Coal news and updates

Coal scam: CBI directed to return unrelied documents to accused

A special court on Tuesday directed CBI to return the materials seized during its probe into a coal blocks allocation scam case which were not relied upon by the agency, to the accused.

The court's order came on a plea filed by accused company Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Limited (VISUL) and former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda's alleged close aide Vijay Joshi seeking directions to the CBI to produce certain documents which were seized by the agency during search operations.

"In these circumstances, it is thus directed that all the material/documents recovered and seized during the course of search operation carried out at the office and residential premises of accused no.1 (VISUL) and accused no.8 (Joshi) and which are not being relied upon by the prosecution be returned back to them by the IO (investigating officer)," Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar said.

The company and Joshi, along with Koda and six others, were summoned as accused by the court in the case pertaining to alleged irregularities in allocation of Rajhara North coal block in Jharkhand to VISUL.

In their petition, VISUL and Joshi had said that certain documents seized by CBI during its search operations were not filed in the court along with the chargesheet primarily on the grounds that these were not being relied upon.

Senior public prosecutor VK Sharma opposed the plea of both the accused contending that it was the sole prerogative of the investigating agency to rely upon any specific document or not.

The court, after hearing the submissions, observed that law regarding search carried out by the IO was well settled.

"I may also state that it was the bounden duty of the investigating agency while filing the chargesheet to also intimate that the rest of the material or documents which were seized during the course of search operation carried out at the office and residential premises of accused A1 and A8 are not being relied upon and may be returned back to the concerned accused persons," the judge said.

The court noted that the CBI was under a duty to inform it about the details of all documents or materials recovered and seized during search operation at the office or residential premises of both the accused which were not being relied upon so that these can be returned to them.

"A failure in this regard on the part of the investigating agency cannot give birth to a situation whereby all those documents be called upon by the court to be placed on record and thereafter to supply a copy thereof to the accused persons and thereby call upon the court to suo-motu take into consideration all those documents even though they are not being relied upon by the prosecution," it said.

The counsel appearing for VISUL and Joshi told the court that they would approach the IO along with a copy of the order after which the judge directed the IO to do the needful.

The court had earlier fixed April 20 for hearing arguments on framing of charges in the case.

Apart from VISUL, Joshi and Koda, former Jharkhand chief secretary Ashok Kumar Basu, former Coal Secretary H C Gupta, government servants Bipin Bihari Singh and Basant Kumar Bhattacharya, Kolkata-based VISUL's Director Vaibhav Tulsyan, chartered accountant Navin Kumar Tulsyan are accused in the case.

These eight accused were granted bail by the court after they had appeared before it in pursuance to the summons issued against them.

They were summoned as accused after the court had taken cognisance of the offences under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servants) of the IPC and under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

CBI, in its chargesheet, had said that VISUL had applied for allocation of Rajhara North coal block on January 8, 2007 to the Ministry of Coal.

CBI had said although Jharkhand government and Steel Ministry did not recommend the case of VISUL for coal block allocation, the 36th Screening Committee recommended the block to the accused firm.

source:http://www.firstpost.com