West Bengal also refers to
feedback form given for EUP at Burdwan. What appears is that
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 332 of 343
the company wanted the coal block under any circumstances.
960. Learned counsel for A-2, in his additional written
submissions in the form of rebuttal submissions, has contended
that there was no inducement as presentation was made for EUP
at Bihar as well as for EUP at West Bengal.
961. This plea is, however, not of any help to A-2 or for
that matter to A-1. In various letters of A-1 company for change
of location of EUP, it was claimed that presentation was made
only for EUP at Bihar for Mahuagarhi coal block. In his
statement u/s 313 CrPC also, A-2 has stated that presentation was
made for EUP in Bihar. His answer to Q. 134 may be referred to.
This shift in the stand of A-2 has occurred now.
962. Nonetheless it appears from the record, particularly
(i) report of government of West Bengal furnishing verification
report [PW-11/H-1 (Colly.), D-35, Pg. 22-49] having reference to
feedback form of EUP in West Bengal and (ii) recovery of
presentation for EUP at West Bengal, that a presentation was
possibly made for EUP at West Bengal also.
963. However, it is worth noting that there was no
application of the company for Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at
Bihar. Probably, it was realized by these accused and, therefore,
they made presentation for West Bengal EUP also. They induced
MoC to believe that EUP at Burdwan was still alive. The
Screening Committee fell for the trap and recommended
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 333 of 343
allocation of Mahuagarhi coal block for EUP at Burdwan, West
Bengal.
964. The MoP through CEA evaluated the claims on the
basis of feedback forms and presentations only. However, in the
feedback form and presentation also, there were
misrepresentations. It was claimed that JICPL was SPV for
Bihar Project but it was not so. The MoP had asked MoC for
verification of the claims made by the applicant company. This
circumstance shows that MoP did not believe in the claims made
by the applicant company and rather sought verification of the
said claims. However, the recommendation of MoP in favour of
JICPL for EUP in Bihar shows that JICPL had no intention to set
up EUP in West Bengal.
965. It is also worth noting that after recommendation of
the Screening Committee, when option letter was issued, JICPL
went ahead and formed a Joint Venture with CESC and obtained
allocation letter dt. 09.01.2008 [Ex. PW 11/L-1 (Colly.)] and
thereafter applied for change of location of EUP to Bihar. The
option was letter was naturally for EUP at West Bengal. A-1 and
A-2 had this knowledge that MoC was considering allocating
Mahuagarhi coal block for its EUP at Burdwan, West Bengal
which is apparent from its letters dt. 14.09.2007 sent to the PM
[D-18, Pg. 64] and 17.09.2007 sent to MoC [D-18, Pg. 77]. In
those letters, A-1 company insisted for allocation for Bihar EUP.
So, JICPL although told MoC that it was intending to set up EUP
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 334 of 343
at Bihar and not at West Bengal but still obtained allocation letter
dt. 09.01.2008 for West Bengal EUP by entering into JV with
CESC. These acts show the intention of the accused A-1 and A-
2.
966. The term ‘person’ includes the government. Reliance
is placed upon Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs. State of AP,
decided on 23/03/1964 by Hon’ble SC in which it has been held
that the word ‘person’ includes government also.
967. The inducement has been caused to the Screening
Committee as well as MoC, Govt. of India. Govt. of West Bengal
was fully supporting the project of JICPL at Burdwan without
knowing that JICPL had no intention to set up the said project in
its state. It too was induced.
968. The opinion of the IO that during investigation it
could not be substantiated that JICPL had fraudulently claimed
itself to be SPV managed by IISIPL and IL&FS has no value.
Once the case reaches the court, the opinion of the court matters.
All previous opinions are rendered irrelevant.
969. The company JICPL/A-1 is liable for making
misrepresentations and inducing various authorities. A-2/Manoj
Kumar Jayaswal is also liable. It is appearing from the record
that he was the person at whose instructions everything was
being done. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 show the
same. He was a Director since beginning. The company JICPL
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 335 of 343
came to his group later on.
970. Reference to judgment of this court in NPPL‘s case
is uncalled. One or the other fact makes a whole lot of
difference. In NPPL‘s case, the MoU was filed by the company
alongwith the application itself. Here, in this case, the MoUs
were never filed. This fact is alone enough to differentiate the
two cases.
971. Both A-1 and A-2 are thus held responsible for
making misrepresentations about networth and promoters which
also involves location of EUP, about appraisal and syndication
and also about previous allocations; and dishonestly or
fraudulently inducing the Screening Committee, MoC and Govt.
of India to allocate Mahuagarhi Coal Block to A-1 company.
972. Prosecution has proved the charge u/s 420 IPC
against A-1 and A-2.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. VIII
Whether there was any conspiracy among all the accused
persons?
973. It has already been held that no offence u/s 13(1)(d)
(iii) of PC Act is made out against A-3 to A-5. There is no
material to show that these three accused were in conspiracy with
A-1 and A-2 for any offence.
974. Now the conspiracy charge is limited to u/s
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 336 of 343
120-B/420 IPC only and that too only against A-1 company and
A-2/Director.
975. Learned DLA referred to various documents and
statement of witnesses to show that A-1 and A-2 were in
conspiracy with each other and obtained allocation of the coal
block through deception.
976. Learned Counsel for A-2 submitted that prosecution
has not established any circumstance proving any conspiracy. He
submitted that the process of allocation was very vast and at
various levels, verifications were also carried out by the
concerned authorities and thus possibility of any conspiracy has
been belied.
977. I have considered the submissions.
978. Regarding the offence of conspiracy, the
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of criminal
conspiracy as were made in the case State through
Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors.(1999) 5
SCC 253 would also be worth referring to. Hon’ble Supreme
Court summarized the broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy as under:
“591. Some of the broad principles governing the
law of conspiracy may be summarized though, as
the name implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive
of the principles.
Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal
conspiracy is committed when two or more persons
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 337 of 343
agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or
legal act by illegal means. When it is legal act by
illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of
criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law
where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is
intention to commit crime and joining hands with
persons having the same intention. Not only the
intention but there has to be agreement to carry out
the object of the intention, which is an offence. The
question for consideration in a case is did all the
accused had the intention and did they agree that
the crime be committed. It would not be enough for
the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused
merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it
may be, that offence be committed.
Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of
conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular
accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the
object of conspiracy has been achieved, any
subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not
make the accused a part of the conspiracy like
giving shelter to an absconder.
Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is
rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually, both the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from
the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
Conspirators may, for example, be enrolled in a
chain – A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and
all will be members of a single conspiracy if they so
intend and agree, even though each member knows
only the person who enrolled him and the person
whom he enrolls. There may be a kind of umbrella-
spoke enrollment, where a single person at the
center doing the enrolling and all the other members
being unknown to each other, though they know
that there are to be other members. These are
theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell
whether the conspiracy in a particular case falls into
which category. It may, however, even overlap. But
then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons
may be members of single conspiracy even though
each is ignorant of the identity of many others who
may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the
crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 338 of 343
agree to play the same or an active role.
When two or more persons agree to commit a crime
of conspiracy, then regardless of making or
considering any plans for its commission, and
despite the fact that no step is taken by any such
person to carry out their common purpose, a crime
is committed by each and every one who joins in
the agreement. There has thus to be two
conspirators and there may be more than that. To
prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary
that intended crime was committed or not. If
committed it may further help prosecution to prove
the charge of conspiracy.
It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree
to the common purpose at the same time. They may
join with other conspirators at any time before the
consummation of the intended objective, and all are
equally responsible. What part each conspirator is
to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as
to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and
when he left.
A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused
because it is forced them into a joint trial and the
court may consider the entire mass of evidence
against every accused. Prosecution has to produce
evidence not only to show that each of the accused
has knowledge of object of conspiracy but also of
the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy court has
to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to
the accused. Introduction of evidence against some
may result in the conviction of all, which is to be
avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy,
which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any
other substantive offence prosecution tries to
implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy
itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged
conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing
the precise contribution of each member of the
conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and
convincing evidence against each one of the
accused charged with the offence of conspiracy. As
observed by Judge Learned Hand that “this
distinction is important today when many
prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of
conspiracy all those who have been associated in
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 339 of 343
any degree whatever with the main offenders”.
As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and
not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence
of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal
conspiracy is complete even though there is no
agreement as to the means by which the purpose is
to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement,
which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy. The
unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy
need not be formal or express, but may be inherent
in and inferred from the circumstances, especially
declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators.
The agreement need not be entered into by all the
parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by
successive actions evidencing their joining of the
conspiracy.
It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a
partnership in crime, and that there is in each
conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the
prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more
persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any
of them pursuant to the agreement is in
contemplation of law, the act of each of them and
they are jointly responsible therefore. This means
that everything said, written or done by any of the
conspirators in execution or furtherance of the
common purpose is deemed to have been said,
done, or written by each of them. And this joint
responsibility extends not only to what is done by
any of the conspirators pursuant to the original
agreement but also to collateral acts incident to and
growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator
is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-
conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The
joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not
create a new conspiracy nor does it change the
status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact
that conspirators individually or in groups perform
different tasks to a common end does not split up a
conspiracy into several different conspiracies.
A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.
However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy
requires more than a merely passive attitude
towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits
an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 340 of 343
guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of
a conspiracy and goes along with other
conspirators, actually standing by while the others
put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he
intends to take no active part in the crime.”
979. In the case titled E.G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay,
AIR, 1961 SC 1762, the view whereof was affirmed and applied
in several later decisions, such as Ajay Aggarwal Vs Union of
India 1993 (3) SCC 609; Yashpal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab 1977
(4) SCC 540; State of Maharastra Vs. Som Nath Thapa 1996 (4)
SCC 659; Firozuddin Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7
SCC 596, Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed as under:
“―The gist of the offence is an agreement to break
the law. The parties to such an agreement will be
guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act
agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is
not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties
should agree to do a single illegal act. It may
comprise the commission of a number of acts.
Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act
would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is
prohibited by law. Under the first charge the
accused are charged with having conspired to do
three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact
that all of them could not be convicted separately in
respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in
considering the question whether the offence of
conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty
of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts,
though for individual offences all of them may not
be liable.”
980. Thus direct evidence qua the offence of criminal
conspiracy is hard to come up, therefore, the same is to be
ascertained from the overall facts and circumstances of a given
case.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 341 of 343
981. The material on record is sufficient enough to show
existence of conspiracy to cheat the government of India to
obtain allocation of Mahuagarhi coal block. A concerted effort is
visible from the beginning. The accused persons A-1 and A-2
ultimately succeeded also in getting the coal block allocated.
982. As such, it is held that both A-1 and A-2 were in
conspiracy to cheat government of India.
CONCLUSION
983. In view of the above discussion, A-1 M/s Jas
Infrastructure & Capital Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s Jas
Infrastructure & Power Ltd.) and A-2 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal are
held guilty and both are convicted for the offence punishable u/s
420 IPC and also u/s 120-B/420 IPC.
984. A-3 H.C. Gupta, A-4 K.S. Kropha and A-5 K.C.
Samria are hereby acquitted of all the charged. They are directed
to furnish bail bonds u/s 437-A CrPC for the same amount as
already furnished during trial.
985. A-3 H.C. Gupta, A-4 K.S. Kropha and A-5 K.C.
Samria request for accepting bonds already furnished by them for
the purposes of S. 437-A CrPC also. Heard. In view of request of
A-3 to A-5, the bail bonds already furnished by them are
accepted further for the purposes of section 437-A CrPC for a
period of six months.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 342 of 343
986. Digitally signed copy of the judgment be uploaded
on the website. Hard copies be prepared and be supplied to the
convicts free of cost.
987. Let convicts A-1 M/s JICPL and A-2 Manoj Kumar
Jayaswal be heard on sentence.
Announced in the Open Court today Digitally
signed by
on 06th day of June, 2025 SANJAY
SANJAY BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.06.09
14:59:34
+0530
(Sanjay Bansal)
Special Judge, (PC Act)(CBI),
(Coal Block Cases)-02,
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi: 06.06.2025.
CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 343 of 343