HC Gupta Coal Block Conviction Order 29052017

IN THE COURT OF SH.
BHARAT PARASHAR, SPECIAL JUDGE

(PC ACT) (CBI)-7, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0053472014
C.C. No. 04/14

RC No. 219 2012 E 0016
Branch: CBI/EO-1/EO-II, New Delhi
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors.
U/s. 120-B IPC, 409/420 IPC,
Sec. 13 (1) (c)/ 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act 1988,
120-B IPC r/w Section 409/420 IPC &
Sec. 13 (1) (c)/ 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988
Date of order on cognizance : 13.10.2014

Date of framing of charge : 14.10.2015
Date of final arguments : 08.03.2017
Date of judgment : 19.05.2017
In re:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Vs.
(1) M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd.

17, Bandhavgarh Colony, Satna,
Madhya Pradesh - 485001
Through AR Sh. Ankit Gandhi (Convicted)
(2) Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia S/o

Late Dr. D.S. Ahluwalia
R/o Plot No. 1, Bandhav Garh Colony,
Satna, Madhya Pradesh (Convicted)
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 1 of 350
(3) Amit Goyal S/o Sh. N.N. Goyal
R/o H.No. 141, Vidhyut Nagar-A,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Acquitted)
(4) Harish Chandra Gupta

S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Gupta,
R/o 377, Sector 15-A, NOIDA-201301,
Uttar Pradesh (Convicted)
(5) K.S. Kropha

S/o Late Sh. Sukh Das Kropha
R/o Circuit House Complex,
Kenche's Trace, Laban,
Shillong-793004, Meghalaya (Convicted)
(6) K.C. Samria

S/o Sh. G.L. Samria,
R/o H. No. 81, Rabinder Nagar,
New Delhi-03 (Convicted)
APPEARANCES
Present : Ld. Senior Advocate, Sh. R.S. Cheema, Special P.P.,

alongwith, Ld. DLA, Sh. V. K. Sharma, Ld. Senior P.P.,
Sh. A.P. Singh, Ld. Senior P.P., Sh. Sanjay Kumar
and Advocate Ms. Tarannum Cheema for CBI.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang for A-1, M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Sushil Bajaj for A-3 Amit Goyal,
Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Mohit Mathur with
Ld. Counsels Sh. B.S. Mathur and Sh. Rajat Mathur for
A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha and Ld. Counsels
Sh. Percivel Billimoria and Sh. Vikram Singh for
A-6 K.C. Samria.
JUDGEMENT
1. The present case pertains to allocation of Thesgora-B/

Rudrapuri coal block in favour of M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s KSSPL) by Ministry of Coal
(MOC), Government of India.
2. Briefly stated the necessary facts of the prosecution case are

as under:
In November 2006, Ministry of Coal (MOC), Government of

India issued an advertisement inviting applications for allocation of 38
Coal Blocks for captive coal mining from companies engaged in
generation of power, production of iron and steel and production of
cement. The advertisement stated that out of 38 Coal Blocks, 15 Coal
Blocks were earmarked for power sector and 23 Coal Blocks were
earmarked for non-power sector i.e iron steel and cement. The
companies which were registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956
were given liberty to apply for one or more of such Coal Blocks. The
application form to be filled up, documents to be enclosed, coal
blocks on offer or other guidelines as to how the applications shall be
processed or the factors on which inter-se priority may be decided
from amongst competing applicant companies were all made
available on the website of MOC i.e. www.coal.nic.in. The
applications were to be submitted in five copies.
3. The applications were also to be accompanied with a demand
draft of Rs. 10,000/- beside other documents as were asked for in the
detailed guidelines. The application form also required the applicant
companies to submit various details about their company or the end
use project if already established by them or likely to be established
by them regarding which Coal Block allocation was sought for. The
companies were required to mention their turnover (in crores) of the
last three preceding years beside mentioning the profit earned (in
crores) in the last three years and the net worth (in crores) as on
31.03.2006. The details of the proposed end use project viz. the
existing capacity, if any, alongwith proposed capacity of the project
and the ultimate capacity (total) and ROM Coal requirement were
also required to be mentioned. Various other details regarding the
status of the end use project with respect to land, water, equipments,
civil construction, finance etc. and also the clearances which were
already obtained or were applied for were also required to be
mentioned. The details of the investment already made or proposed
to be made were also required to be mentioned in the application
form.
4. As regard coal blocks reserved for companies engaged in

non-power sector, MOC received about 674 applications from 184
companies. As regard Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block 10
applications including that of M/s KSSPL were received. The
application of M/s KSSPL (Accused No. 1) dated 04.01.2007 was
signed by its authorised signatory/Director namely Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia (Accused No. 2) and was submitted to MOC on 09.01.2007
[About 748 applications were received by MOC for 19 coal blocks
reserved for companies engaged in power sector]. While 35th
Screening Committee dealt with applications received for allotment of
coal blocks reserved for companies engaged in power sector, 36th
Screening Committee however considered applications for 23 coal
blocks as were reserved for companies engaged in non-power sector.
5. As per the procedure provided in the guidelines for

processing of applications, four copies of all the applications were
sent to Administrative Ministries (Ministry of Steel in the present
case), Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited, (CMPDIL)
and the State Governments concerned where the various Coal
Blocks applied for or the end use projects were situated or were
proposed to be established (State of Madhya Pradesh in the present
case) for their views and comments. Upon receipt of views and
comments from State Governments and the Administrative Ministries
etc., the applications were then referred to 36th Screening
Committee. The Screening Committee as was constituted by
Government of India was given the task of screening the claims of
various applicant companies and to thereafter make recommendation
for allotment of various Coal Blocks in favour of different eligible
companies. The 36th Screening Committee thus conducted five
meetings on 07.12.2007, 08.12.2007, 07.02.2008, 08.02.2008 and
03.07.2008 to consider applications qua coal blocks reserved for
companies engaged in non-power sector. The Screening Committee
also gave all the applicant companies an opportunity to present their
case before it beside also requiring them to fill up a feedback form,
titled "Latest Status of End Use Project". The format of the feedback
form was also uploaded on the website of MOC. The applicant
companies were supposed to fill-up the said feedback form and were
to submit the same to Screening Committee in 25 companies at the
time of making presentation.
6. On 08.12.2007 one Amit Goyal (Accused No.3) who was the

Chartered Accountant of A-1 M/s KSSPL appeared for presentation
before the Screening Committee (However as per A-3 Amit Goyal no
presentation was in fact made and no feedback form was submitted
as A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia failed to turn up before the Screening
Committee). Subsequently, the Screening Committee in its meeting
held on 03.07.2008 recommended allocation of 23 Coal Blocks
earmarked for non-power sector in favour of different applicant
companies. Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block was however
recommended being allotted jointly in favour of two companies i.e. A-
1 M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd.
7. However, after some time a lot of hues and cry came to be

raised in the public alleging that Coal Blocks have been allotted by
Government of India not only illegally but in furtherance of a criminal
conspiracy entered into by different applicant companies and the
MOC officers beside the Screening Committee members. Central
Vigilance Commission thus chose to look into the entire allocation
process as there were large number of allegations of corruption
against the public servants involved. After examining various files of
allocation of Coal Blocks, the Central Vigilance Commission made a
reference to CBI to investigate into the allegations of alleged
corruption by the public servants in the matter of allocation of Coal
Blocks to private companies during the period 2006-2009.
8. On the basis of said reference a preliminary enquiry was

instituted on 01.06.2012 by CBI with respect to allocation of various
coal blocks including Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block to A-1, M/s
KSSPL. During the course of said preliminary enquiry, the CBI prima
facie found an element of truth in the allegations of corruption in the
allocation of impugned Coal Block to A-1 M/s KSSPL warranting
further investigation. Accordingly an FIR was registered on
13.10.2012 against A-1 M/s KSSPL and others including unknown
public servants for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w Section 420
IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption, Act 1988. The investigation of the case was carried out by
IO DSP Sanjay Dubey. However upon completion of investigation a
closure report was filed in the Court stating that no offence was found
to have been committed either by A-1 M/s KSSPL or by its directors
or by any public servant.
9. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to mention that during the

course of investigation it was however found by CBI that A-1 M/s
KSSPL in its application submitted for allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri Coal Block not only furnished false information with
regard to their financial strength i.e. net-worth but also as regard the
existing capacity of their end use project. It was submitted that in its
application A-1 M/s KSSPL had mentioned its net-worth for the year
2004-05 and 2005-06 as Rs. 40.40 crores and Rs. 64.75 crores
respectively. However, as per the documents filed by the company
with the Registrar of Companies, the actual net-worth of the company
for these two financial years was found to be Rs. 16.54 crores
(approx.) and Rs. 26.75 crores respectively. It was also found that the
company M/s KSSPL had also not filed its Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 alongwith its application even
though as per the guidelines issued by MOC while inviting
applications for allocation of Coal Blocks. Audited Annual Accounts/
Reports for the past three years i.e. 2005-06, 2004-05 and 2003-04
were to be filed alongwith the application. Thus, it was found that
while no Annual Account/Report for the year 2005-06 was at all filed
by company A-1 M/s KSSPL much less audited but even as regard
the year 2004-05 also only provisional balance sheet was filed
instead of the audited balance sheet. As regard the year 2003-04 the
audited balance sheet of Ahluwalia Mining Ltd. was however filed.
[The name of company Ahluwalia Mining Ltd. was subsequently
changed to Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. (KSSPL)]. The
company had however also filed audited balance sheet for the year
2002-03 and 2001-2002 of Ahluwalia Mining Ltd..
10. It was also found during the course of investigation that the
balance sheet of A-1 M/s KSSPL for the financial year 2004-2005
was signed by its Board of Directors on 01.09.2005 and was duly
audited by M/s Amit Goyal & Company, Jaipur, the Chartered
Accountants. The audited balance sheet was subsequently adopted
by the share holders of A-1 M/s KSSPL in their annual general
meeting held on 30.09.2005 and was filed with the office of Registrar
of Companies, Jaipur on 25.11.2005. As regard the balance sheet for
the year 2005-2006, the same was found to have been signed by the
Board of Directors on 02.09.2006 and it was also audited by M/s Amit
Goyal & Company, Jaipur vide their audit report dated 02.09.2006
itself. It was subsequently adopted by the share holders of A-1 M/s
KSSPL in their annual general meeting held on 30.09.2006 and was
thereafter filed with the office of Registrar of Companies, Jaipur on
16/17.01.2007. It was also found that as per the audited balance
sheet for the year 2005-06 the net-worth of the company as on
31.03.2006 was only Rs. 26.75 crores (approx.) and not Rs. 64.75
crores as was mentioned in their application.
11. A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, the Director of A-1 M/s KSSPL
who had signed the application of the company was thus found to
have falsely stated about the net-worth of the company in the
application as was submitted to MOC and he also did not attach the
audited balance sheets for the past three years as was required by
the guidelines issued by MOC.
12. It was also found during the course of investigation that there
was discrepancy even as regard the annual production capacity of
the company as mentioned in the application form at point No. 26.
However, it was stated by the IO, that as per the practice being
followed by the office of District Trade and Industry, Satna, Madhya
Pradesh with whom the company used to submit their annual
installed capacity statement, the annual turnover used to be
calculated by considering a figure of 300 working days of any
company in a given year. It was however stated that during the
course of investigation it was found that the company M/s KSSPL
remained in operation for 337 and 335 days respectively during the
financial year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and thus excess production
for 37 and 35 days respectively in the two financial years was also
accounted for in the figures mentioned in the application. It was also
stated that no logical reasoning could be found as to why a period of
300 days used to be only considered for ascertaining the annual
production capacity and not the actual number of days for which the
company remained under operation.
13. As regard the role of public servants involved i.e. officers of

MOC, it was stated that the applications so received in MOC
including that of A-1 M/s KSSPL could not be checked for their
eligibility and completeness in MOC in terms of the guidelines
governing allocation of coal blocks as were issued by MOC due to
shortage of manpower. It was further stated in the closure report that
this fact of shortage of man power and their consequent inability to
check such a large number of applications so received was found to
be justified. It has also been stated that even the Screening
Committee members did not enquire as to whether the applications
have been checked regarding their completeness or eligibility or not
as they were not concerned with the said facts. It was also found
during the course of investigation that the recommendations of
Screening Committee were mainly based upon the recommendations
of administrative Ministry, State Governments, financial and technical
capabilities of applicant companies, techno-economic feasibility of
end use projects, state of preparedness to set up the end use
projects etc. However it was further stated in the closure report that
no minimum threshold was prescribed for eliminating/qualifying any
company on any of the above said factors including net-worth or
preparedness etc. It was also mentioned that in the minutes of the
Screening Committee also no deliberation could be found on any of
these aspects.
14. It was in these circumstances concluded by IO DSP Sanjay

Dubey that no cogent evidence could come to light which could prove
that any wrongful gain was caused to the accused company in
allocation of impugned Coal Block. As regard submitting the
aforesaid false data regarding its net-worth or production capacity, it
was stated that the Ministry of Steel which was the administrative
Ministry also did not consider the net-worth of the company for
making their recommendation and the fact as to whether the
company having existing capacity of 87,000 MTPA or 1,00,000 MTPA
would not have made any difference as Ministry of Steel would have
classified them in the same category. The final report also stated that
during investigation no evidence could emerge to establish that task
of checking of applications as regard their completeness and
eligibility was not undertaken by the officers of MOC pursuant to any
criminal conspiracy with any of the applicant companies including the
accused company. No offence was thus found to have been
committed either by A-1 M/s KSSPL or its Directors or even by any of
the public servants involved in the entire coal block allocation
process.
15. However vide a detailed order dated 13.10.14, this Court

disagreed with the conclusion so drawn by the CBI and ordered
summoning of all the accused persons for the offences u/s 120-
B/409/420 IPC. Accused H.C. Gupta (A-4) was however also
summoned for the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act. It was further
observed therein that cognizance of the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act
could not be taken against accused K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria for
want of sanction u/s 19 P.C. Act. However subsequently on the
request of prosecution the matter was referred vide order dated
30.10.2014 for further investigation to CBI u/s 173 (8) Cr.PC with the
direction that during the course of further investigation CBI shall place
before the Competent Sanctioning Authority, the records of the case
so as to consider according of sanction u/s 19 P.C. Act to prosecute
the two public servants i.e. K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria for the
offences under P.C. Act. Accordingly during the course of further
investigation, CBI sent the records of the case to the competent
authority. The competent authority thereafter accorded sanction u/s
19 P.C. Act to prosecute both accused K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria
for the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act and also for any other offences
punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts
mentioned in the sanction order. Accordingly vide order dated
28.07.15 cognizance of the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act was taken
against accused K.S. Kropha (A-5) and K.C. Samria (A-6) also and
cognizance of the offence u/s 120-B IPC r/w S. 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act
was also taken against all the accused persons.
16. After all the accused persons put in their appearance copies
of the charge sheet were supplied to them. After due compliance of
S. 207 Cr.PC. extensive arguments on the point of charge were
heard. Subsequently vide a detailed order dated 01.10.2015 charge
for various offences as mentioned in the table below were framed
against the various accused persons on 14.10.2015.
CHARGES FRAMED
(I) (II)
S.No Name of accused Charges Common to all Charges
separately
framed
1 A-1 M/s KSSPL (i) 120-B IPC
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 409/420 IPC 420 IPC
and Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d)
P.C. Act, 1988
2 A-2 Pawan Kumar (i) 120-B IPC
Ahluwalia
P.C. Act, 1988
3 A-3 Amit Goyal (i)120-B IPC
P.C. Act, 1988
4 A-4 H.C. Gupta (i) 120-B IPC (i) Sec. 409 IPC
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 409/420 IPC (ii) 13 (1) (c) /
and Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act,
P.C. Act, 1988 1988
5 A-5 K.S. Kropha (i) 120-B IPC
13 (1) (d) P.C. Act,
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 409/420 IPC
1988
P.C. Act, 1988
6 A-6 K.C. Samria (i) 120-B IPC
13 (1) (d) P.C. Act,
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 409/420 IPC
1988
P.C. Act, 1988
All the accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the

charges so framed against them and claimed trial.
17. Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 18

witnesses. Statement of accused persons were thereafter recorded
u/s 313 Cr.PC. A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
however also submitted their written statements u/s 313 (5) Cr.PC.
Accused persons also thereafter examined 13 witnesses in their
defence. Detailed final arguments in the matter were thereafter heard
as were addressed by Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma on behalf of
prosecution and by Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang for A-1
M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. Ld. Counsel Sh. Sushil
Bajaj for A-3 Amit Goyal, Ld. senior Advocate Sh. Mohit Mathur for
A-4 H.C. Gupta, Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur for A-5 K.S. Kropha
and Ld. Counsel Sh. Percivel Billimoria for A-6 K.C. Samria.
18. Written submissions were also filed by all the accused
persons.
19. Thus in the aforesaid factual matrix before adverting further it

will be worthwhile to give a brief reference of the deposition of various
prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses so examined in the
present trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES (PWs)
PW No. Name and designation Deposition/Role of the witness in the

of the Witness present case.
PW-1 S P Rana, Dy. SP, CBI, CBI officer who was initially entrusted with
EO-II, New Delhi the preliminary enquiry No. 219 2012 E
0002 registered by CBI with respect to
coal block allocation matters. He collected
various files/documents from MOC during
the course of PE and deposited them in
Malkhana EO-I, CBI.
PW-2 S. Ramanathan, Public independent witness in whose

Divisional Manager, presence various documents/files were
Canara Bank, Vigilance seized by PW 1 Dy. SP S.P. Rana from the
Wing, Bangluru MOC office, Shastri Bahwan.
PW-3 Prashant Ahluwalia He was one of the Directors of A-1 M/s

KSSPL alongwith A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia. He identified his own
signatures and that of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia on various balance sheets and
other documents of the company. He also
identified signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia on various pages of application
Ex.PW1/F (colly) (D-10) and stated that
day to day affairs of A-1 M/s KSSPL were
being dealt with by A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia only.
PW-4 Ramesh Kumar Meena, During the course of investigation he
Registrar of Companies provided certified copies of Memorandum
Cum Official Liquidator, of Association, Articles of Association,
Rajasthan, Jaipur Certificate of incorporation of A-1 company
M/s KSSPL beside also providing audited
balance sheets for the year 2003-04,
2004-05 and 2005-06 and other necessary
forms as were filed by A-1 M/s KSSPL with
their office over a period of time.
PW-5 Ram Naresh, Under He was Under Secretary, MOC during the
Secretary, Ministry of period June 2009 till October 2014. He
Agriculture, Govt of had handed over various documents/files
India, New Delhi relating to coal block allocation matters to
PW 1 Dy.SP S.P. Rana during the course
of preliminary inquiry registered by CBI.
PW-6 Ved Prakash Sharma, He was also working as Section Officer

Retired Section Officer, CA-1 section, Ministry of Coal from
CA-1, Section, Ministry October 2007 till 30.06.2013. He was
of Coal however dealing with matters relating to
allocation of coal blocks to Government
companies. In the year 2012 he had
handed over various files/ documents of
MOC to PW 1 Dy. SP S.P. Rana CBI and
who seized them vide various production-
cum-receipt memos during the course of
preliminary inquiry registered by CBI.
PW-7 Awadhesh Pratap Singh, He deposed about the procedure of
General Manager, issuance of production certificate to any
District Trade and industry by their department and that the
Industries Centre, Satna, said production certificates also contained
M.P. the date of commencement of production
and the annual installed capacity of the
unit. He also deposed about the standard
criteria adopted by the department of
calculating the installed capacity of any
company on the basis of 300 working days
in a year. He also proved certificate of
commencement of production dated
16.10.2003 as issued to A-1 company M/s
KSSPL for total sponge iron production
capacity of the company as 57000 MTPA
and certificate dated 15.07.2005 for total
sponge iron production capacity as 87000
MTPA.
PW-8 Dr. P.S. Sharma, Chief He proved the sponge iron production
Chemist, Madhya capacity of A-1 M/s KSSPL as mentioned
Pradesh Pollution in order of consent to establish or consent
Control Board, to operate issued by their department
Regional Office Rewa. under Water (Prevention & Control of
Pollution), Act 1974 period of time i.e. from
the year 2000 till 2013.
PW-9 Sewa Ram, Retired He deposed about the manner in which

Principal Secretary, govt the applications received by Govt of MP
of Madhya Pradesh from MOC seeking allocation of captive
coal blocks were processed by Govt of
MP. He also stated that qua Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri Coal block, Govt of MP had
recommended the name of M/s BLA
Power Ltd. He also stated that during 36th
Screening committee meeting held on
07.02.2008 he had handed over the
recommendation letter of Govt of MP qua
various coal blocks in favour of different
applicant companies to Secretary Coal
and Chairman Screening Committee i.e.
A-4 H.C. Gupta.
PW-10 Rajneesh Mohan Singh, He proved the sanction for prosecution of

Dy. Secretary Ministry of A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria as
Science and Technology was granted by the competent authority
GOI under section 19 PC Act, 1988.
PW-11 S. K. Mishra, Principal He attended the 36th Screening

Secretary, Public Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008
Relations Department and deposed about the nature of
and Principal Secretary discussion which took place during the
to Chief Minister, Govt. said meeting wherein final decision
of Madhya Pradesh. regarding recommendation of 36th
screening committee qua allocation of
various coal blocks in favour of different
applicant companies was taken.
PW-12 Amalendu Khaamru, He alongwith three other officials of the
Legal Assistant in the Office of Coal Controller, Kolkata were
office of Coal Controller, deputed to MOC office, New Delhi on a
Kolkatta request made by MOC for assisting in the
processing of applications. He further
stated that except for segregating various
applications coal block wise they were not
asked to do any other work much less to
check the applications for their
completeness and eligibility.
PW-13 V.S. Rana, Deputy He was posted as Under Secretary,

Secretary, Ministry of Ministry of Coal from August 2005 till
Home Affairs December 2013. He was associated with
the processing of applications of various
private companies received by Ministry of
Coal seeking allocation of coal blocks
including that of A-1 M/s KSSPL. He
accordingly proved various files/ notings/
documents as were prepared in Ministry of
Coal either by him or by other officers/
officials of Ministry of Coal during that
period.
PW-14 Pilli Ravi Kumar, Under He was Under Secretary, MOC in the year
Secretary, CPD Section, 2014. During the course of investigation of
Ministry of Coal, the present case he had handed over
Govt. of India various information relating to A-1 M/s
KSSPL as was available in the records of
MOC and had also supplied copies of
various orders pertaining to grant of coal
linkage to A-1 M/s KSSPL by MOC.
PW-15 R. Muralidhar, Retired He was posted as Under Secretary, DIPP,

Under Secretary, Govt. of India during the period 2006-08.
Department of Industrial He deposed about the manner in which
Policy & Promotion applications received in DIPP from MOC
(DIPP) under Ministry of were processed. He stated that in DIPP
Commerce and Industry, applications of only such companies were
Govt. of India. processed who were either engaged in
production of cement or were proposing to
establish their end use project in cement
sector.
PW-16 N R Dash, Executive He was posted as Director Ministry of
Director, Ministry of Steel from October 2006 till October 2011
Railways and was Incharge of ID Wing i.e. Industrial
Development Wing. He was associated
with the processing of applications of
various applicant companies including that
of A-1 M/s KSSPL as were received in
Ministry of Steel from Ministry of Coal for
obtaining their views/ comments regarding
allotment of captive coal blocks.
PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, He had issued two certificates to company

Superintendent M/s KSSPL in the year 2013 specifying
(Technical) Central the total number of working days for which
Excise Department, the sponge iron plant of the company
Satna, M.P. worked in the year 2005-06 and in the
year 2006-07.
PW-18 IO, DSP Sanjay Dubey, He was the investigating Officer of the
EO-III, CBI, ND case. He deposed extensively about the
investigation carried out by him and also
about the collection of various documents
from different authorities by him during the
course of investigation.
DEFENCE WITNESSES (DWs)
DW No. Name and designation Deposition/Role of the witness in the

of the Witness present case.
DW-1 Sh. Rishan Ryntathiang He was Under Secretary CA-I and CA-III
Under Secretary CA-I Section, MOC, Govt. of India. He
and CA-III Section, produced copy of file Ex.DW1/A(colly)
Ministry of Coal, Govt. wherein the record relating to constitution
of India. of Screening Committee for dealing with
applications received for captive coal
blocks was available.
DW-2 Sh. Parmanand, Officer He produced office copy of two letters
on Special Duty, Office which were written by Sh. Bhaskar Kulbe,
of Advisor Industry, the then Advisor, Industry, Govt of West
WBIDC, Govt of West Bengal to Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, Principal
Bengal, New Delhi Secretary, C&I Department, Govt of West
Bengal, Kolkata. He proved the said
letters as Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW2/B.
DW-3 Arunendra Prasad He was an employee of A-1 M/s KSSPL.

Tiwari, Manager, Officer He deposed that in the plant of the
in M/s Kamal Sponge company a register RG-1 (Daily Stock
Steel and Power Ltd. Register) was maintained every year in
the dispatch section wherein a record of
daily production/sale of sponge iron or the
excise duty payable thereon was
maintained. He accordingly placed on
record three such registers i.e. Ex. DW
3/A (colly) for the year 2005-06, Ex. DW
3/B (colly) for the year 2006-07 and Ex.
DW 3/C (colly) for the year 2007-08.
DW-4 S.K. Pandey, Retired He was the then Inspector, Central Excise
Superintendent, Central Department, Bhopal, MP. He deposed
Excise Department about excise audit of the industrial plant
of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was conducted by
Central Excise Department officials during
the year 2007-08.
DW-5 Manzoor Ali Ansari, He was the then Dy. Commissioner,

Joint, Commissioner, Central Excise, Satna Division, MP.
Customs (Preventive) During the course of investigation he vide
Jaipur his letter dated 09.05.2013 Ex. PW
17/DX-1(D-61) had informed IO, Inspector
Sanjay Dubey about the correctness of
two certificates dated 12.04.2013
Ex.PW17/B (D-70) and dated 27.04.2013
Ex.PW17/C (D-71) regarding working
days of the company in the year 2005-06
and in the year 2006-07 to be genuine
and having been issued by the
Jurisdictional Superintendent on the
request of company M/s KSSPL.
DW-6 B.K. Tripathi, Asstt. He was an employee of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
Incharge Marketing, He deposed that in the first week of
M/s Kamal Sponge January 2007, the accounts department
Steel and Power Ltd. of A-1 M/s KSSPL at Satna, M.P. handed
over to him certain applications of A-1 M/s
KSSPL to be submitted to MOC for
allocation of captive coal blocks. He had
accordingly taken them to A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia at the office of M/s Hima
Ispat Ltd. at Barbil, Orissa and got them
signed from A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
DW-7 P.S.S. Reddy, He was posted as Director, MOC from

Commissioner Income December 2012 till 2013. Upon receipt of
Tax, Hyderabad a request from IO Inspector Sanjay
Dubey he had provided certain
documents relating to coal block
allocation matters as were asked for by
the IO vide his letter dated 21.02.2013
Ex.PW18/N-4 (colly) (D-24).
DW-8 S.K. Shivani, Under He was posted in Mineral Resources

Secretary, Mineral Department, Govt of MP from September
Resources Department, 2006 till June 2015. During the course of
Govt. of MP investigation on the request of IO
Inspector Sanjay Dubey he had handed
over copy of various documents and one
original file of the department alongwith
his written reply dated 10.05.2013
Ex.PW18/L-2 (colly).
DW-9 S.K. Shahi, Deputy He was posted as Director MOC from

Director General, March 2013 to July 2016. During the
Department of Telecom, course of investigation he had furnished
GOI certain information from the records of
MOC to CBI vide his letter dated
02.05.2013 Ex.PW14/C (D-27).
DW-10 K.C. Samria, A- 6 K.C. Samria examined himself as a

(Accused No. 6) defence witness u/s 315 Cr.PC. In his
deposition he extensively stated about his
role and responsibility while being posted
in MOC and the manner in which the
applications were processed or the
matters which were brought to his
knowledge. He also deposed about his
involvement in the processing of
applications in MOC stating that one set
of the applications were already sent by
MOC to Administrative Ministries and
State Govts. concerned much before he
took over the charge of CA-1 Section,
MOC.
DW-11 K.S. Kropha, A-5 K.S. Kropha examined himself as a

(Accused No. 5) defence witness u/s 315 Cr.PC. In his
deposition he extensively deposed about
the manner in which the applications
received by MOC were dealt with either in
MOC or by the Screening Committee. He
also deposed about his role and
responsibility in MOC both as Joint
Secretary Coal and also as Member
Convener Screening Committee. He also
deposed about his unblemished career
throughout his long service of 34 years.
DW-12 Harish Chandra Gupta, A-4 H.C. Gupta also examined himself as
(Accused No. 4) a defence witness u/s 315 Cr.PC. In his
deposition he also extensively deposed
about the manner in which the
applications received by MOC were dealt
with either in MOC or by the Screening
Committee. He also deposed extensively
about his role and responsibility both as
Secretary Coal and also as Chairman,
Screening Committee. He also deposed
about his unblemished career throughout
his long service of 37 years.
DW-13 Shiv Raj Singh, He was an IAS officer of Chattisgarh

Retired IAS officer, Govt Cadre. He deposed that he had attended
of Chattisgarh two meetings of 36th Screening
committee i.e. on 08.02.2008 and
03.07.2008 as a representative of Govt.
of Chattisgarh. He extensively deposed
about the manner in which the meetings
of screening committee were held and
also stated that in the meeting all the
members present were free to air their
views. He further stated that whenever
qua any coal block there used to be
consensus amongst the members, then
A-4 H.C. Gupta, Chairman used to
announce the final decision but in other
cases where there used to be no such
unanimity then after hearing the views of
all concerned A-4 H.C. Gupta used to
announce the recommendation of
Screening Committee for allotment of a
given coal block in favour of one or more
applicant companies in accordance with
the consensus which may have
developed during the course of
discussion. He also stated that in certain
cases, some of the representations used
to request that their views be specifically
recorded in the proceedings. He further
stated that the decision thus used to be
taken by way of broad consensus.
After having briefly mentioned the deposition of various

prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses as were examined
during the course of trial, it will be now appropriate to briefly mention
the rival contentions of both prosecution as well as that of Ld.
Counsels for the accused persons. The deposition of the aforesaid
prosecution and defence witnesses shall be however referred to in
detail wherever required in the later part of the present judgment.
Arguments on behalf of prosecution.
20. It was submitted by Ld. senior P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma on behalf
of prosecution that the facts and circumstances of the present case
clearly show as to how the accused MOC officers and the other
private parties involved conspired together to cheat MOC, Govt of
India of the valuable nationalised natural resources of the country i.e.
coal. It was submitted that admittedly the application of A-1 M/s
KSSPL was submitted to MOC under the signatures of A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia and thus both the company and its director A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia were responsible for the correctness of the
facts mentioned in the application. It was thus submitted that in these
circumstances it was logical and legally permissible to conclude that
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia was aware of the contents mentioned in
the application and that the same were consciously mentioned in the
application as the day to day affairs of A-1 M/s KSSPL were being
looked after by A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia only. It was also
submitted that during the course of trial not only it has been
conclusively established from the deposition of various prosecution
witnesses that the figures of net-worth as mentioned in the
application were wrong but even the accused himself has also not
disputed the said fact. It was also pointed out that the factum of
application of A-1 M/s KSSPL being not complete as it was not
accompanied with the audited balance sheets for the past three years
has also been clearly proved beside the fact that the audited balance
sheets for the past three years were very much available with the
company. It was further submitted that the prosecution has also
proved on record that even the figures of existing production capacity
of the company mentioned in the application were also wrong. As
regard the claim of A-1 M/s KSSPL that the company actually
functioned for a period of more than 300 days and which claim was
sought to be supported by two certificates issued by PW-17 Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal, Superintendent, Excise Department, it was
submitted that from the deposition of said witness it is clear that the
two certificates were procured from him by A-1 M/s KSSPL solely with
a view to create some false defence for the purposes of present case
so as to justify the false claims made in the application.
21. It was also submitted that during the course of evidence it has
been clearly proved on record that the Administrative Ministry i.e.
Ministry of Steel and also the State Govt of Madhya Pradesh had
relied upon the figures of net-worth as mentioned in the application.
Ministry of Steel had in fact also relied upon the existing production
capacity and the proposed production capacity of the end use project
as was mentioned in the applications. Moreover the Screening
Committee and thereby MOC had also admittedly relied upon the
financial strength and techno economic feasibility of various applicant
companies before allocating any coal block. It was thus submitted
that A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia had dishonestly
and consciously made the said false claims in order to deceive and
thereby induce MOC, Govt of India to allot a coal block in favour of A-
1 M/s KSSPL. As regard A-5 K.S. Kropha it was submitted that he
being Joint Secretary MOC was incharge of an independent wing
which also comprised of CA-I Section and thus under the over all
supervision of Secretary Coal he was responsible for the work of his
wing. As regard A-6 K.C. Samria it was submitted that he being
director CA-I was acting on behalf of Secretary Coal and was
responsible to ensure that no ineligible company or a company
whose application was not complete is allotted a coal block.
22. As regard the role of MOC officers it was also submitted that
A-4 H.C Gupta being Secretary Coal was the Administrative Head of
the Ministry and his responsibility was complete and undivided. It was
submitted that admittedly no inter-se priority chart or inter-se merit
chart was prepared either by MOC or by the Screening committee
which could have only demonstrated as to which of the applicant
company was better placed as compared to other. It was however
also submitted that even otherwise the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL
ought not to have been put up before the screening committee at all
by MOC as its application was admittedly incomplete and in terms of
the guidelines issued by MOC was liable to be rejected at the initial
stage itself. The question of A-1 M/s KSSPL being better placed than
other applicant companies or not would not have thus come up for
consideration even.
23. It was also submitted that A-4 H.C. Gupta not only as
Secretary Coal but as Chairman Screening committee was clearly
exercising dominion over the Nationalised natural resources of the
country. He was stated to be aware that the competent authority i.e.
Minister of Coal shall accord approval for allotment of various coal
blocks to different applicant companies on the basis of
recommendation of screening committee only. It was thus submitted
that the MOC officers were under a duty to ensure that the
Nationalised natural resources of the country were distributed/allotted
in an objective and transparent manner. It was submitted that the
Ministry of Coal officers thus failed to observe those reasonable
safeguards as were expected of them in dealing with such important
nationalised natural resources and they thus not only abused their
position as public servants but also acted with complete disregard to
the public interest involved. It was also submitted that from the over
all facts and circumstances of the case it was clearly evident that the
MOC officers who have been arrayed as accused were clearly hands
in glove with the company M/s KSSPL and its director A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia and A-3 Amit Goyal.
24. It was also submitted by Ld. Senior P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma that
from the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the files of
MOC and from the documents referred to by Ld. Counsel for the
accused persons it is clear that the accused MOC officers were well
aware that checking of applications for their eligibility and
completeness has not been carried out and thus they should have
undertaken such an exercise of checking the applications at least
before sending the allocation letters to various allocatee companies.
It was also submitted that the fact that M/s BLA Power Ltd. was called
by the 36th Screening committee to make a presentation clearly show
that M/s BLA Power Ltd. which subsequently expressed its interest in
establishing a cement plant also could have been considered by 36 th
screening committee for allotment of a captive coal block.
25. Ld. senior P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma further placed reliance upon
the following case law in support of his submissions:
S.No. Case Title Citation

1 K. Satwant Singh V. State of Punjab (1960) 2 SCR 89
2 C.I.T, Andhra Pradesh V. M/s Taj Mahal 1971 (3) SCC 550
Hotel, Secundrabad
3 Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis (1991) 4 SCC 406
Hazari Court, Delhi V. State of Gujarat
4 Chief Education Officer V. K.S. 2012 (2) MWN (Cr.)
Palanichamy 354
5 REG V. Hanmanta (1877) ILR 1 BOM 610
6 Common Cause, a Registered Society V. (1999) 6 SCC 667
Union of India & Ors.
7 Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. 1997 (4) SCC 241
8 State through Superintendent of Police, 1999 (5) SCC 235
CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini
26. The prosecution was thus stated to have been successful in

proving its case against all the accused persons for the offences for
which they have been charged. All the accused persons were thus
prayed to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
27. As regard A-1 Ms/ KSSPL it was strongly argued by

Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang that prosecution has miserably failed
to prove its case against the company at all. It was submitted that
prosecution has tried to build up its case of a criminal conspiracy
allegedly hatched between the private parties and the public servants
involved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It was however
submitted that not only the entire chain of circumstantial evidence has
not been proved by the prosecution but even various circumstances
themselves have also not been proved at all much less beyond
shadows of reasonable doubts. It was also submitted that the
contents of various documents sought to be proved on record by the
prosecution have also not been proved as per the provisions of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was also submitted that certain material
circumstances were also not put to A-1 M/s KSSPL in the statement
u/s 313 Cr.PC and thus the said circumstances cannot be read
against the accused company.
28. It was also submitted by Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang that
the contents of application form of A-1 M/s KSSPL seeking allotment
of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block i.e. Ex.PW1/F(colly)(D-10)
have not been proved by the CBI by any legally admissible evidence.
It was submitted that PW-3 Prashant Ahluwalia proved only the
signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia on the said application but
he was admittedly not aware of the contents of the application or
annexures thereof. It was submitted that prosecution has not led any
evidence to prove that the wrong figures qua net-worth and
production capacity as are stated to have been mentioned in the
application form were made with any malafide intention and that too
on the instructions of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. It was submitted
that no evidence has been led on record by the prosecution to show
that A-3 Amit Goyal, chartered Accountant who had gone to attend
the Screening committee meeting on 07.12.2007 was aware of the
contents of the application form and its annexures and especially as
regard the figures qua net-worth and production capacity mentioned
over there much less he was part of any alleged criminal conspiracy
as stated to have been hatched by the other accused persons. It was
submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence on record to
prove that the applications of other applicant companies or the
documents annexed therewith who had applied for allocation of
"Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block were complete or not much less
the information furnished therein was true. It was also submitted that
prosecution has failed to prove that there was any legal or statutory
requirement of furnishing of feedback form and making of
presentation by the applicant companies before the screening
committee.
29. It was also submitted that no evidence has been led by the
prosecution that the allocation letter issued in favour of A-1 M/s
KSSPL (the valuable security as claimed by prosecution) resulted in
any wrongful gain to accused company or in any wrongful loss to
MOC or to any other entity. It was thus submitted by Ld. Counsel that
no presumption can be drawn regarding the aforesaid circumstances
either in favour of prosecution or against the accused persons.
30. It was also submitted that the complete chain of
circumstantial evidence has not been proved by the prosecution
which may point a guilty finger towards the accused. It was further
submitted by Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang that prosecution has
also failed to prove on record that the scrutiny of applications before
sending one set thereof to Administrative Ministries and State
Governments was not carried out by MOC officers on account of any
criminal conspiracy much less hatched with the private parties
involved. It was submitted that the said exercise of scrutiny of
applications for their completeness or eligibility could not be carried
out as the number of applications received were too many and
sufficient staff was not available with CA-I Section to carry out such
an extensive exercise. It was also submitted that admittedly Sh.
Sanjiv Mittal was the Director, CA-I Section, MOC when the
impugned advertisement was issued or the applications were sent to
State Governments and Administrative Ministry but for reasons best
known to prosecution he has not been examined. It was also
submitted that nothing has been brought on record to prove that the
alleged misrepresentation in the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was
on account of any malafide intention or whether the said
misrepresentation in fact led to deceiving the screening committee
and thereby MOC in making allocation of the impugned coal block in
favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
31. It was also submitted that Sh. S.K. Mandal who attended the
screening committee meeting on 08.12.2007 as a representative of
Govt of Madhya Pradesh when A-3 Amit Goyal appeared before the
screening committee was also not examined by the prosecution for
reasons best known to it.
32. It was also submitted that prosecution has not led any
evidence which could show that the alleged acts/deeds of the officers
of MOC were not merely negligent or careless acts but were actuated
with any malafide intention much less being part of a larger criminal
conspiracy. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel that as per the
prosecution case the MOC officers conspired with all successful
applicant companies who were allotted one or the other coal block by
36th Screening Committee. It was however submitted that such a
proposition is theoretically not possible nor the evidence led by the
prosecution on record suggests any such inference.
during the course of evidence it has come on record that M/s BLA
Power Ltd., the company recommended by Govt of Madhya Pradesh
was not eligible for allotment of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block
as the said coal block was reserved for non-power sector and the
company M/s BLA Power Ltd. intended to establish a power project. It
was also pointed out that from the files of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
available on record as Ex. PW 9/A (colly) (D-46), it is clearly evident
that the next two most eligible companies were M/s KSSPL and
M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and the said two companies were
unanimously jointly allotted the impugned coal block by the screening
committee.
34. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel that prosecution in order to
prove its case is trying to draw presumptions based on conjectures
and surmises and the same is not permissible under law. It was
further submitted that the prosecution can also not rely upon the
observations of Honble Supreme Court as were made in order dated
25.08.2014 passed in the case Manohar Lal Sharma V. Union of
India, (2014) 9 SCC 516 whereby Honble Supreme Court declared
the allocation of all coal blocks by all the 36 Screening Committees of
MOC as illegal being contrary to the provisions of MMDR, Act, 1957.
It was submitted that in the said case Honble Supreme Court was not
dealing with the issue as to whether there was any malafide intention
in the actions of either the MOC officers or that of the private parties
involved. It was also submitted that any reply, if submitted by the
accused persons during the course of investigation either in
response to a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC issued by the IO or otherwise
clearly amounts to a statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and is thus hit by
section 162 Cr.PC. It was thus submitted that the prosecution in the
absence of any other evidence having been not led cannot rely on
any such reply or information supplied by the accused persons in the
said reply. It was also submitted that the documents which have not
been proved by the prosecution as per the provisions of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 also cannot be relied upon. It was pointed out by
Ld. Counsel that from the deposition of DW-6 B.K. Tiwari, Asst.
Manager, M/s KSSPL it has come on record that he had simply
carried five copies of the already filled in application forms to Orissa
for obtaining the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and
accordingly got it signed from him. It was submitted that A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia thus had no role in filling up the information in the
said application form as the said information was furnished by the
concerned departments of the company and he being an authorised
signatory simply signed the application form on behalf of A-1 M/s
KSSPL.
35. As regard the existing capacity of the end use plant it was
submitted that during the period 01.04.2006 till 31.12.2006 the plant
worked for 245 days out of 275 days and thus it remained shut for
about 29 days only i.e. approx 10% of the working days. It was thus
submitted that the said number of working days were used to
calculate the existing production capacity of the plant. It was
submitted that as in the year 2006 the plant had the existing
production capacity of 290 tons per day so the existing production
capacity came to around one lakh tons per year. It was however
reiterated that the said information of the application cannot be
looked into as the contents thereof have not been proved as per law
by the prosecution.
36. It was also submitted that as per the prosecution case itself
after the issuance of option letter dated 05.08.2008 by MOC both M/s
KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. entered into a joint venture
agreement dated 03.09.2008 and submitted the same to MOC. It was
thereafter the letter of allocation dated 21.11.2008 was issued by
MOC in favour of the two companies. The two companies thereafter
formed a joint venture company called "Thesgora Coal Pvt. Ltd." and
thus all subsequent communication with MOC or other pre-mining
activities were undertaken by the said JV company. It was however
submitted that while the JV company made substantial progress in
terms of the allocation letter but on account of delays caused by the
Govt. departments in granting various clearances the mining activity
could not be undertaken. It was however submitted that neither the
IO has investigated nor the prosecution has led any evidence to
prove that any act of cheating or criminal conspiracy was committed
either by the said JV company or through it by A-1 M/s KSSPL. The
various pre-mining activities undertaken by the joint venture company
subsequent to allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block jointly to
A-1 M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. by MOC were
highlighted to assert that the two companies were always ready to
establish the end use plant and to undertake mining of coal.
37. It was thus submitted that prosecution has miserably failed in

proving any mens-rea on the part of A-1 M/s KSSPL in furnishing any
wrong information to MOC. It was also submitted that ingredients of
neither the offence of cheating nor that of criminal conspiracy have
been proved by the prosecution.
38. The prosecution was thus stated to have miserably failed in

proving its case against A-1 M/s KSSPL beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts. A-1 M/s KSSPL was thus prayed to be acquitted.
Arguments on behalf of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
39. As regard A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia the arguments
addressed by Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang proceeded almost on
identical lines as that of A-1 M/s KSSPL. It was submitted by Ld.
Counsel that the contents of the application of M/s KSSPL as
submitted to Ministry of Coal have not been proved by the
prosecution by any legally admissibly evidence. It was also submitted
that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the alleged
false/wrong figures qua net-worth and production capacity as
mentioned in the application form were made with any malafide
intention. The essential ingredient of mens-rea in the impugned
offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy was thus stated to be
missing.
40. It was also submitted that as per the advertisement issued by

MOC preference only was to be given to companies having minimum
production capacity of one million tonne per annum (1 MTPA) and
thus the companies having production capacity less than one 1 MTPA
could have been also recommended for allocation of one or the other
coal block. It was thus submitted that from out of all the 10 applicant
companies who had applied for Thesgora B/Rudrapuri Coal block the
company M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. were the two
most suitable companies and were accordingly recommended by the
screening committee for allocation of the said coal block jointly. It was
also submitted that prosecution has failed to bring on record any
evidence to show that the claims made in the applications of other
eight applicant companies were correct or not or that they were more
suitably placed then A-1 M/s KSSPL.
41. In the light of aforesaid submissions it was submitted that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove various circumstances
beyond shadows of reasonable doubts and thus a complete chain of
incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt of A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia does not stand proved.
42. It was also submitted that from the deposition of DW-6 B.K.
Tripathi, it was clear that A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia signed the
applications merely because he was the authorised signatory of the
company and had no personal knowledge of the contents of the
application. It was also submitted that admittedly A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia did not play any other role either in the processing of the
application in MOC or subsequent thereto. It was submitted that as
per the prosecution case itself A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia even did
not appear before the screening committee for making any
presentation or submitting any feedback form.
43. As regard various replies given by A-2 Pawn Kumar

Ahluwalia during the course of investigation to the IO in response to
notices u/s 91 Cr.PC it was submitted that the same at the most can
amount to statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and were thus hit by section 162
Cr.PC.
in the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC it was not put to the accused that the
application in question was signed or submitted by him to MOC with
an intention to deceive or cheat MOC. Various other circumstances
were also stated to have been not put to the accused in his statement
u/s 313 Cr.PC. Some of such circumstances not put to A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC were highlighted
such as that A-3 Amit Goyal had knowledge of the false claims made
in the application or that he and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia hatched
a criminal conspiracy to cheat MOC. It was also not put that the
Ministry of Coal officers did not scrutinize the applications for their
completeness and eligibility on account of a criminal conspiracy
hatched by them with the private parties involved. It was also pointed
out that the circumstance that A-4 H.C. Gupta was having dominion
over the Nationalised natural resources of the country i.e. coal was
also not put to A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in his statement u/s 313
Cr.PC.
45. As regard the wrong figures of net-worth for the year 2004-05
and 2005-06 mentioned in the application it was submitted that the
same was the result of lack of knowledge of the standard accounting
practices of calculating net-worth on the part of staff of the company.
It was pointed out that a conceptual mistake was committed by the
administrative staff of the company M/s KSSPL in deducting the
current liabilities of the company for the financial year 2004-05 from
the total assets as was clearly evident from the balance sheets
annexed with the application. It was also submitted that admittedly
MOC had not prescribed any minimum thresh-hold for net-worth and
thus there could not have been any malafide intention in furnishing
wrong information about the net-worth and more so when the entire
balance sheets and other relevant documents reflecting the current
value of assets, liabilities and net-worth were attached with the
application. It was however again reiterated that net-worth of any
company was never a criteria before the screening committee in
making recommendation of allocation of any coal block.
46. As regard the existing production capacity of the company it

was submitted that as during the relevant period the company worked
for a period of 245 days from out of 275 days and thus on the basis of
the said data the production capacity of the company was calculated
and the same came to be approximately 1 lac tonne per annum. It
was thus submitted that there was no malafide intention in even
mentioning the exiting production capacity of the company as 1 lac
tonne per annum (0.1 MTPA).
47. It was also submitted that even subsequent to allocation of

the impugned coal block the company M/s KSSPL had made
substantial progress towards pre-mining activities through the JV
company formed with M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and the same thus
goes to show that there was no malafide intention on the part of A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in seeking allocation of a coal block in the
name of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
48. In the aforesaid circumstances it was thus submitted that

prosecution has miserably failed in proving the ingredients of either
the offence of criminal conspiracy or that of cheating also against A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. He was thus prayed to be acquitted.
49. In support of his submissions for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang placed
reliance upon the following case law:
S. Case Title Citation

No.
1 Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)2 SCC 808
2 Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP (2002)7 SCC 317
3 Kailash Gour and Ors.Vs. State of Assam (2012)2 SCC 34
4 Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa (1976)4 SCC 233
5 Prem Kumar Gulati and Anr. Vs. State of (2014)14 SCC 646
Haryana
6 L.K. Advani Vs. CBI 1997 CrLJ 2559
7 Nabi Mohamad Chand Hussain and Ors. Vs. 1980 CrLJ 860
State of Maharashtra
8 State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr. (2000)8 SCC 203
9 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of (1984) 4 SCC 116
Maharashtra
10 Hanumant Vs State of MP 1952 SCR 1091
11 C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC
193
12 Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of (2015) 4 SCC 609
Investigation
13 Jugeshwar Singh and Others Vs Emperor 1935 SCC Online
Pat 209
14 Emperor Vs. Pir Muindin Abdul Rehman & 1944 SCC Online
Anr. Sind CC 27
15 Rewati Raman Singh Vs. State 2012 ()127 DRJ
176
16 Darshan Sing Ram Kishan Singh Vs. State (1971) 2 SCC 654
of Maharashtra
17 CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410
18 Ramji Dayawala and Sons Vs. Invest Import (1981) 1 SCC 80
19 Sir Mohammad Yusuf & Anr Vs. D. & Anr. 1961 SCC Online
Bom 5
20 Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Bombay (1958) SCR 328
21 Subramanian Swamy Vs. A Raja (2012) 9 SCC 257
22 Ram Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 625
23 Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. (2008) 4 SCC 54
Hegde
24 Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State (2013) 5 SCC 722
of Rajasthan
25 Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496
26 Leo Roy Frey Vs. Suppdt. Distt. Jail AIR 1958 SC 119
27 Subramanian Swamy Vs.A.Raja (2012) 9 SCC 257
28 Wolfgang Reim & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2012 SCC Online
Del 3341
29 Mohinder Pratap Vs. The State of NCT of ILR (2013) VI Delhi
Delhi 4417
30 State of Kerala Vs P. ugathan & Anr. (2000) 8 SCC 203
31 K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC
631
32 V.C. Shukla Vs. State (Delhi Administrative) (1980) 2
33 CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410
34 M.M.S.T. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. 1936 SCC Online
Shanmugham Pillai Mad 414
35 S. Ram Yadav Vs. CBI & Ors. 2013 (137) DRJ
131
36 Sudheo Jha Uppal Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1957 SC 466
Arguments on behalf of A-3 Amit Goyal.
50. As regard A-3 Amit Goyal it was submitted by Ld. Counsel

Sh. Sushil Bajaj that not only the prosecution has miserably failed in
proving its case against A-3 Amit Goyal beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts but even otherwise the entire allegations of
prosecution are primarily based on presumptions without being
supported by any legally admissible evidence. It was submitted that
as per the prosecution case itself A-3 Amit Goyal was not an
employee of A-1 M/s KSSPL and was only the statutory auditor of the
company. The deposition of PW-3 Prashant Kumar Ahluwalia was
relied upon in this regard. It was also submitted that prosecution has
not led any evidence to show that A-3 Amit Goyal was in any manner
associated or involved either in the preparation of application of A-1
M/s KSSPL to be submitted to MOC or in its subsequent processing
before MOC. It was also submitted that in the absence of any legally
admissible evidence no presumption can be drawn that A-3 Amit
Goyal was aware of the contents of the application so submitted by
company M/s KSSPL to MOC. It was further submitted that the only
allegation against A-3 Amit Goyal is that he attended the screening
committee meeting on 08.12.2007 on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL. In
this regard it was submitted that A-3 Amit Goyal has consistently
stated during the course of investigation and also during the course
of present trial that A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia had asked him to
accompany him to screening committee meeting as his presence
might be required to answer any query if raised by the screening
committee members qua the audited balance sheets of the company.
It was further stated that admittedly A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
failed to reach the venue of screening committee meeting and in his
absence A-3 Amit Goyal was the only person present at the meeting
venue on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL and thus neither any presentation
was made by him nor any feedback form was submitted to the
Screening Committee by him on behalf of company A-1 M/s KSSPL.
It was further submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence to
show that A-3 Amit Goyal made any presentation or submitted any
presentation on behalf of company A-1 M/s KSSPL to the screening
committee much less submitting any feedback form.
51. It was also pointed out that during the course of investigation
no such presentation or feedback form could be collected by CBI
either from A-1 M/s KSSPL or A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia or even
from MOC. Even as regard the reply given by A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia Ex.PW3/R (D-63) to a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC issued by the IO
during the course of investigation wherein it is stated that a power-
point presentation was made on behalf of the company before the
screening committee, it was submitted that the said reply having been
not supported by any other oral or documentary evidence was thus
clearly hit by section 162 Cr.PC and was accordingly inadmissible in
evidence. It was further submitted that even A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia failed to provide copy of any such power point
presentation stated to have been made before the screening
committee. Referring to the deposition of PW 16 N.R. Dash, Director,
Ministry of Steel who was present in the screening committee
meeting on 08.12.2007 it was submitted that he also did not state
anything against A-3 Amit Goyal or as regard any presentation having
been made by him on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL. It was thus
submitted that prosecution has clearly failed to prove on record that
either any presentation was made on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL before
the screening committee or any feedback form was submitted to
Screening Committee.
52. Further while relying upon the deposition of PW 13 V.S.

Rana it was submitted that from his deposition it was clear that
neither any record relating to presentation, if any made by A-1 M/s
KSSPL or any feedback form if submitted on behalf of the company
was available in MOC. It was thus submitted that no documentary
evidence was even available in MOC which could show that any
presentation was made by A-3 Amit Goyal before the screening
committee on 08.12.2007 or any feedback form was submitted by
him.
53. It was also submitted that neither prosecution has led any
evidence to show that A-3 Amit Goyal had knowledge as to what all
documents were required to be submitted by A-1 M/s KSSPL
alongwith its application or what documents were actually annexed
with its application by the company. No evidence has even been led
to show that A-3 Amit Goyal had any knowledge of the contents of the
application of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was submitted to MOC. It was
further submitted that as per the prosecution case itself no false
statement on any account whatsoever was found in the audited
balance sheets of the company as were audited by A-3 Amit Goyal.
54. In the aforesaid circumstances it was submitted by Ld.
Counsel Sh.Sushil Bajaj that in the absence of there being any legally
admissible evidence against A-3 Amit Goyal it is crystal clear that
prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against him.
55. In support of his submissions Ld. Counsel Sh. Sushil Bajaj

placed reliance upon the following case law:

No.
1 Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)2 SCC 808
2 Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP (2002)7 SCC 317
3 Kailash Gour and Ors.Vs. State of Assam (2012)2 SCC 34
4 Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa (1976)4 SCC 233
5 Prem Kumar Gulati and Anr. Vs. State of (2014)14 SCC 646
Haryana
6 L.K. Advani Vs. CBI 1997 CrLJ 2559
7 Nabi Mohamad Chand Hussain and Ors. 1980 CrLJ 860
Vs. State of Maharashtra
8 State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr. (2000)8 SCC 203
A-3 Amit Goyal was thus prayed to be acquitted.
Arguments on behalf of A-4 H.C. Gupta
56. As regard A-4 H.C. Gupta Secretary Coal and Chairman

Screening Committee, it was vehemently argued by Ld. Sr. Advocate
Sh. Mohit Mathur that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case against him by any cogent, convincing or legally admissible
evidence. It was submitted that prosecution is merely trying to draw
certain presumptions based on conjectures and surmises and the
same being not borne out either from the facts and circumstances of
the case or from the evidence led by prosecution so the same can not
be relied upon. It was also submitted that even the observations of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 25.08.2014 passed in the
case Manohar Lal Sharma case (Supra), can not be relied upon as
in the said matter Hon'ble Supreme Court only dealt with the legality
of the process itself and not of the criminality of the person involved.
It was also submitted that a purported exercise of power by a public
functionary may be unlawful but need not be wrongful or criminal. It
was also submitted that prosecution is duty bound to prove malice,
knowledge or reckless indifference on the part of A-4 H.C. Gupta so
as to bring his acts within the four corners of a criminal offence.
57. It was also submitted that in order to appreciate the role

played by A-4 H.C. Gupta as Secretary, Coal or as Chairman,
Screening Committee the functioning of a Ministry under Government
of India needs to be seen and understood in the light of provisions of
the "Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure" (hereinafter
referred to as "Manual of Office Procedure"). The procedure as to
how meeting of an inter-ministerial body or that of an inter-state body
is to be conducted or the manner of recording of minutes thereof as
provided in Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure needs to
be seen and appreciated. It was also submitted that as all the acts
were done by A-4 H.C. Gupta in the routine course of discharge of
official business of the Ministry and that of Screening Committee, so
a presumption as to the correctness of the official acts needs to be
drawn in favour of the accused under illustration (e) and (f) to Section
114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was submitted that the
applications so received pursuant to advertisement issued by MOC
were dealt with and processed in MOC or by the Screening
Committee in accordance with the past practice and procedure being
followed in MOC or by the Screening Committee. It was also
submitted that certain oral statements of some prosecution witnesses
sought to be relied upon by prosecution such as that of PW-11, Sh.
S.K. Mishra, PW-12 Sh. Amalendu Khamaru, PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana,
PW-16 Sh. N.R. Dash and PW-18 IO DSP Sanjay Dubey can not be
believed in so far as they are contrary to the official records of their
respective Ministries/Departments. It was thus submitted that the
correctness of the official records should be thus presumed to be in
favour of accused by the Court.
58. It was also submitted that as admittedly all the acts in

question were performed in the discharge of his official duties by A-4
H.C. Gupta so cognizance of none of the offences under IPC could
have been taken without prior sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC.
59. As regard charge of criminal conspiracy, it was submitted that

the very basic essential ingredient of meeting of minds between
accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution. It has not
been proved that accused had any knowledge of the acts committed
by the other accused persons much less that of the private parties
involved. It was also submitted that though prosecution has sought to
prove the charge of criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B IPC by way of
circumstantial evidence but not only the said circumstances have not
been individually proved by the prosecution beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts but the said circumstances also do not form a
complete chain pointing to the guilt of accused only. It was submitted
by Ld. Sr. Advocate that in order to arrive at a decision as to whether
the said circumstances have been individually proved by the
prosecution or not much less whether the complete chain of
circumstances has been proved or not, only such evidence led by
prosecution can be considered which has been legally proved as per
the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
60. As regard the testimony of PW-11 Sh. S.K. Mishra the then
Secretary, Mining, Government of Madhya Pradesh who attended the
final Screening Committee meeting on 03.07.08, it was submitted that
the witness apparently did not state the correct facts. It was submitted
that though PW-11 Sh. S.K. Mishra stated that he carried only the
recommendation of Government of Madhya Pradesh as was made in
favour of M/s BLA Power Ltd. with him and no other document, but,
from the over all facts and circumstances of the case it was clear that
PW-11 Sh. S.K. Mishra had duly gone through the file of Government
of Madhya Pradesh wherein the issue of making recommendation in
favour of various applicant companies was dealt with. It was also
submitted that PW-11 Sh. S.K. Mishra before being transferred as
Secretary, Mines was posted in the office of Chief Minister,
Government of Madhya Pradesh and he had dealt with the said file
when the evaluation of various applications was being done by
Government of Madhya Pradesh. It was submitted that PW-11 Sh.
S.K. Mishra thus can not now claim that he had not gone through the
said file before coming to attend the meeting of Screening
Committee. It was also submitted that as M/s BLA Power Ltd. was
admittedly not an eligible company qua Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal
Block since the said coal block was reserved for non power sector
companies, so after broad discussion and deliberation in the
Screening Committee, it was unanimously decided that the said coal
block be jointly allocated in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati
Cement Pvt. Ltd. It was pointed out that the said two companies were
admittedly ranked at No. 2 and 3 after M/s BLA Power Ltd. by
Government of Madhya Pradesh in their file while evaluating various
applications. It was also submitted that even otherwise PW-11 Sh.
S.K. Mishra did not make any objection or dissenting note either at
the time of signing the recommendation sheets of 36th Screening
Committee or subsequently after reaching Madhya Pradesh or even
after receiving the final minutes of 36th Screening Committee. It was
thus submitted that the said facts clearly goes to show that the
decision to jointly allocate Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block in
favour of M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. was
unanimous and PW-11 Sh. S.K. Mishra was a party to the said
decision. It was thus submitted that no reliance can be placed upon
the oral deposition of PW-11 Sh. S.K. Mishra in so far as the same is
contrary to the records of the case.
61. It was also submitted by Ld. senior Advocate Sh. Mohit
Mathur that the guidelines issued by MOC alongwith the
advertisement, in fact referred to checking of applications for their
eligibility and completeness and no scrutiny of the applications was to
be carried out. It was thus submitted that the charge against A-4 H.C.
Gupta that scrutiny of the applications was to be carried out in MOC
before sending one set of the applications to the State Government
and Administrative Ministries is thus not based on the guidelines
issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks. While referring to
the deposition of PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana and PW-16 Sh. N.R. Dash, it
was submitted that the completeness of the application primarily
meant that it was accompanied with all the annexures as were
required to be enclosed with the application in terms of the guidelines
issued by MOC. Accordingly the bank draft of Rs. 10,000/- was also
one such document required to be annexed with the application.
62. As regard eligibility of the applicant companies, it was

submitted that as per the guidelines issued, the applicant was to be a
company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and that
it should be engaged in one of the end uses i.e. steel, iron, power,
cement etc. It was also a requirement that the application should
have been received in MOC on or before 12.01.2007. It was thus
submitted that the use of the word "scrutiny" was clearly a misnomer
as the said word as contrasted to "checking of applications"
enormously increased the scope of work which was required to be
carried out by MOC as per the guidelines. While placing strong
reliance upon "Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure", it
was submitted by Ld. Sr. Advocate that the provisions of the said
Manual of Office Procedure were required to be mandatorily followed
by the public servants. It was also submitted that no work in a
Ministry can be carried out merely on the basis of oral instructions
and if at all oral instructions are given by any senior officer then as
per the provisions of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure,
it is the duty of junior officer to reproduce the said oral instructions on
the file and to get the said note approved from the senior officer
giving such oral instructions. It was thus pointed out that the
deposition of PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana who stated that he had informed
orally both to A-4 H.C. Gupta, Secretary Coal and A-5 K.S. Kropha,
Joint Secretary Coal that no checking of the applications for their
eligibility and completeness was carried out or that the processing of
the applications in MOC by CA-I Section was carried out as per the
oral instructions given by the senior officers thus can not be relied
upon being contrary to the records of the case. While placing reliance
upon the case T.S.R. Subramanyam and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 732, it was submitted that if any civil servant
has acted on oral instructions or directions of anybody and has not
reproduced the same on the official files for getting it approved from
the said senior officer who has given oral directions/instructions then
the said civil servant will be taking a risk and his oral deposition at a
later stage can not be relied upon.
63. It was also submitted by Ld. senior Advocate that as provided

in the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure a Section in
any Ministry or Department is a basic work unit responsible for
attending to items of work allotted to it and is usually headed by a
Section Officer. It was also pointed out that a department is primarily
responsible for formulation of policies of the Government in relation to
business allocated to it and also for the execution and review of those
policies. However for efficient disposal of business allotted, a
department is divided into wings, divisions, branches and
sections/units/cells.
64. It was thus submitted that PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana in his
deposition stated that the work relating to allocation of captive coal
blocks was allotted to CA-I Section in MOC and thus after the
guidelines were formulated by MOC governing allocation of coal
blocks it was primarily the job of CA-I Section only to ensure that the
said guidelines are duly complied with. It was submitted that a
Secretary of the Ministry who primarily acts as an advisor to the
Minister-in-charge and is though administrative head of the Ministry
cannot be expected to personally look into the work of each and
every section of the Ministry. It was submitted that A-4 H.C. Gupta as
Secretary, coal was having 15 sections in his Ministry and there were
various Additional Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and Directors
working in MOC who were looking after the work of different sections.
It was thus submitted that A-4 H.C. Gupta as Secretary can not be
expected to look into the work of each officer or section in the
Ministry. It was also submitted that whenever any file used to be put-
up to A-4 H.C. Gupta as Secretary Coal then also he acted on the file
on the belief and presumption that the work undertaken by various
officers and sections of the Ministry has been properly carried out and
thus on every occasion he as Secretary, Coal could not have perused
the entire file.
65. It was also submitted by Ld. senior Advocate Sh. Mohit

Mathur that admittedly there is no noting in the files of MOC that
senior officers were ever informed by CA-I Section that the checking
of applications for their completeness and eligibility has not been
carried out. It was pointed out that PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana, Under
Secretary, MOC himself has admitted that four copies of the
applications were sent to concerned State Governments and
Administrative Ministries after obtaining approval from him only.
Admittedly the file in this regard did not travel to the desk of senior
officers. It was however pointed out that on several other occasions
PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana had put up the file before senior officers but at
the time of sending applications the matter was never brought to the
notice of senior officers as the applications were dealt with and
processed in the Ministry as per past practice and procedure being
followed. It was also submitted that whenever on an earlier occasion
a note was put up before A-4 H.C. Gupta as Secretary, Coal for
seeking additional staff then the same was duly approved by him and
thus there was no reason as to why accused would not have
permitted additional staff to CA-I Section if it was brought to his
knowledge that checking of applications for eligibility and
completeness was not carried out due to shortage of staff. The
deposition of PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana was thus stated to be full of
contradictions and as being untrustworthy and unreliable. It was thus
submitted by Ld. senior Advocate that prosecution has miserably
failed to bring on record anything which could show that there was
any meeting of mind between A-4 H.C. Gupta and the private parties
involved or the other officers of MOC.
66. As regard consideration of application of A-1 M/s KSSPL by

the Screening Committee despite it being not complete, it was
submitted that only during the course of investigation of the present
case it came to the notice of A-4 H.C. Gupta that the application of
A-1 M/s KSSPL was not complete. Moreover as per the guidelines all
the applications were to be put up before Screening Committee and
MOC on its own could not have with-held any application from the
67. As regard the issue of certain applicant companies having not

made presentation or having not submitted the feedback form it was
submitted that it was unanimously decided that irrespective of any
applicant company making a presentation before the Screening
Committee or not, the applications of all applicant companies were to
be considered. It was also submitted that the making of presentation
before the Screening Committee or the submission of the feedback
form was not a requirement of the guidelines issued by MOC
governing allocation of coal blocks but the only purpose was to know
the latest status of development made by a company towards
establishing its end use project since from the time of submission of
initial application forms considerable time had elapsed.
68. As regard the issue of post recommendation scrutiny of the

applications, it was submitted by Ld. senior Advocate that the
guidelines issued by MOC were completely silent about carrying out
post recommendation scrutiny of the applications. Moreover after the
recommendation of the Screening Committee came to be approved
by the competent authority i.e. Prime Minister as Minister of Coal then
the question of carrying out any scrutiny of the applications for their
eligibility and completeness did not arise.
69. As regard the role of A-4 H.C. Gupta as Chairman, Screening

Committee, it was submitted that except the role of holding the
meeting of the Screening Committee he alongwith all other members
of the Screening Committee stood on the same footing. It was
pointed out that the office memorandum vide which the Screening
Committee came to be constituted did not stipulate any stand-alone
role of Chairman Screening Committee as different from that of other
members of the Committee. While referring to the deposition of PW-
16 Sh. N.R. Dash, it was pointed out that all the decisions were
arrived at by the Screening Committee after due discussion and
deliberations and the same were unanimous in nature.
70. Ld. senior Advocate Sh. Mohit Mathur also referred to the
applications of all the 10 applicant companies who had applied for
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block and stated that the two companies
M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. were best placed
companies amongst all the applicant companies who could have
been allotted the said coal block by the Screening Committee.
71. As regard M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. it was submitted that in

the 36th Screening Committee itself the said company was
recommended for allocation of another coal block i.e. Bikram coal
block. As regard M/s Prism Cement Ltd., Satna, it was submitted that
the company was allocated a coal block in the 34th meeting of the
Screening Committee and thus it was not considered for allocation of
any coal block by the 36th Screening Committee.
72. As regard preparation of minutes of 36th Screening

Committee meetings, it was submitted that the same were prepared
in accordance with the provisions of manual of office procedure. It
was submitted that had there been any dissent or contrary
view/opinion in arriving at its final decision by the Screening
Committee then the minutes would have mentioned the same. It was
thus pointed out that since the final recommendations of the
Screening Committee were unanimous so in the minutes no contrary
views or opinion find mention.
73. It was further submitted that if the entire discussion which

took place in the meeting was to be reproduced then the minutes of
the meeting would have run into hundreds of pages. It was also
submitted that there was no requirement under the guidelines issued
by MOC to prepare any inter-se merit or comparative chart and in fact
from the final recommendation arrived at by the Screening Committee
it is clear that inter-se merit was arrived at after duly taking into
consideration all the relevant factors. It was also submitted that
prosecution has failed to examine PW Sanjiv Mittal, Director, CA-I
MOC who could have actually thrown light as to the circumstances
under which applications were processed in MOC before they were
sent to Administrative Ministry/State Governments/CMPDIL. It was
also submitted that even no officer from PMO was examined by the
prosecution and thus adverse inference ought to be drawn against
prosecution that the said witnesses of MOC and PMO, if examined
would not have supported the case of prosecution.
74. It was thus submitted by Ld. senior Advocate that ingredients

of none of the offences be that of criminal conspiracy, or that of
criminal breach of trust or of criminal misconduct under P.C. Act were
made out against A-4 H.C. Gupta. He was thus prayed to be
acquitted.
Arguments on behalf of A-5 K.S. Kropha.
75. As regard A-5 K.S. Kropha Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur
adopted the arguments as were addressed by Ld. senior Advocate
Sh. Mohit Mathur qua A-4 H.C. Gupta. However in addition thereto it
was also submitted by Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur that though
admittedly A-5 K.S. Kropha beside being Joint Secretary MOC was
also Member Convener Screening Committee but there were no
rules and regulations which defined the role of member convener of
any such meeting. It was thus submitted that the role of A-5 K.S.
Kropha in the Screening Committee was similar to that of other
Screening Committee members except that he used to convene
meeting of the screening committee as and when directed by A-4,
H.C. Gupta who was chairman screening Committee. It was also
submitted that as Joint Secretary, MOC, A-5 K.S. Kropha was having
multifarious duties and thus it could not be expected of him that he
should have personally supervised the working of CA-I Section even
in the circumstances when no difficulty in their working was brought
to his knowledge by any of his subordinate officers in MOC. It was
also submitted that from the deposition of PW-13 V.S. Rana it was
clear that he had made substantial improvements over his statements
made u/s 161 Cr.PC both in the present case and as made by him
during investigation of other coal block allocation matters and the
same were clearly in order to save his own skin and were made at
the behest of CBI. It was submitted that the four officials of the office
of coal controller who were deputed to MOC to assist in the receiving
of the applications never met A-5 K.S. Kropha and thus PW-13 V.S.
Rana falsely stated that A-5 K.S. Kropha met them during the course
of their stay in Delhi or told them to carry out the work of sorting of
applications only.
76. Strong reliance was placed on the provisions of Central

Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure to assert that it was the job of
CA-I Section only to carry out the checking of applications qua their
eligibility and completeness. It was submitted that in the absence of
their being any positive evidence led by prosecution that A-5 K.S.
Kropha was ever informed by any of his subordinate officer/official
that checking of applications qua their eligibility and completeness
has not been carried out so no presumption in this regard can be
drawn against the accused that checking of the applications qua their
eligibility and completeness was not carried out in pursuant to a
criminal conspiracy much less hatched by MOC officers with the
private applicant companies.
77. It was also submitted that from the deposition of various

prosecution witnesses it has clearly come on record that the decision
of the screening committee was unanimous in nature and thus the
chairman or member convener of the screening committee can not be
singularly held liable for the decision of the entire screening
committee. It was also submitted that during the course of trial it has
come on record that A-1 M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd.
were the most suitable companies amongst all the ten applicant
companies which could have been allotted Thesgora B/Rudrapuri
coal block by MOC.
78. It was also submitted that even otherwise the charge of

criminal conspiracy can not hold ground against A-5 K.S. Kropha in
the absence of any sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC as all the acts were
admittedly done by him in the discharge of his official duties.
79. However at a later stage additional written submissions were

also filed jointly for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha by Ld.
Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur.
80. In the said additional written submissions, it was submitted
that while it was the responsibility of PW-13 V.S. Rana being Branch
In-charge CA-I Section and Under Secretary, MOC to deal with
receipt and processing of applications but it was also submitted that
CA-I Section followed the same procedure and practice in receipt of
applications, checking and further processing as was followed qua
the applications dealt with by 34th Screening Committee. It was
submitted that whatever exercise of checking of applications was to
be done at MOC as per the guidelines, the same was presumably
done by CA-I Section, MOC as per the past practice and in
compliance of orders of Secretary MOC dated 04.11.2006 as well as
the rules and provisions of Manual of Office Procedure and the
guidelines. It was also submitted that no incomplete applications used
to be received at MOC and the case of A-1 M/s KSSPL appears to be
a solitary exception where part of one document namely the audited
balance sheets for two years were found not enclosed by the
applicant company. It was further submitted that the said lacuna
however came to the notice of the accused MOC officers only during
the course of investigation of coal block allocation matters by the CBI.
As regard eligibility of various applicant companies, it was submitted
that all the applicant companies including A-1 M/s KSSPL were found
to be eligible as per the eligibility criteria laid down in the guidelines. It
was reiterated that CA-I Section at no point of time put up any note
expressing difficulty in scrutinizing the applications for their eligibility
and completeness even though for various issues CA-I Section used
to put notes before the senior officers in the relevant files. It was also
submitted that in any case checking of applications was not the job of
senior officers of the rank of Joint Secretary or Secretary but was that
of CA-I Section of which PW-13 V.S. Rana was Branch In-charge
and Sh. Sanjiv Mittal was Director. It was also submitted that PW-13
V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, MOC did not put up any note informing
the higher officers regarding number of applications received or
manner of processing the same including forwarding of the
applications to the concerned stake holders for their
views/recommendations.
81. It was thus submitted that as the applications were admittedly

dispatched to Administrative Ministries/State Governments concerned
and to CMPDIL under the signatures of PW-13 V.S. Rana only so
both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha remained under the
impression that guidelines issued by MOC regarding checking of
applications have been duly complied with. A number of
contradictions/improvements were pointed out in the deposition of
PW-13 V.S. Rana to show that his deposition was not reliable.
82. In support of their submissions Ld. senior Advocate Sh. Mohit

Mathur for A-4, H.C. Gupta and Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur for A-5,
K.S. Kropha placed reliance upon the following case law:

No.
1. UOI Vs. Major J.S. Khanna 1972 (3) SCC 873
2. S.P. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1979 (10 SCC 535)
3. S.K. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra 1977(2) SCC 394
4. State of Maharashtra Vs. S.N. Thapa 1996 (4) SCC 659
5. C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of AP 1996 (10) SCC 193
6. R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayaalalitha & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 9
7. Indira Dalal Vs State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 31
8. John Pandian Vs. State 2010 (14) SCC 129
9. State Vs. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253
10 State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan (2000) 8 SCC 203
11 L.K. Gupta 2014 SCC Online Del
4036 Delhi High Court
12 Vinay Jain Vs. State 2015 (2) JCC 1427
13 Anil Maheshwari (2013) 136 DRJ 249
Delhi High court
14 K.R. Purshottaman Vs State of Kerela (2005) 12 SCC 631
15 Velji Raghavi Patel Vs. State of AIR 1965 SC 1433
Maharashtra
16 S.W. Palaniktar Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (1) SCC 241
17 Alagiri and Anr. Vs. State 1996 CrLJ 2978
18 Jiwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana 1999(2) SCC 530
19 L. Chandraiah Vs. State of A.P 2003 (12) SCC 670
20 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala 2003 (9) SCC 700
21 Radha Pisharassiar Amma Vs. State of 2007 (13) SCC 410
Kerala
22 Shreekantia Ramayya Munipalli Vs. State of AIR 1955 SC 287
Bombay
23 Amrik Singh Vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 309
24 Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari 1955(2) SCR 925
25 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai 2009 (8) SCC 617
& Ors.
26 Prof. N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI 2016 (2) SCC 143
27 Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI 2011 SCC Online
(Delhi) 5501
28 J. Jayalalitha Vs. State MANU/TN/1423/2
001: 2002-1-LW (Crl.)
37
29 Common Cause Vs. UOI AIR 1999 SC 2979
30 A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala 2009 (6) SCC 587
31 B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (13) SCC 55
32 P. Satyanarayana Murthy V. District 2015 (10) SCC 152
Inspector of Police, State of Andhra
Pradesh
33 N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2016 (1) SCC 713
34 C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State through CBI (2013) 1 SCC 205
35 UOI Vs. J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286
36 Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar Vs. State (1980) 3 SCC 110
37 Surinder Kaur Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 15 SCC 109
38 C.K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Govt of India 1997 (9) SCC 477
39 A. Sivaprakash Vs State of Kerala 2016 SCC online SC
482
40 Subhash Prabat Sonvane Vs State of Gujrat (2002) 5 SCC 86
41 Narender Singh Vs. State of MP 2004 (10) SCC 699
42 Kanhai Mishra Vs. State of Bihar 2001 (3) SCC 451
43 Bipin Shanilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujrat & (2001) 3 SCC 1
Anr.
44 Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri 2015 SCALE (12) 412
45 Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. VS. Invest 1981 AIR 2085 SC :
Import (1981) 1 SCC 80
46 Jamal Uddin Ahmed Vs. Abu Saleh 2003 (4) SCC 257
Najmuddin and Anr.,
47 Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637
48 Narender Singh and Anr. Vs. State of MP 2004 (10) SCC 699
49 Bhagirath Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh 1976 (1) SCC 233
50 Ravindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233
51 TSR Subramanian & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 732
52 Commissioner of Police Vs. Gorhandas AIR 1952 SC 16
Bhanji
53 Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851,
Commissioner New Delhi and Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405
54 Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. (2009) 7 SCC 561
Union of India
55 Jugraj Singh and Anrs. Vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 1971 SC 761,
and Ors. (1970) 2 SCC 386
56 Twarku Vs. Surti AIR 1997 H.P 76
57 Kartar Singh Vs. DDA and Anr. AIR 2000 Delhi 184
58 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CBI (2016) 227 DLT (CN
B) 12
83. Prosecution was thus stated to have miserably failed in

proving its case against both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha.
They were accordingly prayed to be acquitted.
Arguments on behalf of A-6 K.C. Samria
84. As regard A-6 K.C. Samria, the then Director, CA-I, MOC, it
was submitted by Ld. Counsel Sh. Percivel Billimoria that as per the
prosecution case itself accused was not posted in CA-I Section, MOC
either at the time when the advertisement vide which applications
were invited by MOC for allocation of captive coal blocks was issued
or the applications so received were processed in CA-I Section,
MOC. It was submitted that accused who was posted in CA-II Section
and Vigilance Section of MOC was given additional charge of CA-I
Section on 16.03.2007. It was also submitted that accused was
relieved from his duties in CA-II Section and Vigilance Section on
16.07.2007 and was finally posted as Director, CA-I Section on
08.08.2007. It was further submitted that as per the prosecution case
itself copies of the applications were sent to State Governments and
Administrative Ministries or to CMPDIL even before 16.03.2007 i.e.
the date when A-6 K.C. Samria was entrusted with the additional
work of CA-I Section, MOC. It was further submitted that as per the
guidelines issued by MOC itself the applications so received were to
be processed by CA-I Section in as much as they were to be checked
for their eligibility and completeness before being sent to various
State Governments and Administrative Ministries. It was thus
submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence to show that at
any point of time the CA-I Section, officials/officers brought to the
knowledge of A-6 K.C. Samria that the work relating to checking of
applications qua eligibility and completeness has not been
undertaken by them. It was in these circumstances submitted that A-6
K.C. Samria had no reason to presume that CA-I Section, MOC has
not undertaken its work as was required to be done in terms of the
guidelines issued by MOC. It was further submitted that in fact the job
of evaluating the applications and the collating of information, its
analysis much less evaluation thereof was primarily the job of
Administrative Ministries and the State Governments. It was also
submitted that the letters vide which applications were sent to the
State Governments and Administrative Ministries and as were issued
under the signatures of PW-13 Sh. V.S. Rana clearly mentioned the
documents which were required to be annexed with the applications.
It was thus submitted that at no point of time either before the
Screening Committee meeting took place or during the course of
meeting or even subsequent thereto the Administrative Ministries or
the State Governments pointed out that the documents annexed with
the applications of A-1 M/s KSSPL were not complete in terms of the
guidelines issued by MOC.
85. It was further submitted that admittedly A-6 K.C. Samria was
not a member of the Screening Committee and his role as Director
CA-I Section, MOC was only to ensure proper administrative
arrangements for the Screening Committee meeting and availability
of all requisite documents to the members of Screening Committee.
While referring to the deposition of PW-16 N.R. Dash it was
submitted that admittedly A-6 K.C. Samria was not present
throughout the entire duration of meeting of Screening Committee. In
these circumstances, it was submitted that even subsequent to the
meeting of Screening Committee when the minutes were prepared by
CA-I Section, MOC, he gave directions or information only as regard
the matters which were discussed in his presence in the Screening
Committee meeting. It was submitted that qua all other aspects the
information and directions were given by Joint Secretary, Sh. K.S.
Kropha towards preparation of minutes.
86. As regard supply of documents to members of Screening

Committee, it was submitted that a chart containing the information
furnished by various applicant companies was duly supplied to all the
Screening Committee members. Reference in this regard was made
to the deposition of PW-16 Sh. N.R. Dash who stated that in the first
meeting of Screening Committee, documents were supplied to all the
members of Screening Committee. It was also pointed out that
admittedly on behalf of Government of Madhya Pradesh different
representatives were present in the successive Screening Committee
meetings. Referring to the deposition of PW-9 Sh. Sewa Ram and
PW -11 Sh. S.K. Mishra, it was pointed out that admittedly Sh. S.K.
Mandal who attended the first meeting of the 36th Screening
Committee meeting did not make any note in the files and also did
not interact with the other representatives of the State Government of
Madhya Pradesh who went to attend the successive Screening
Committee meetings. It was thus submitted that on this account PW-
11 Sh. S.K. Mishra stated that in the final Screening Committee
meeting no document was supplied to the members even though as
per PW-16 Sh. N.R. Dash a folder containing documents was
supplied to all the members of Screening Committee in the first
meeting itself.
87. As regard the issue of sending copy of applications to Ministry

of Power by MOC after A-6 K.C. Samria had joined CA-I Section, it
was submitted that the present case pertains to coal blocks reserved
for non-power sector and thus the applications relevant to the present
case were sent to Administrative Ministry i.e. Ministry of Steel and to
State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the same were admittedly
sent prior to joining of CA-I Section by A-6 K.C. Samria.
88. As regard the application of M/s BLA Power Ltd. it was

submitted that admittedly M/s BLA Power Ltd. had proposed to
establish a power project and thus the said company could not have
been considered for allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block
which was reserved for non-power sector companies only. It was
submitted that the entire issue of M/s BLA Power Ltd. was not at all
relevant to the matter in issue and even prosecution has not been
clear in its submissions qua the claim of said company. It was also
submitted that the decision to invite all companies which had made
applications for various coal blocks was made by Secretary, Coal in
the meeting held on 11.05.2007 with all stake holders. As regard the
request dated 10.10.2007 of M/s BLA Power Ltd., it was submitted
that the same was merely forwarded to CA-I Section by A-6 K.C.
Samria and no directions as such was issued to PW-13 V.S. Rana to
send applications of M/s BLA Power Ltd. to Ministry of Power for their
comments.
89. It was thus submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to

establish the ingredients of either the offence of criminal conspiracy
or that of criminal misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 against A-6 K.C. Samria. It was also pointed out that from the
role played by A-6 K.C. Samria no inference can even be remotely
drawn that he conspired either with the private parties involved or
other MOC officers in order to procure allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
A-6 K.C. Samria was thus prayed to be acquitted.
90. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the

following case law by Ld. Counsel Sh. Percivel Billimoria for A-6 K.C.
Samria:
No
1 Smt. Runu Ghosh Vs. Central Bureau of [CRL.A. 482/2002]
Investigation
2 A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587]
3 C.K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Government of India [(1997) 9 SCC 477]
4 Union of India Vs. K.K. Dawan [AIR 1993 SC
1478]
5 Union of India and Anr. Vs. Major J.S. Khanna [1972 Cr.L.J. 849]
and Major I.C. Lala
6 Major S.K. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra [1977 Cr.LJ 604;
AIR 1977 SC 822]
7 S.P. Bhatnagar and Anr. Vs. State of [1979 Crl. LJ 566]
Maharashtra
8 Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar etc. Vs. State [1980 Cr.LJ 220]
(Union Territory of Goa, Daman, Diu)
9 C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of A.P., [1996 Cr.L.J. 3461
(SC)]
10 Bhagwan Swarup Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682]
11 Badri Rai Vs. State [AIR 1958 SC 953]
12 Major E.G. Barsay Vs. The State of Bombay [1962 (2) SCR 195
at 228]
13 Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of [1964 (2) SCR 378]
Maharashtra
14 Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin Vs. State [(1970) 1 SCC 696]
of Maharashtra
15 Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540]
16 Kehar Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi [1988 (3) SCC 609]
Administration)
17 State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Som Nath [1996 (4) SCC 659
Thapa and others at 668]
18 Ajay Aggarwal Vs. UOI & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 609
19 State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. [AIR 2009 SC 152]
Saravanan and Anr.,
20 State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh [(2009) 11 SCC
106]
21 Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar [(2009) 11 SCC
Pradesh 334]
22 State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. [AIR 1981 SC
1390]
23 Syed Ibrahim Vs. State of A.P. [AIR 2006 SC
2908]
24 Arumugam Vs. State [AIR 2009 SC 331]
25 Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh [(2004) 9 SCC 186]
and Ors.
26 Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. Vs. [AIR 2000 SC
State of Maharashtra 3352]
27 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj and [AIR 1999 SC
Anr., 3916]
28 State of Haryana Vs. Gurdial Singh [AIR 1974 SC
1871]
29 Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614]
91. I have carefully perused the record.
92. Before I proceed to discuss the evidence led by the

prosecution or by the accused persons, it will be worthwhile to note
the often repeated observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
number of cases as regard circumstantial evidence or qua cases
based on circumstantial evidence.
93. In the case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) as has been

referred to by Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Mohit Mathur and Ld. Counsel
Sh. B.S. Mathur for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Para 152, 153 and 154 as regard cases based on
circumstantial evidence observed as under:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High

Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a criminal case which
rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental
and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant V. State of
Madhya Pradesh1. This case has been uniformly followed and
applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-
date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of
Uttar Pradesh17 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra 18. It may
be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant case :
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be
proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra19 where the following observations
were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
Certainly, it is primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the
mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendancy,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence."
94. Thus in the light of aforesaid well settled principles relating to

appreciation of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence
the facts and circumstances of the present case are required to be
examined. It will be seen as to what all incriminating circumstances
the prosecution has been successful in proving against the accused
persons. Thereafter it will be seen whether all such incriminating
circumstances which stands conclusively proved on record form such
a chain of incriminating evidence which unerringly points towards the
guilt of accused persons only or not. In other words whether the said
chain of incriminating circumstances rule out any conclusion which
may be consistent with the innocence of the accused persons or not.
(I) Role of Private Parties i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia and A-3 Amit Goyal.
95. I thus now intend to first discuss the role of private parties
involved i.e. role of A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and
A-3 Amit Goyal in the alleged conspiracy which led to allocation of
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
(A) Whether the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL as submitted

under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia was
incomplete in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC
governing allocation of coal blocks and was thus liable to
be rejected at the initial stage of processing of applications
itself by MOC.
96. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue it will be appropriate

to first refer to the guidelines issued by MOC alongwith its
advertisement dated 06.11.06 and as were uploaded on the website
of MOC. The said guidelines were to govern allocation of captive coal
blocks. The guidelines under various heads provided information
inter-alia about How to apply, Where to apply, Processing of
application, and various other factors on which inter-se priority was
to be decided.
The said guidelines as are available at page No. 73-94 in

file Ex. PW 1/H (colly) (D-2) read as under:
"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)
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 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.
III Applications without the above accompaniments would
be treated as incomplete and shall be rejected."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
"Where to Apply?
The application, in five (5) copies, is to be addressed to

Sh. Sanjiv Mittal, Director (CA-I)
Ministry of Coal
and to be submitted in:
Coal India Limited Office
Scope Minar, 5th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre
Delhi 110092
between 10.30 AM and 4.00 PM on any working day.
The application should reach the Ministry of Coal latest by 12th of
January, 2007."
"GUIDELINES FOR ALLOCATION OF CAPTIVE BLOCKS &

CONDITIONS OF ALLOTMENT THROUGH THE SCREENING
COMMITTEE
A. GUIDELINES
1. Applications for allocation of coal blocks for captive
mining for the specified end uses shall be made to the
Director (CA-I) in the Ministry of Coal in five copies. The
application shall be accompanied by the following in
addition to any other relevant documentation that the
applicant may submit:
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
authorised 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)
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
report is appraised by a lender, the appraised report shall also
be submitted. (5 Copies)
Detailed Schedule of implementation (milestones
and time-line for each milestone) for the proposed end use
project and the proposed coal mining development project in
the form of bar charts (5 copies). However, the overall time-
frame proposed should not exceed the normative time ceiling
prescribed.
Detailed schedule of exploration (milestones and time-
line for each milestone) in respect of unexplored blocks.
However, the overall time-frame proposed should not exceed
the normative time ceiling prescribed.
Scheme for disposal of unusable containing carbon
including washing. This scheme must include the disposal/use
to which the middlings, tailings, fines, rejects, etc. from the
washery are proposed to be put. (5 copies)
Demand draft for 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.
Applications without the above accompaniments would be
treated as incomplete and shall be rejected.
2. In respect of fully explored blocks, geological data may
be obtained from CMPDIL, NLC or the State agency
concerned, as the case may be, on nominal charges. However,
full cost of exploration and geological reports would be
reimbursed to the agency concerned within six (6) weeks of
date of issue of allotment letter.
3. Where only regionally explored blocks are offered for
allocation, the detailed exploration/prospecting in the said
blocks shall be done by the allocatee company under the
supervision of CMPDIL.
4. Replacement of linkage with coal to be produced from
the allocated captive coal block can be permitted by the
Screening Committee subject to safeguarding the interest of
CIL and its subsidiaries.
5. Disposal of production during the development
phase of the captive mine to the local CIL Subsidiaries has
been allowed at a price to be determined by the Government.
6. In order to promote scientific and proper mining the
larger blocks shall not be sub-blocked into smaller ones. Only
natural sub-blocks will be formed.
7. Allotment of Captive blocks to consortium of group
of companies.
(i) If requirement of coal by an applicant does not match
with the reserves in a natural block then clubbing of
requirements may be resorted to and in case a number of
applicant companies form a consortium for utilisation of a block
for their captive use, the same may be considered for allocation
under a legally tenable arrangement.
(ii) More than one eligible and deserving companies will be
allowed to do captive mining of coal by forming a joint venture
coal mining company. The constituent applicant companies
would hold equity in the joint venture company in proportion to
their assessed requirement of coal and the coal produced
would be exclusively consumed in their respective end use
projects. Distribution of coal would be in proportion to their
respective assessed requirements.
(iii) One or more companies (to be called leader companies)
from amongst the selected, could be allowed to do mining of
coal in one or more captive blocks and the other companies (to
be called associate companies) would get coal from the captive
block in proportion to their assessed requirements. The local
Coal India subsidiary could facilitate this arrangement by taking
a nominal service charge. Leader companies will deliver coal to
associate companies at a transfer prices to be determined by
the Central Government.
8. Mining of Coal by allottee companies
The following dispensations are permitted for mining of
coal from captive blocks:
(i) Any of the companies engaged in approved end-uses
can itself mine coal from a captive coal block; or
(ii) A company engaged in any of the approved end-uses
can mine coal from a captive block through a mining company
supplying the coal on an exclusive basis from the captive coal
block to the end-user company or to its subsidiary company,
provided the end-user company has firm tie up with mining
company for supply of coal, supported by legally binding and
enforceable contract/agreement.
(iii) An independent coal/lignite mining company can also be
allocated a captive block on the condition that the entire
coal/lignite so mined would be transferred to an end user
company(ies) for their captive consumption in the specified end
uses;
Provided that the said mining company has firm back-to-back
tie up with the specified end user company(ies), supported by
legally binding and enforceable supply contract/agreement.
9. Inter-se priority for allocation of a 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;
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 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 500
MW capacity. Similarly, in steel sector, priority
shall be given to steel plants with more than 1
million tonne per annum capacity.
B. CONDITIONS OF ALLOTMENT
10. Upon allocation of captive coal block by the
Screening Committee the applicant would submit an
affidavit in the prescribed format to the effect that all coal
mined from the captive block shall exclusively be used in
the proposed end use project for which the said block has
been allocated and that in case of any slippage in
implementation of the end use project or the captive coal
mine development project, as per the Schedule of
implementation/bar charts submitted and agreed to by the
Ministry of Coal, the said block shall be deallocated
without any liability to the Government /its agencies,
whatsoever.
11. The normative time limit ceilings have been provided to
ensure that the coal production from the captive blocks shall
commence within 36 months (42 months in case the area is in
forest land) of the date of issue of letter of allocation in OC
mine and in 40 months (54 months in case the area fall under
forest land) from the date of said letter in UG mines.
12. In respect of an unexplored block, the allocattee
company shall apply for a prospecting license within three
months of the date of issue of allotment. The exploration shall
be completed and geological report prepared within two years
from the date of issue of prospecting license.
13. Any slippage in meeting with the above time limits,
unless previously agreed to by the Screening Committee, for
special reasons to recorded in writing, may lead to forfeiture of
bank guarantee, or/and cancellation of allocation, previous
approval under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 or mining
lease, as the case may be.
14. The allocattee company shall be required to submit a
bank guarantee equal to one year's royalty amount based on
mine capacity as assessed by CMPDIL or NLC, as the case
may be, and the weighted average royalty within 3 months of
the date of letter of allotment. Subsequently, upon approval of
the mining plan the Bank Guarantee amount will be modified
based on the final peak/rated capacities of the mine.
15. 50% of the bank guarantee shall be linked to the
milestones (time schedule) set for development of captive
block, and the remaining 50% to the guaranteed production.
The bank guarantee shall be liable to be encashed in the
following eventuality:
(i) There shall be an annual review of progress achieved by
an allocattee company. In the event of lapses, if any, in the
achievements vis-a-vis the milestones set for that year, a
proportionate amount shall be encashed and deducted from the
bank guarantee.
(ii) Once production commences, in case of any lag in the
production of coal/lignite, a percentage of the bank guarantee
amount will be deducted for the year. This percentage will be
equal to the percentage of deficit in production for the year with
respect to the rated/peak capacity of the mine, e.g., if
rated/peak capacity is 100, production as per the approved
mining plan for the relevant year is 50 and actual production is
35, then (50-35)/100 X 100 = 15% will lead to deduction of 15%
of the original bank guarantee amount for that year. Upon
exhaustion of the bank guarantee amount, the block shall be
liable for de-allocation/cancellation of mining lease.
(iii) The allocatee shall ensure that the bank guarantee
remains valid at all times till the mine reaches its rated capacity
or till the bank guarantee is exhausted. Any lapses on this
count shall lead to de-allocation/cancellation of mining lease.
16. The Company shall obtain the geological report (in
respect of fully explored blocks), on payment of requisite
charges, from CMPDIL, NLC or the State Government agency
concerned, as the case may be, within six weeks of the date of
issue of allotment letter.
17. In respect of a fully explored block, the company shall
submit a mining plan for approval by the competent authority
under the Central Government within six months from the date
of issue of the letter of allocation.
18. In respect of an unexplored block, the mining plan shall
be submitted for approval by the competent authority within two
years and six months from the date of issue of the letter of
allocation.
19. Mine opening permission shall be considered only after
financial closure for the proposed end use project is achieved.
20. In case a captive block is offered/allocated for washing-
cum-end-use all the beneficiated coal from the washery would
exclusively be used in the proposed end use project of the
allocatee company as approved by the Central Government
and not for commercial use or otherwise. All middlings, tailings,
or rejects from the washery, as the case may be, and all
unusables containing carbon obtained during the mining of coal
or in any process thereafter, if any, shall be used for captive
consumption only by the allocattee in his proposed end use
project or as per the scheme for disposal submitted by the
applicant and agreed to by the Screening Committee. In the
event that disposal is allowed by the Government, the
modalities of disposal of surplus coal/ middlings/ rejects, if any,
would be as per the prevailing policy/ instructions of the
Government at the relevant point in time and could also include
handing over such surplus coal/ middlings/rejects to the local
CIL subsidiary or to any person designated by it at a transfer
price to be determined by the Government.
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."
97. Thus from a bare perusal of the aforesaid guidelines under

the heading How to Apply it is clear that every applicant company
was required to enclose alongwith its application "Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports of last 3 years (5 copies)" beside various other
documents mentioned over there. It was further mentioned that the
applications without the above accompaniments would be treated as
incomplete and shall be rejected. Thus what is required to be seen is
whether the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was accompanied with all
the documents as were required to be annexed in terms of the
guidelines or not.
98. In this regard it will be worthwhile to refer to application dated
04.01.2007 Ex. PW1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was
submitted to MOC on 09.01.2007 seeking allotment of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri Coal block. Alongwith the said application various
documents were annexed by the company. The "LIST OF
ANNEXURES" (available at page No. 8 in D-10) as enclosed with the
application mentioning details of various documents annexed read as
under:
"List of Annexures.
1. Certificate of Incorporation
2. Authorisation Certificate from company
3. Memorandum & Articles of Association
4. Audited Balance sheet/Annual Accounts
5. Project Report
6. Implementation schedule of end use project & coal mining
development
7. Scheme for disposal of middling & rejects
8. Bank draft.
9. Soft copy of application form in CD."
99. Thus it is seen that various documents so annexed with the

application by the company M/s KSSPL were projected to be in
accordance with the guidelines issued by MOC.
100. In fact in the covering letter dated 04.01.2007 of the

application (available at page 6 in D-10) also it is specifically stated
that the application is being submitted in the duly filled in prescribed
proforma alongwith the other requisite documents and the demand
draft of Rs. 10,000/- towards processing fees. Even the cover page of
Annexure IV (available at page 29 in D-10) mentions the title
"AUDITED BALANCE SHEET/ANNUAL ACCOUNTS"
It is however the case of prosecution that though such a
claim of having annexed all the required documents with the
application has been made in the application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-
10) by the company M/s KSSPL but actually all the requisite
documents were not annexed. The Audited Annual Accounts/Reports
for the past three years were actually not enclosed with the
application. The claim so made by the company in its application or in
the covering letter was thus stated to be false.
101. As per the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of

coal blocks the company M/s KSSPL was clearly and undisputedly
required to annex Audited Annual Accounts/Reports of the past three
years i.e. for the year(s) 2005-06, 2004-05 and 2003-04. However a
perusal of documents as annexed in Annexure-IV of the application
Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) shows that while no Annual Account/Report
much less audited was filed for the year 2005-06 and even as regard
the year 2004-05 only provisional balance sheet as on 31.03.2005
was filed. For the year 2003-04 however the Audited Annual
Account/Report as on 31.03.2004 of M/s Ahluwalia Mining Limited
has been annexed. However for the year 2002-03 and 2001-02 the
Audited Annual Accounts/Reports of M/s Ahluwalia Mining Ltd. have
also been annexed. [Admittedly the name of M/s Ahluwalia Mining
Ltd. was subsequently changed to M/s KSSPL.]
102. Thus even if company M/s KSSPL chose to file the Audited
Annual Account/Report for the year 2002-03 or for the year 2001-
2002 (even though there was no requirement of filing the same) then
also it was still required to file the Audited Annual Accounts/Reports
for the year(s) 2005-06 and 2004-05 as per the guidelines issued by
MOC.
103. Thus on the face of it the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was
clearly incomplete as it was not accompanied with the requisite
Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year(s) 2005-06 and 2004-
05. In fact during the course of entire trial no explanation has been
furnished by A-1 M/s KSSPL as to why the Annual Account/Report for
the year 2005-06 was not annexed with the application much less the
Audited Annual Account/Report. As already mentioned even for the
year 2004-05 only provisional balance sheet was filed. For a ready
reference the Audited Annual Accounts/Reports which were required
to be filed and the Annual Accounts/Reports which were actually filed
by the company have been tabulated as under:
Audited Annual Accounts/Reports which were required to be

filed by company M/s KSSPL and the Annual Accounts/ Reports
actually filed by company M/s KSSPL with the application
S. No. Year Required to be Actually filed by Whether

filed as per company M/s Audited
guidelines of KSSPL
MOC
1 2005-06 Yes No ---
2 2004-05 Yes Only provisional No
balance sheet
filed
3 2003-04 Yes Yes Yes
4 2002-03 No Yes Yes
5 2001-02 No Yes Yes
104. My subsequent discussion would however show that even
though the Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year(s) 2004-05
and 2005-06 were very much available with the company M/s KSSPL
at the time of submission of its application to MOC but for reasons
best known to it the same were not filed. In fact no reason at all has
been put forth during the entire trial as to why the same were not
filed. It was merely stated that the same was the result of an
inadvertent mistake.
105. At this stage I may also mention that I am still not on the issue
as to whether the figures of financial strength of the company i.e. its
net-worth or the existing production capacity of the end use plant as
mentioned in the application were correct or not. I shall be discussing
the said aspects at a later stage.
106. As regard the Annual Accounts/Reports of the company for

the aforesaid two year(s), prosecution examined PW 4 Rakesh
Kumar Meena, ROC cum official liquidator, Jaipur, Rajasthan. During
the course of investigation he had provided various documents of M/s
KSSPL including the Audited Annual Accounts/Reports as were
submitted by the company for the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-
06 with the office of ROC, Jaipur. From the said record which now
stands proved on record it is clear that the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports of the company M/s KSSPL for the year 2004-05
was filed with ROC on 25.11.2005. The Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 was though uploaded by the
company on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs on
16/17.01.2007 but the same was approved and accepted by the
company in its AGM held on 30.09.2006.
107. A perusal of form-23 AC Ex. PW 3/D (colly) for the year 2005-
06 as was filed by company M/s KSSPL with ROC shows that the
annual accounts of the company for the year 2005-06 was prepared,
audited and placed before AGM on 30.09.06. A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia uploaded said form-23 AC on the website of Ministry of
Corporate Affairs under his own digital signatures. Alongwith the said
form-23 AC a notice earlier issued for holding AGM of the company
on 30.09.2006 alongwith agenda of the meeting was also annexed. In
the agenda it was stated that the AGM has been called to receive,
consider and adopt the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2006 and
the profit and loss account for the year ended on the date and the
reports of the directors and auditors thereon. Form-23 AC further
states that the AGM as mentioned above was held on 30.09.2006.
108. Similarly, the record of ROC, Jaipur shows that the Audited
Annual Accounts of the company M/s Ahluwalia Mining Private
Limited for the year 2004-05 were duly signed on 01.09.2005.
109. Thus from the said documents of ROC which clearly stands
proved on record, [(All documents are part of Ex. PW 4/C and PW
4/D) (D-38)] it is crystal clear that well before the date of submission
of application of A-1 M/s KSSPL, Ex.PW1/F (colly) (D-10) to Ministry
of Coal i.e. as on 09.01.2007 seeking allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block, Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year
2005-06 and of the year 2004-05 of the company were very much
available with it.
110. However on behalf of both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia it has been only submitted that inadvertently the
provisional balance sheet for the year 2004-05 instead of Audited
balance sheet was filed by the staff of the company with the
application. It was also stated that the wrong figures of financial
strength i.e of net-worth as on 31.03.2006 mentioned in the
application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) was primarily on account of a
conceptual mistake committed by the staff of the company in
calculating the net-worth from the balance sheets.
As mentioned earlier, I shall be discussing this issue of

wrong figures of financial strength of the company at a later stage of
the present judgment.
111. What is however important to note is that no explanation at

all of any nature whatsoever has been furnished as to why the
Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 or for the year
2004-05 were not filed even though the same were available with the
company as on the date of submission of application to MOC. As
regard the plea of inadvertent mistake, A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
stated that the application in question was prepared by different
departments of the company and he merely signed it being the
authorised signatory of the company. He thus claimed complete
ignorance both as regard the contents of the application or the
documents annexed with it. He stated the non-filing of Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports of the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 purely on
account of an inadvertent error of the staff of the company.
112. However in my considered opinion the explanation of

inadvertent mistake of the staff of company as regard filing of only
provisional balance sheet for the year 2004-05 or in not filing of any
Annual Account/Report for the year 2005-06 much less Audited, is a
very feeble attempt being made by A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia so as
to shrug off his responsibility.
113. A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in order to prove his plea of

defence that he was not aware of the contents of the application,
examined one of his employee DW-6 B.K. Tripathi. This witness
stated that in the year 2006-07 he was working as Asst. Manager
Marketing in M/s KSSPL. He further stated that in the first week of
January 2007 at the asking of Accounts Department of the company
he had carried five sets of applications alongwith one set of
documents from Satna to Barbil, Orissa for getting the applications
signed from Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. He further stated that after
reaching the office of Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia at the office of M/s
Hima Ispat Ltd. at Barbil one of the staff member collected the said
set of documents from him for preparing photocopies thereof and
stated that he already knows the purpose of his visit. He also then
told him to go inside and get the applications signed form Sh. Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia.
114. He further stated that when he presented the applications to
Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, Orissa then Sh. Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia asked him as to whether the applications have been
correctly and properly filled and to which he claimed ignorance. He
further deposed that Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia then talked to
someone at Satna office on telephone and thereafter signed the
applications. DW-6 B.K. Tripathi however claimed ignorance about
the conversation which A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia had with Satna
office or with whom he talked to.
115. However no evidence has been led on record either by A-1

M/s KSSPL or by A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia as to who actually
prepared the applications or as to why the concerned person did not
annexe the Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the said two years
despite being available with the company. Certainly onus to prove the
said plea of defence even by preponderance of probability was upon
the accused persons as the same was asserted by them only.
Strangely enough no one from the Satna office of the company M/s
KSSPL was examined who could claim and explain as to under what
circumstances the application in question was filled in or as to why
certain requisite documents even though available with the company
were not annexed with the application.
116. At this stage I may mention as a mark of caution that though

no benefit to prosecution is sought to be given on account of any
weakness of defence but it is only being shown that accused persons
have failed to prove even by preponderance of probabilities their
claim of inadvertence regarding non-filing of requisite documents
despite being available with the company M/s KSSPL and as regard
other misrepresentations made in the application.
117. Prosecution was in fact only required to prove that the

application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1 M/s KSSPL was signed
and submitted to MOC under the signatures of its authorised
signatory/director A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. However it will be
worthwhile to point out that accused persons themselves have also
not disputed the said fact. Rather their own witness DW-6 B.K.
Tripathi deposed that A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia before signing the
application made enquiry from him as to whether the applications
have been correctly and properly filled or not and when he claimed
ignorance in this regard then A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia also made
enquiry from his Satna office in this regard and thereafter only he
signed the applications.
118. However as already mentioned no evidence has been led on

record by A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia as to what conversation he
had with Satna office or which employee(s) of company M/s KSSPL
prepared the application or in other words whose inadvertent mistake
it was in not enclosing all the requisite documents even though
available with the company. The fact however remains that even if the
deposition of DW-6 B.K. Tripathi is believed to be true then also it
stands proved on record that A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia signed the
application only after being satisfied that the same has been correctly
and properly filled.
119. Thus at the cost of repetition it may be stated that once the
prosecution discharged its burden of proving that application Ex. PW
1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1 M/s KSSPL seeking allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block was signed and submitted to MOC under the
signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia then it was only for A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia to prove at least by preponderance of
probability his claim that he was having no knowledge of the
documents annexed with the application or that of the contents of the
application. Even A-1 M/s KSSPL has also not made any claim
disowning its responsibility towards the incomplete application
submitted on its behalf by its officers/directors to MOC.
120. Thus in my considered opinion prosecution has been

completely successful in proving the circumstance that the application
Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1 M/s KSSPL was signed and
submitted to MOC under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia. It also stands proved on record that before signing the
application A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia satisfied himself that the
application has been correctly and properly filled. Moreover A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia being the authorised signatory and director
of A-1 M/s KSSPL can not even otherwise disown his responsibility in
this regard. In these circumstances, it will be thus completely legal
and logical to conclude that A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia signed the
application of A-1 M/s KSSPL having full knowledge of the contents of
the application and also of the annexures enclosed. On the other
hand both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia have
completely failed in raising any shadow of doubt about the said claim
of prosecution or any evidence led by prosecution in support thereof
which may lead me to disbelieve the case of prosecution in that
regard.
121. Thus it stands clearly proved on record that the application of

A-1 M/s KSSPL as submitted to MOC seeking allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri Coal block was incomplete as it was not accompanied
with the requisite documents i.e. the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the years 2005-06 and 2004-05. Thus in terms
of the guidelines of MOC the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was per-
se liable to be rejected being incomplete even before copies thereof
were sent either to Ministry of Steel or to State Government of
Madhya Pradesh or to CMPDIL.
122. At this stage I would also like to deal with the contention of
Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang that the prosecution has though
proved the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia on the
application Ex. PW1/F(colly) (D-10) but the contents thereof have not
been proved.
123. PW-3 Prashant Ahluwalia who was brother of A-2 Pawan

Kumar Ahluwalia and was also a director of A-1 M/s KSSPL identified
signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia on the application Ex. PW
1/F (Colly) (D-10) and various annexures thereof. He also stated that
A-1 M/s KSSPL had also applied to Ministry of Coal (MOC) for
allotment of a coal block. The said witness was not at all cross-
examined on behalf of either the company A-1, M/s KSSPL or A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. In fact the correctness of his deposition or
that of the documents exhibited by him including the application, Ex.
PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) was not at all questioned by any of the accused
persons.
124. In the aforesaid circumstances the submission of Ld. Counsel

for accused that even though the application has been exhibited by
the prosecution but the contents thereof have not been proved is
certainly not tenable. The prosecution in my considered opinion has
even otherwise been clearly successful in proving and establishing on
record that application Ex. PW 1/F (colly)(D-10) was the application
which was submitted by A-1 M/s KSSPL to MOC. On the other hand,
if the application Ex. PW 1/F (colly)(D-10) was not the same
application which was submitted by A-1 M/s KSSPL to MOC then
after discharge of its burden by prosecution as above the onus shifts
upon accused as to what other contents different from that of Ex. PW
1/F (colly) were either mentioned in their application or what other
documents were annexed with the application as was submitted by
them to MOC. As a mark of caution I may however mention that onus
to prove that application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) was the application
of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was submitted to MOC is in no way being
shifted upon the accused persons from prosecution but it is only
when prosecution has discharged its burden beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts and proved that application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-
10) is the same application of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was submitted to
MOC then if the accused intends to question the correctness of the
contents of the application Ex. PW 1/F (Colly) (D-10) than at least he
needs to assert/show as to what were the contents of the application
as was submitted by them to MOC and in what respect they were
different from the one as are mentioned in application Ex. PW 1/F
(colly) (D-10).
125. Prosecution in fact also examined PW-1 Dy. SP S.P. Rana,

CBI who had collected the application of M/s KSSPL, Ex. PW 1/F
(colly) (D-10) from MOC. He clearly stated that the application Ex.
PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) was collected by him from MOC after it was
produced by PW-5, Sh. Ram Naresh Section officer, CA-I Section,
MOC and that too in the presence of two public independent
witnesses namely Vishal Tarar and Ayodhya Prasad. However,
neither during the course of examination-in-chief of PW-1 Dy. SP S.P.
Rana the exhibition of the said application Ex. PW 1/F (Colly) (D-10)
was objected to by Ld. Counsel for accused nor in the cross
examination of the witness as was carried out by Ld. Counsels for the
accused persons the identity or correctness of the application in
question was disputed. It was only suggested to the witness that
CBI had on its own collected all the files/documents from the office of
MOC and later on while sitting at the CBI office prepared various
memos and obtained signatures of different persons on the said
memos. PW-1 Dy. SP S.P. Rana, however stated the said
suggestions to be wrong. What is however important to note is that
though Ld. Counsel tried to question the authenticity of the seizure
memo(s) prepared by the witness but the correctness of the
documents/files including that of application Ex.PW1/F (Colly) was
not disputed. Similarly PW 5 Ram Naresh, Section Officer, MOC also
stated that various files/documents including the application of M/s
KSSPL Ex.PW1/F (colly) (D-10) was produced by him before Dy. SP
S.P. Rana and who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW1/E (D-82). In
his cross-examination also as conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel for
A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, he stated that
document Ex.PW1/F (colly) (D-10) was available in his section only
when he handed over the same to CBI. Once again the said witness
was also neither suggested nor put any question disputing the
correctness of the application Ex.PW1/F (colly)(D-10). However he
was also suggested that the documents/files were already collected
by CBI from MOC and that he subsequently signed the seizure
memos at CBI office. Witness however denied the said suggestion
stating it to be false.
126. Moreover in the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

knowledge as to the contents of their application can be exclusively
to accused applicant company i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL and its director A-
2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia only as the application was submitted
under his signatures. Thus u/s 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the
accused persons were liable to discharge the said burden of proof
especially when the prosecution has first discharged its burden of
proving that Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) is the application of M/s KSSPL
as was submitted to MOC and the same was collected from the
authority with whom the same was supposed to be available in the
routine course of performance of official acts in MOC. Moreover
nothing has been alleged as to in what context or manner the
contents of application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) were different from
the application submitted by company M/s KSSPL to MOC, if Ex. PW
1/F (colly) (D-10) is not the same application. Moreover even in their
statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia when asked about the application Ex. PW
1/F (colly) (D-10) to be the one as was submitted by M/s KSSPL to
MOC, simply answered it as a matter of record.
Thus in my considered opinion the contention of Ld.

Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that the
prosecution has only proved the application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10)
but not the contents thereof is completely misplaced being devoid of
any legal or logical basis.
127. Be that as it may, the contents of the application Ex. PW1/F

(colly) (D-10) can now certainly be referred to in order to see whether
A-1 M/s KSSPL made any false claim in its application either qua its
net-worth or its existing production capacity of sponge iron or not.
The fact that the application of company M/s KSSPL was incomplete
has already been discussed and demonstrated above. Certainly in
the absence of Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year(s)
2005-06 and 2004-05, the application Ex. PW1/F (colly) (D-10) of
company M/s KSSPL was clearly incomplete and was accordingly
liable to be rejected at the initial stage of processing of the
applications itself in accordance with the guidelines issued by MOC .
(B) Whether A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar

Ahluwalia misrepresented the figures of financial strength
i.e. net-worth of the company M/s KSSPL in the application
Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10).
128. As regard the figures of financial strength i.e. net-worth as
mentioned in the application form at Point no. 10 it has been claimed
by the prosecution that the figures mentioned in the application were
clearly wrong. The information mentioned in this regard at point nos.
8, 9 and 10 in the application Ex. PW1/F (colly) (D-10) read as under:
03-04 04-05 05-06
8. TURNOVER IN THE LAST 3 YEARS (in Crores) 22.87 57.33 52.54
9. PROFIT IN LAST 3 YEARS (in Crores) 3.00 1.02 1.64
10. NETWORTH (as on 31.03.06) (in Crores) 40.40 64.75
129. Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia has however submitted that the discrepancy
in the said figures of net-worth mentioned in the application arose on
account of some bonafide accounting mistakes committed by the staff
in as much as while calculating the net-worth of the company, the
staff instead of applying the formula
(i) Net-worth = Share capital as per + reserves and surplus
audited accounts
applied the formula
(ii) net-worth = (fixed assets + current assets)

- current liabilities
Total assets.
130. It was argued by Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang that if the
net-worth of the company is calculated as per the above formula
mentioned at (ii) then the figures mentioned in the application form
could clearly be culled out from the Annual Accounts/Reports of the
company. It was also submitted by Ld. Counsel that the aforesaid
mistake in the application form was a bonafide mistake and there was
no malafide intention or malice in mentioning the said figures.
131. While I shall be discussing at a later stage as to what could

be the motive in mentioning the highly inflated figures of its net-worth
by the company or whether there was any malafide intention on the
part of company M/s KSSPL in mentioning the same or not but for the
purposes of present discussion it is suffice to state that A-1 M/s
KSSPL was clearly found to have mentioned wrong figures as regard
its net-worth in the application. In fact both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia have also not disputed the aforesaid fact
except stating that it was the result of an inadvertent mistake.
However in this regard, I may mention that despite having an
accounts department in the company M/s KSSPL as deposed to by
DW-3 Arunendra Prasad Tiwari and DW-6 B.K. Tripathi, both
employees of A-1 M/s KSSPL, no one was examined from the
accounts department who could even remotely claim or explain that
the said figures were mentioned wrongly by him by applying a wrong
formula. In fact the issue of mentioning of wrong figures in the
application appears to be directly related to non-filing of Audited
Annual Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 and 2004-05. When
the Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 and 2004-
05 were admittedly not filed then the question of cross-checking the
said figures mentioned in the application either in MOC or in Ministry
of Steel or by the officers of Government of Madhya Pradesh does
not arise at all. Thus the claim of A-1 M/s KSSPL that if checked the
figures mentioned in the application or the factum of wrong formula
having been applied in calculating the net-worth would have become
clearly evident from the audited balance sheets itself also losses its
all significance as no such audited balance sheets were filed
alongwith the application either for the year 2005-06 or for the year
2004-05. In the application only the net-worth of the company as on
31.03.2006 was to be mentioned. Thus the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 was the most important
document to be filed. Thus it will not be even wrong to state that the
Audited Annual Accounts/Reports especially for the year 2005-06
was not filed with the application despite being available with the
company M/s KSSPL only with a view to even defeat any attempt if
ever made by any authority to cross-check the figure of net-worth as
mentioned in the application from the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports, if attached.
132. Moreover as shall be discussed at a later stage also the

property being sought for by the company was an important
nationalised natural resource i.e. coal of the country and coal was
equally crucial as an important raw material to be used by the
company M/s KSSPL in its day to day operations and for its future
expansion. However the company M/s KSSPL and its
officers/directors seems to have dealt with the entire matter in the
most casual manner as if they were sure to obtain allocation of a coal
block in all eventualities and that the submission of application or
other documents by them to MOC was merely a formality. (This
conclusion will stand further fortified when at a later stage the role
played by accused MOC officers in the coal block allocation process
shall be examined).
133. The fact however remains that the figures of financial strength
i.e. net-worth as on 31.03.2006 as mentioned in the application Ex.
PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) were not only wrong but were also highly
inflated.
(C) Whether A-1 M/s KSSPL misrepresented about the

existing and the proposed production capacity of its end
use project.
134. In the application Ex. PW1/F (colly) (D-10) the existing,

proposed and ultimate capacity of the end use project was mentioned
as follows:
III PROPOSED END USE (PROJECT) POWER/IRON & STEEL/SPONGE

IRON/CEMENT.
(Tick the main end use project, associate end use not to be indicated)
Capacity of end use plant LINKAGE LINKAGE LINKAGE

Quantity
POWER SPONGE mtpa Grade Source
MW MW Mtpa
WHGB THERMAL
11 EXISTING 10 0.1 0.21936 E/F Korba, Rigarh
CAPACITY (SECL,
Bilaspur)
12 PROPOSED 40 50 0.5
CAPACITY
13 ULTIMATE 50 50 0.6
CAPACITY
(TOTAL)
14 ROM COAL 2 MTY
REQUIREM
ENT
15 LOCATION SAGMA, SATNA (M.P)
(District,
State)
135. Thus the existing capacity of the end use project was stated
as one lac tonne per annum (0.1 MTPA). The prosecution has alleged
that the company M/s KSSPL had misrepresented about the said
existing production capacity also in as much as in various other
documents submitted by the company to different authorities the
existing production capacity of the company was never stated to be
more than 87000 tonne per annum. On the other hand Ld. Counsel
Sh. Pavan Narang has sought to explain the figure of one lac tonne
per annum by stating that as the company M/s KSSPL worked for
337 days and 335 days during the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-
07 respectively so the production capacity came to be about one lac
tonne per annum. It was further stated that as MOC had not specified
any minimum production capacity of the end use project so
mentioning of the said figure in no way was relevant to the Screening
Committee in making recommendation for allocation of a coal block in
favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL. It was also submitted that even otherwise
the said capacity was mentioned as the existing installed production
capacity of the company and not the actual sponge iron produced by
the company in the relevant years.
136. However, in order to appreciate the aforesaid issue in the light
of rival claims made by the prosecution and the accused persons, it
will be worthwhile to refer to the company profile of M/s KSSPL as
was mentioned in the project report enclosed as annexure-V to the
application Ex. PW 1/F (Colly) (D-10).
137. In the said company profile it has been mentioned in

Section-I, Chapter-2, Para-1 [at page 96 in Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10)]
that the company at present is producing about one lac tonne of
sponge iron and is having a linkage of 1,39,600 tonne of coal per
annum from M/s SECL. It has been further stated that in second
phase i.e. in the year 2007, 2 lacs tonne sponge iron will be added
and thereby making a total capacity of 3 lac tonnes by the end of
2007. It is further mentioned that in the third phase another kiln of 2
lac tonnes of sponge iron plant shall be set up. In the fourth phase it
is stated that additional sponge iron plant of one lac tonne will be set
up by 2010.
138. Thus what has been claimed in the project report is that the
company M/s KSSPL is at present producing one lac tonne of sponge
iron. The said assertion thus clearly belies the claim being now made
that in the application, only the existing production capacity has been
mentioned as being 0.1 MTPA (One lac tonne per annum) and not the
actual sponge iron being produced by the company.
139. However apart from the aforesaid falsity in the claim of the
accused persons that the capacity 0.1 MTPA as mentioned in the
application is the existing installed production capacity and not the
actual sponge iron being produced, it will be worthwhile to examine
as to whether the company was even having the actual installed
production capacity of sponge iron to the tune of 0.1 MTPA also or
not.
140. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to refer to various

documents/applications as were submitted by company M/s KSSPL
to various authorities at different points of time. From the said
documents, it is clearly evident that the claims made by the company
M/s KSSPL in its various applications made either to Madhya
Pradesh Pollution Control Board or to Trade & Industries Center,
Government of Madhya Pradesh or to Excise Department clearly
contradicted the claim of the company as have been made in its
application Ex. PW 1/F (Colly) (D-10) submitted to MOC regarding its
existing production capacity. Even the claim being made now that the
actual installed capacity of the company was 0.1 MTPA also stands
falsified.
141. PW 8 Dr. P.S. Sharma who was Chief Chemist, Madhya

Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) was examined by the
prosecution in this regard. During the course of investigation he had
produced before the IO various applications submitted by A-1
M/s KSSPL for obtaining consent orders u/s 25/26 of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and u/s 21 of Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 beside also producing
various consent orders so issued by the Pollution Control Board. All
such applications and consent orders in original were seized by IO
DSP Sanjay Dubey vide production and receipt memo Ex. PW 8/A
(D-49). The documents so seized vide the said memo read as under:
"PRODUCTION & RECEIPT MEMO
1 Case No. & Date : CBI Rc 219 22012 E 0016 CBI

EO-I/EO-II, dated 13.10.2012
2 Date & Place of receipt : 05.02.2013 at O/o CBI, EOU-V,
EO-II Branch, New Delhi
3 By whom Production and : Shri P.S. Sharma S/o Shri R.S.
handed over Sharma, working as Scientist,
Regional Office, Madhya Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (MPPCB),
Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
4 By whom received : Sanjay Dubey
5 Description of :
documents received on
production
a. Application dated 17.01.2000 submitted by Kamal

Sponge & Steel, Satna for consent u/s 25/26 of the Water
(Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act 1974.
b. Letter dated 20.01.2000 issued by Regional Office,
MPPCB to Kamal Sponge & Steel, Satna.
c. Reply of Kamal Sponge & Steel, Satna dated
21.10.2000 to Regional Officer, MPPCB, Satna.
d. Consent of MPPCB dated 10.07.2001 issued u/s 25/26
of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution), Act 1974.
e. Application dated 17.01.2000 submitted by Kamal
Sponge & Steel for consent u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention &
Control of Pollution), Act 1981.
f. Consent of MPPCB dated 10.07.2001 issued u/s 21 of
the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution), Act 1981.
g. Consent of MPPCB dated 05.04.2004 issued u/s 25/26
of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act 1974.
h. Consent of MPPCB dated 05.04.2004 issued u/s 21 of
the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act 1981.
i. Application dated 01.07.2006 submitted by M/s Kamal
Sponge, Steel & Power Ltd., Satna for renewal of consent of Air
& Water Pollution.
j. Renewal of consent of MPPCB dated 04.12.2006 issued
u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution), Act 1981.
k. Renewal of consent of MPPCB dated 04.12.2006 issued
u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act
1974.
l. Application dated 19.03.2007 submitted by M/s Kamal
Sponge, Steel & Power Ltd., Satna for renewal of consent of Air
and Water Pollution.
m. Renewal of consent of MPPCB dated 07.09.2007 issued
u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act 1981.
n. Renewal of consent of MPPCB dated 07.09.2007 issued
u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act
1974.
o. Form D dated 09.08.2012 as submitted online by M/s
Kamal Sponge, Steel & Power Ltd. Satna for renewal of
consent u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of
Pollution),Act 1974.
p. Form 1 dated 09.08.2012 as submitted online by M/s
Kamal Sponge, Steel & Power Ltd. Satna for renewal of
consent u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act
1981.
q. Renewal of consent of MPPCB dated 20.09.2012 issued
u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act 1981.
r. Renewal of consent of MPPCB dated 20.09.2012 u/s
25/26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution),Act 1974.
(All the above-mentioned documents are in original).
Handed over by Taken Over By

(Shri P.S. Sharma) (SANJAY DUBEY)
Scientist, Regional Office, INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MP Pollution Control Board, Satna, CBI/EOU.V/NEW DELHI
Madhya Pradesh Satna."
142. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid documents it is crystal

clear that vide orders dated 20.09.2012, Ex. PW 8/Q (available at
pages 139-142 in D-50) and Ex. PW 8/Q-1 (available at pages 143-
144 in D-50) Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board in reference to
the online application dated 16.08.2012 of company M/s KSSPL,
renewed the consent of Pollution Board both u/s 21 Air (Prevention &
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and u/s 25/26 Water (Prevention &
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for a total production capacity of 290
tonnes per day sponge iron. The two consent orders were issued for
the period 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2013. Similarly it was found that vide
letter dated 19.03.07 Ex. PW8/M (colly) the company M/s KSSPL had
sought renewal of consent (Air and water) qua sponge iron for
existing production capacity of 290 TPD (87000 tonnes per annum).
The pollution control board accordingly renewed the consent so
issued to company M/s KSSPL vide order dated 07.09.07 Ex. PW
8/N-1 for the period 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2008.
143. At this stage it will be worthwhile to mention that when various

documents as above were collected by the IO from Madhya Pradesh
Pollution Control Board then PW-8 Dr. P.S Sharma alongwith Dr. R.S.
Parihar, the then Regional officer Satna Regional office also prepared
a chart on the basis of said documents mentioning therein the
production capacity of M/s KSSPL during different time period and
the dates when various consent certificates were issued by the
department to M/s KSSPL. The said chart bearing signatures of PW 8
Dr. P.S Sharma and that of Dr. R.S. Parihar was submitted to IO vide
letter dated 04.02.13 Ex.PW8/B (colly)(D-48). The said chart is thus a
ready and convenient reproduction of the relevant facts of various
applications submitted by M/s KSSPL to Madhya Pradesh Pollution
Control Board at different points of time seeking issuance or renewal
of consent orders under Water & Air Acts as above and the
consequent orders issued by the Pollution Control Board.
144. For a ready reference the said chart which is part of Ex. PW
8/B (colly) (D-48) has been reproduced hereunder:
. / /
(/) (/) /

.

1 17.1.2000 1417 10.7.2001 29.10.2000 28.10.2001 27000 ...
2 21.10.2000 1415 10.7.2001 29.10.2000 28.10.2001 27000 ... -1 -1
3 17.7.2001 1404 23.7.2003 29.10.2001 28.10.2003 27000 ... -2 -2
4 05.3.2002 1405 23.7.2003 29.10.2001 28.10.2003 27000 ...

5 214 30.1.2004 29.10.2003 28.10.2004 27000 ...
6 22.1.2004 5708,5706 01.9.2004 31.8.2005 290 ...
05.4.2004
7 04.7.2005 17838, 17840 01.9.2005 31.8.2006 290 ...
21.9.2005
8 01.7.2006 9263,9265 01.9.2006 31.8.2007 290 ...
04.12.2006
9 19.3.2007 7068,7070 01.9.2007 31.8.2008 290 ...
07.9.2009
10 11.4.2008 5292,5294 01.9.2008 31.8.2009 290 ...
30.6.2008
11 23.6.2009 10966,10968 01.9.2009 31.8.2010 290 ...
18.12.2009
12 12.7.2010 9475, 9477 01.9.2010 31.8.2011 290 ...
08.10.2010
13 17.8.2011 882,884 01.9.2011 31.8.2012 290 ...
09.2.2012
14 09.8.2012 7052,7054 01.9.2012 31.8.2013 290 ...
20.9.2012
-Sd-
,
. .
(.)

.

1 19.9.2006 765 29.3.2007 25.4.2003 24.4.2005 ()
2 14.5.2010 1704 05.7.2010 25.4.2005 24.4.2010 ()
3 20.8.2010 2239 20.12.2011 25.4.2010 24.4.2015 ()
-Sd-
,
. .
(.)
145. Thus from the various documents of MPPCB the information

whereof has been collated in the chart reproduced above it is clear
that from 17.01.2000 till 30.01.04 the production capacity of the
company M/s KSSPL was 27000 TPA of sponge iron. Thereafter from
22.01.04 till 31.08.13 the production capacity of the company
continued to remain 290 TPD. [The said figure of 290 TPD amounts
to 87000 MTPA by multiplying the figure of daily production capacity
with a figure of 300 working days in a year i.e 290 X 300 = 87000
MTPA. I shall be however discussing at a later stage as to how the
multiplying factor is applied as 300 for calculating production capacity
of any industry].
146. Thus from the aforesaid documents itself it is clear that the
company M/s KSSPL on its own never claimed its production
capacity of sponge iron as more than 87000 Tonne Per Annum.
However, prosecution also examined PW 7 A.P Singh who was
General Manager District Trade and Industries Center, Satna under
Department of Commerce and Industries, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.
He submitted that every industry registered with their department is
required to obtain a production certificate from their department. In
this regard the company has to apply to their department by way of
an application enclosing therewith various no objection
certificates/permissions obtained from other departments such as
Pollution Control Board, Local Gram Panchayat, Department of Sales
Tax etc. He further stated that the applicant company is also required
to enclose a list of the plant machinery installed so as to justify the
capacity of the industry and the date of commencement of
production. He further stated that their department accordingly carries
out inspection of the industrial plant and after completion of all
necessary formalities the production certificate is issued to the
industry concerned. He further stated that in the production certificate
the date of commencement of production and the capacity thereof is
mentioned. He also stated that the capacity of the industry as
mentioned on the production certificate is mentioned on annual basis
and the standard criteria adopted by the department to calculate the
said capacity on annual basis was to multiply the existing production
capacity per day with 300 working days in a year. During the course
of investigation this witness also handed over to IO Dy. SP Sanjay
Dubey, the original file of their department regarding the production
certificates issued to A-1 M/s KSSPL at different points of time. The
said file was duly proved on record and was exhibited as Ex. PW7/B
(Colly) (D-53). He also proved an application dated 28.08.2003
submitted by A-1 M/s KSSPL to their department seeking issuance of
production certificate. Alongwith the said certificate the company had
enclosed various documents such as :
a. Copy of Memorandum and Article of Association
b. Copy of Acknowledge from S.I.A.
c. Copy of long term coal linkage from CIL
d. Copy of list of plant and machinery purchase for new kiln
e. Copy of sanction letter from MPSEB
f. Copy of MPST/CST registration certificate
g. Copy of Central Excise Registration Certificate
h. List of raw material and incidental goods
147. The witness further stated that pursuant to receipt of said

application he himself carried out an inspection of the industrial plant
of the company on 09.10.03 and during the course of inspection he
found the existing annual production capacity of the plant to be 57000
MTPA. He further stated that the original production capacity of the
plant was 27000 MTPA and 30000 MTPA capacity was subsequently
added and thus at the time of inspection the production capacity of
the plant was 57000 MTPA. He further stated that the original partial
production of the plant started on 28.10.2000 and the final target of
27000 MTPA production capacity was achieved on 28.12.2000. The
expanded production thereafter started from 19.07.2003. The witness
further pointed out that alongwith its application the company M/s
KSSPL had also enclosed copy of acknowledgement of submission
of I.E.M. (Industrial Entrepreneurship Memorandum) as is required to
be submitted by every company with Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Govt. of India. It was submitted that in the said
acknowledgement of memorandum which is issued by the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Govt of India on the basis of Memorandum
submitted by the company the existing production capacity of sponge
iron was stated as 27000 tonne with proposed capacity as 60000
tonne and total capacity as 87000 tonne.
148. The company alongwith its application seeking issuance of

Production Certificate had also annexed two orders both issued by
MOC, Govt. of India dated 07.11.2001 and 01.07.2003 regarding
grant of coal linkage to the company. Vide order dated 07.11.2001,
the company was granted coal linkage for a capacity of 27000 tonne
per annum sponge iron. Vide order dated 01.07.2003, the company
was granted coal linkage for additional 30000 tonne per annum
sponge iron capacity (expanded capacity). PW-7 A.P. Singh further
stated that the third kiln installed by the company was having an
annual production capacity of 30000 tonnes per annum i.e. @ 100
tonne daily. The company M/s KSSPL was thus issued certificate of
commencement of production of sponge iron for a total capacity of
57000 metric tonne per annum on 16.10.2003. The said certificate
clearly mentioned the original capacity of the company as on
28.10.2000 to be 27000 MT (Metric Tonne) and as on 19.07.2003, the
expanded capacity to be 30000 MT with total capacity being 57000
MT.
149. PW-7 A.P. Singh further stated that subsequently vide

application dated 28.03.2005 the company M/s KSSPL applied to
their department seeking production certificate qua expanded
capacity stating that fourth kiln has also been installed by them and
the same has started commercial production w.e.f 15.03.2005. The
said application was also enclosed with various documents viz.
a. Copy of Memorandum and Article of Association
b. Copy of Acknowledge from S.I.A.
c. Copy of long term coal linkage from CIL
d. Copy of list of plant and machinery purchase for new kiln
e. Copy of sanction letter from MPSEB
f. Copy of MPST/CST registration certificate
g. Copy of Central Excise Registration Certificate
h. List of raw material and incidental goods.
150. After the said application was processed in the department

then an inspection of the industrial plant of the company was carried
out by Sh. R.K. Singh Assistant Manager and who submitted his
report dated 05.07.2005 Ex. PW 7/H (D-53). During the course of
inspection the original production capacity of the plant qua sponge
iron being 57000 MTPA was found to have been expanded by
another 30000 MTPA and thus the total existing capacity of the plant
was found to be 87000 MTPA. Accordingly a production certificate
dated 15.07.2005 Ex. PW 7/J (D-53) was issued to company M/s
KSSPL by District Trade and Industries Centre, Govt. of M.P. for a
total capacity of 87000 MTPA sponge iron.
151. However in the cross-examination of this witness as was

carried out by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia, he was asked as to on what basis the production capacity
of the plant was calculated on the basis of 300 working days. In reply
thereto PW-7 A.P. Singh stated that though there were no written
guidelines or rules/regulations in this regard but quite a few years
back a standard format was received in their department from
Directorate of Industries, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh with respect to
final/permanent registration of small scale industries. In the said
format the production capacity of any plant was asked for on the
basis of 25 working days in a month and 8 hours per day per shift. He
thus stated that on the basis of said standard format a practice
developed over a period of time and which ultimately became an
established norm that the production capacity of any industry, be it
small, medium or large, established in the state of Madhya Pradesh
shall be calculated on the basis of 25 X 12= 300 working days in a
year. He further stated that the said practice was in fact adopted by
all concerned in the state of Madhya Pradesh and even the
Chartered Accountants who used to prepare project reports qua
various kinds of industries for submission to Govt. departments also
adopted the said norm of 300 working days in a year. The said
witness was though put a suggestion by Ld. Defence Counsel that an
industry engaged in production of steel runs through out the year for
all three shifts per day except for shutting down for yearly
maintenance purposes but the witness stated that beside shutting
down for yearly maintenance purposes the industry also shuts down
depending upon the market conditions. He further stated that subject
to all other conditions being suitable the industry engaged in
production of steel runs throughout the year on all days.
152. The said witness was however subsequently put a Court

question as to whether any industry engaged in production of sponge
iron/steel or in production of any other product submits information to
the department of industries whenever it shuts down for any period
either for maintenance purposes or on account of any market
condition or still on any other account be it a holiday etc. The witness
however stated that no such information is given to their department
by any industry.
153. Thus from the deposition of PW-7 A.P. Singh and that of PW-
8 Dr. P.S. Sharma coupled with various documents placed and
proved on record by them it is crystal clear that the company M/s
KSSPL had itself never claimed its total production capacity to be
more than 87000 MTPA at any point of time. It is also clearly evident
that the company M/s KSSPL itself calculated its production capacity
on the basis of 300 working days in a year and thus multiplied its per
day production capacity of 290 tonne per day with a factor of 300
days i.e. 290 X 300 = 87000 MTPA. Moreover in the cross-
examination of none of the two witnesses, the veracity or correctness
of the documents proved on record by them was disputed. In these
circumstances, an important question which arises for consideration
is as to why the claim regarding existing capacity to be one lac tonne
per annum was made in the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was
submitted to MOC under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia.
154. In fact during the course of trial the effort of A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia has been consistently to show that
the existing production capacity of the company was about 1 lakh
tonne per annum since the company functioned on more than 300
days in the relevant years. During the course of investigation the
accused persons even produced two certificates issued by PW-17
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Superintendent (Technical), Central Excise
Department, Satna, M.P. showing that the sponge iron plant of the
company M/s KSSPL worked for more than 300 days in the year(s)
2005-06 and 2006-07. The said two certificates Ex. PW 17/B (D-70)
and Ex. PW 17/C (D-71) read as under:
(Ex. PW 17/B) (D-70)

"TO WHOM SOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that the Sponge Iron Plant of M/s Kamal

Sponge Steel & Power Ltd , Satna, was in operation for 245 days
during the period from 1st April, 2006 to 31st December, 2006.
This certificate is issued after verification of excise records i.e.
R.G.I of the company.
Sd/-
12.04.2013
Superintendent
Central Excise, Range II
Satna (M.P.)"
(Ex. PW 17/C) (D-71)

"TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that, on verification of Production records

maintained under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 by the
company, it is found that the plant of M/s Kamal Sponge Steel &
Power Ltd., Satna (M.P) was in operation for 337 days during the
Financial Year 2005-06 and 335 days during the Financial Year
2006-07.
This Certificate is issued on the request made by the
Company M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd, Satna (M.P.)
Sd/-
22.04.2013
Superintendent
Central Excise, Range II
Satna (M.P.)"
155. On the basis of the aforesaid two certificates, it was submitted
by Ld. Defence Counsel that if the total per day capacity of the kilns
installed by the company is multiplied by 335 days for the year 2006-
07 and 337 days for the year 2005-06, then the approximate existing
production capacity comes to around 1 lakh tonne per annum.
156. Thus if the aforesaid argument of A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia as duly supported by two certificates Ex. PW
17/B and Ex. PW 17/C is believed then certainly not much can be
read against the company for having made a claim in the application
that the existing production capacity of the company was one lac
tonne per annum. In case of 335 and 337 working days in a given
year the total production capacity of the company with capacity of
290 TPD would certainly be more than 97000 MTPA.
157. However the situation is actually not so and as shall be clear

from my subsequent discussion that the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B
and Ex. PW 17/C clearly seems to have been got issued from PW-17
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal with a view to create a false plea of defence
for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia both during the
course of investigation and trial.
158. If the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B dated 12.04.2013 and Ex.
PW 17/C dated 22.04.2013 are seen in the circumstances under
which the same came to be issued then it will be crystal clear that
during the course of investigation serious efforts were made by the
accused persons so as to cover up their acts of misrepresentation
made in their application Ex. PW 1/F (Colly). Even otherwise, I may
state that from the documents of Madhya Pradesh State Pollution
Control Board and that of Department of Trade and Commerce as
stands proved on record, it is clear that company itself also never
considered its existing production capacity to be more than 87000
MTPA. [290 tonne per day X 300 days = 87000 MTPA].
The company at all times submitted its application to

various departments considering 300 working days in a year.
Circumstances in which certificate Ex. PW 17/B (D-70) dated

12.04.2013 and Certificate Ex. PW 17/C (D-71) dated 22.04.2013
were issued by PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
159. During the course of investigation of the present case, PW-17

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal had produced before the IO, the original
Annual installed capacity statement of A-1 M/s KSSPL, Satna dated
06.11.2008, 27.04.2012 and 03.05.2012 as were submitted by
company M/s KSSPL in ER-7 form with the Excise Department. The
said ER-7 forms were collected by IO Insp. Sanjay Dubey vide
production and receipt memo Ex. PW 17/A (colly) (D-59). Moreover
ER-7 form dated 06.11.2008 was also put to DW-3, Arunendra
Prasad by Ld. Sr. P.P. in his cross examination and the same has
been proved on record as Ex. DW-3/PX-1. In the said ER-7 form titled
Annual Installed Capacity Statement the annual production capacity
of sponge iron of the company M/s KSSPL was mentioned as 87000
MT. However PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal stated in his deposition
that during the time when investigation of the present case was in
progress he had issued two certificates indicating the number of
working days during the two financial years i.e. 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Upon being shown the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B and Ex. PW 17/C
he identified the same having been issued by him. As regard the
circumstances in which the said certificates were issued by him he
stated that some representative of A-1 M/s KSSPL had approached
him stating that some iron ore racks of the company had got stuck in
Orissa and the company required the said certificates for the two
financial years to get the said iron ore racks released. He thus stated
that in the said circumstances he issued the two certificates. He
further stated that the representative of the company M/s KSSPL had
brought alongwith him, the production cum dispatch register
maintained by the company for the said two financial years.
160. However in his cross-examination as conducted by Ld.

Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, he
stated that there was no requirement for any manufacturer to inform
the excise department on daily basis, if there is no production in his
plant/industry on any given day. He also stated that while assessing
the monthly returns filed by a manufacturer, the particulars mentioned
therein are not cross-checked with the register maintained by the
manufacturer at its plant site.
161. The aforesaid witness i.e. PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal was
however thereafter extensively examined by the Court under Section
165 Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In response to the questions so put to
him by the Court he admitted that in ER-1 form submitted by M/s
KSSPL with excise department on monthly basis, the production of
the goods carried out in a given month, its quantity, dispatched
quantity, value of the goods dispatched, duty payable on the said
goods etc. is mentioned by the company. He also admitted that in the
registers produced by the representative of A-1 M/s KSSPL on the
basis of which the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B and Ex. PW 17/C
were issued by him, similar particulars regarding the goods produced
or dispatched or duty payable on the said goods was mentioned.
162. He also admitted that the correctness of all such figures as

were mentioned in the two registers thus could have been got cross-
checked from the ER-1 forms already filed by company M/s KSSPL
with the excise department. However upon being asked as to whether
he cross-checked the entries in the two registers with the ER-1 forms
of the company, the witness stated that as the record related to ER-1
forms was voluminous so comparison thereof would have taken 1-2
days and thus on account of urgency expressed by the
representative of A-1 M/s KSSPL that in the absence of the two
certificates they are not in a position to procure iron ore, he did not
cross-check the entries made in the register with ER-1 forms. He
however also admitted that neither in the applications submitted by
M/s KSSPL seeking issuance of said two certificates nor in the said
two certificates issued by him any such facts relating to release of
iron ore racks were mentioned.
163. I have deliberately reproduced a major portion of the

deposition of PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal as from a bare perusal
of his deposition and from the circumstances in which the two
certificates Ex. PW 17/B and Ex. PW 17/C have been issued by him,
it is clear that the same was a feeble attempt on the part of company
M/s KSSPL towards creating a false plea of defence. Certainly the
conduct of PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal in issuing the two
certificates Ex. PW 17/B and Ex. PW 17/C is also not above board.
The explanation furnished by him that the two certificates were issued
on the request of a representative of A-1 M/s KSSPL on the ground
that some iron ore racks of the company have got stuck in Orissa and
the two certificates are required for getting the iron ore racks released
is per-se vague and completely unbelievable. Moreover neither any
such request was made in the application by the company nor any
such ground of issuing the two certificates is mentioned in the said
certificates. Thus apart from the conduct of company M/s KSSPL in
procuring the two certificates, the conduct of PW-17 Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal is also more daring and blatant in as much as he stated in
his deposition that though prior to issuing certificate dated 12.04.2013
Ex. PW 17/B, he was not aware that any investigation was being
conducted in the present matter by CBI but before issuing the second
certificate dated 22.04.2013 i.e. Ex. PW 17/C he was aware that
investigation in the present matter was being carried out by CBI.
Apparently there could not have been any correlation for getting any
iron ore racks of company M/s KSSPL released in the year 2013 with
the two certificates certifying the total number of working days for
which the company M/s KSSPL worked during the financial years
2005-06 and 2006-07. Moreover in the cross-examination of this
witness neither A-1 M/s KSSPL nor A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
furnished any explanation worth the name as to for what purpose the
two certificates were got issued by them from PW-17 Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal or what reason was spelled out by them to him for getting
the two certificates issued. However in the written submissions filed
on behalf of the two accused persons as well as in their statements
u/s 313 Cr.PC, it has been stated that the two certificates were
obtained from PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal as IO PW-18 Dy. SP
Sanjay Dubey told them to produce evidence of actual number of
working days during the said two years. Had it been so then apart
from the fact that such a reason ought to have been mentioned in the
applications submitted to PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal for obtaining
the said two certificates, the said reason at least ought to have been
put to the witness in his cross-examination. It can not be even
remotely believed that no reason at all was disclosed either in writing
or even orally to PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal while getting the two
certificates issued. The fact however remains that no prudent person
can even remotely believe the reason put forth by PW-17 Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal for issuing the two certificates except that he tried to
help A-1, company M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in
creating a false plea of defence.
164. It is in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances that the

deposition of DW-3 Arunendra Prasad Tiwari, Assistant Clerk,
Marketing Division, Dispatch Section, M/s KSSPL needs to be seen.
165. DW-3 Arunendra Prasad Tiwari deposed that in the dispatch
section of the company a register called RG-1 (Daily stock register) is
maintained. He accordingly identified three registers Ex. DW 3/A
(colly). Ex. DW 3/B (colly) and Ex. DW 3/C (colly) to be three such
registers maintained by the company for the year(s) 2005-06, 2006-
07 and 2007-08 respectively. He also stated that the said three
registers were maintained by him and he identified his
signatures/initials over there. He also deposed that every year audit
inspection of the said registers was carried out by the officials of
Central Excise Department and at the time of inspection they put an
endorsement to that effect on the registers under their signatures. He
also stated that the monthly excise returns submitted in Form ER-1 to
the Central Excise Department are submitted by the company on the
basis of said registers only.
166. However in his cross-examination as conducted by Ld Sr. P.P.

Sh. V.K. Sharma, he stated that the daily production figures as are
mentioned in the register were used to be given by production
department of the company to him and he had no personal
knowledge about the actual production undertaken by the company
on any given day. He also claimed ignorance about the installed
production capacity of sponge iron in the company. He also claimed
ignorance as to when the audit inspection qua the entries in the three
registers was carried out or as to who were the officers of Excise
Department who signed the said registers as the registers were not
signed by them in his presence. He also stated that the audit
inspection is carried out in the Accounts Department.
167. In his further cross-examination, the witness was also shown
form ER-7 dated 06.11.2008 titled "Annual Installed Capacity
Statement" Ex. DW3/PX-1 as was filed by company M/s KSSPL with
Excise Department. He though stated that the said form was signed
by him but claimed ignorance about the contents of the form. He
further stated that he signed the said form at the instance of officers
of Accounts Department of the company. In the said ER-7 Form, the
annual installed capacity of the company was stated as 87000 MTPA.
168. Moreover for reasons best known to the accused persons the
said registers were not at all shown to PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
in his cross-examination as to whether the two certificates Ex. PW
17/B and Ex. PW 17/C were issued by him on the basis of said
registers or not. In fact PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal denied that the
Excise Department is required to carry out regular physical inspection
of the plant/industry of any given manufacturer so as to ensure that
there is no violation of excise duty payable. He though stated that
surprise inspections are carried out by the department but denied that
there were any rules/regulations which mandated that inspection of
any manufacturer's site is necessarily to be carried out by the
department at least once every year.
169. Thus it is crystal clear that neither the deposition of DW-3

Arunendra Prasad Tiwari inspires confidence nor the two certificates
Ex. PW 17/B and Ex. PW 17/C issued by PW-17 Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal can be given any credence.
170. Company M/s KSSPL however also examined DW-4 S.K.
Pandey, the then Inspector (Audit) Central Excise Department. He
deposed that he alongwith his other colleagues from the office of
Central Excise Department had carried out excise audit of the
company M/s KSSPL. He stated that at the time of inspection they
had inspected RG-1 register Ex. DW 3/C (colly) for the year 2007-08
and as a token thereof made an endorsement with their signatures on
the first page of the register. He further stated that at the time of audit
inspection they also checked the official record maintained by the
company beside the said RG-I register. However in his cross-
examination as conducted by Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma he stated
that putting of signatures on RG-1 register at the time of any such
inspection was not part of any rules and regulations or circulars of
Excise Department but the same were undertaken as a part of
practice being followed by the officers of the Excise Department.
171. DW-4 S.K. Pandey was in fact examined by A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in order to substantiate their claim
of total number of working days in the year 2007-08. However as
already mentioned for reasons best known to the accused persons,
the said three RG-1 registers were never put to PW-17 Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal who had admittedly issued certificates Ex. PW 17/B and
Ex. PW 17/C. The said witness only could have stated as to whether
the two certificates were issued by him after seeing the said RG-1
registers i.e. Ex. DW 3/A, Ex. DW 3/B and Ex. DW 3/C respectively
for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 or not. Thus in these
circumstances the deposition of DW-4 S.K. Pandey looses all its
significance in as much as it does not stand proved on record that the
two certificates Ex. PW 17/B and Ex. PW 17/C were issued on the
basis of the aforesaid three RG-1 registers or not. Moreover, as
discussed above at length the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B and Ex.
PW 17/C seems to have been issued solely with a view to create a
false plea of defence in favour of company A-1, M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
172. At this stage, I am refraining from commenting as to the

reasons why the investigating agency chose to buy such a lame
excuse or turned a blind eye to the circumstances under which the
two certificates were issued since in my initial orders rejecting the
closure report filed by CBI, I have already dealt with the said aspect.
The fact however remains that the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B and
Ex. PW 17/C issued by PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal are
documents created solely with a view to create a false plea of
defence in order to justify the false claim of existing production
capacity made in the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL as submitted to
MOC under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
173. Moreover no explanation at all has been put-forth by either

A-1 M/s KSSPL or A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia as to under what
circumstances the annual installed capacity was stated to be 87000
MTPA in various documents/applications submitted to different
Government departments during the relevant period of time i.e. both
prior to and after submission of application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10)
to MOC. There is also no explanation as to whether at any point of
time the said claims made by A-1 M/s KSSPL before different
authorities regarding its annual installed capacity as initially being
27000 MTPA and thereafter having been expanded to 57000 MTPA
or even to 87000 MTPA was sought to be corrected by the company
much less in the year 2013 when the two certificates Ex. PW 17/B
and Ex. PW 17/C were got issued from excise department.
174. Thus from the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that

A-1 M/s KSSPL deliberately chose to mention inflated figures of
existing production capacity of its end use project in application Ex.
PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) submitted to MOC under the signatures of A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
175. It thus stands proved beyond shadows of all reasonable

doubts that the company M/s KSSPL with-held the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 and 2004-05 despite the
same being available with it at the time of filing of application before
MOC. It also stands proved beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts
that the company not only made highly inflated claims about its
financial strength i.e. net-worth and also grossly misrepresented
about its existing production capacity. At this stage I may also
mention that company M/s KSSPL had in fact even furnished highly
inflated claims of its future production capacity also even though it
had no intention to do so or to achieve such targets in future.
176. The failure of the company in achieving post-allocation
milestones clearly suggests so. Though at this stage I may mention
that Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
has tried to present the post allocation activities undertaken by the
company emphasizing that company M/s KSSPL was sincere in
mining the coal block allotted to it and to expand the capacity of its
sponge iron plant. However the fact remains that even in the year
2012-13, the production capacity of the company remained only
87000 MTPA. Thus it is clear that the company M/s KSSPL even
grossly failed in achieving other targets of production of sponge iron
also as were claimed either in the main application or in the project
report annexed thereto i.e. achieving 0.3 MTPA till the end of 2007 or
adding 2 lac tonne capacity of sponge iron production in the third
phase or adding another capacity of one lac tonne sponge iron in the
fourth phase by the year 2010 and thereby achieving the ultimate
total capacity of 0.6 MTPA (6 lac tonne per annum) by the year 2010.
(D) Whether A-1 M/s KSSPL dishonestly withheld the

requisite documents from MOC and it also dishonestly
made misrepresentations in its application.
177. After having concluded that there were clear

misrepresentations and false claims made in the application form
submitted on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL, the next issue to be
considered is whether the said misrepresentations or false claims
were made dishonestly. In this regard it needs to be examined as to
why company M/s KSSPL chose to with-held any documents or
misrepresented about its net-worth or about its existing production
capacity or future projected capacity of the end use project. Certainly
the reasons thereof can not be proved by prosecution by way of any
direct evidence, for the same can be exclusively to the knowledge of
accused persons only. However the intention thereof has to be
gathered from the attending circumstances only and that too from
only such circumstances which stands well proved on record. It is
well settled that guilty intention in committing any given act is always
in the mind of the offender and prosecution can not be expected to
lead any direct evidence qua it. However the only effort which
prosecution can make in this regard is to prove on record various
circumstances from which it may be legally and logically inferred that
company M/s KSSPL had deliberately with-held documents from
MOC despite the same being available with it and also that it
dishonestly misrepresented about its net-worth and existing
production capacity. Thus the object to be achieved by the company
and the means adopted by it in achieving the said object becomes
important.
178. As discussed above the prosecution has clearly been

successful in proving on record that the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports of the company M/s KSSPL for the year 2004-05
and 2005-06 were very much available with the company as on
09.01.2007 i.e. when the application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) was
submitted by it to MOC the same were not filed in MOC alongwith the
application. Except for stating that it was an inadvertent mistake on
the part of staff of the company no other explanation worth the name
has been put forward either by A-1 M/s KSSPL or by A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia. However the said explanation has also been
shown as a feeble plea of defence raised by the accused and which
is highly unbelievable. My subsequent discussion will in fact further
show that the aforesaid acts of non-filing of requisite documents and
making highly inflated claims regarding net-worth and existing or
proposed sponge iron capacity were conscious acts of the accused
persons and can in no way be termed as inadvertent acts.
179. However before proceeding further I may state that in drawing

the aforesaid conclusion neither I have presumed the existence of
any fact till now nor I intend to proceed further on the basis of
presumptions. Effort is being made to draw all such conclusions on
the basis of only such facts and circumstances as stands proved on
record by legally admissible evidence. I am also not at all suggesting
that the burden was upon the accused persons to prove their
innocence.
180. The aforesaid note of caution is being made consciously as

all through the trial and final arguments it was being repeatedly
argued on behalf of the accused persons that Court may not draw
any conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions even though no
legally sustainable and admissible evidence is led by the prosecution
to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of accused persons
beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts.
181. Thus in these circumstances before adverting further as to

what could be the reason of such misrepresentation or withholding of
documents, it would be worthwhile to have a glance over the
definition of the word dishonestly as given in Section 24 IPC.
Section 24 IPC defines the word "dishonestly" as 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.
However, in order to arrive at a finding in this regard it will

be important to first see as to what could have been the purpose of
making such a false representation or with-holding of documents by
the accused persons. Admittedly MOC while inviting applications by
way of an advertisement had also advertised the guidelines vide
which inter-se priority for allocation of a block among competing
applicants for a captive block may be decided by the Screening
Committee. The said guidelines relating to inter-se priority read as
under:
"9. Inter-se priority for allocation of a 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;
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 application ;
Maximum recoverable reserve as proposed in the
application;
Date of commissioning of captive mine as proposed in
the application;
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 500 MW capacity. Similarly, in steel sector, priority
shall be given to steel plants with more than 1 million tonne per
annum capacity."
182. The very first guideline shows that the status (stage), level of
progress and state of preparedness of the projects will be one of the
factors to be considered by the Screening Committee. The guidelines
also says that the track record and financial strength of the company
shall also be a relevant consideration beside the production capacity
as proposed in the application.
183. Moreover as per the implementation schedule of the end use

project and development of coal mine as was enclosed with the
application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) the development of both was to
be undertaken simultaneously. Certainly all such activities would have
required huge investment and thus the net-worth of the applicant
companies or the track record or financial strength of the companies
gains material importance. Accordingly various factors as were
chalked out by MOC to govern the allocation of coal blocks to
different applicant companies were thus closely related to each other.
Moreover the basic factors i.e. the net worth of the applicant company
or the track record or financial strength of the company clearly had a
direct co-relation with the status (stage), level of progress and state of
preparedness of the projects.
184. The aforesaid circumstances thus clearly explains as to what
prompted the accused persons to present highly inflated claims with
respect to their status (stage), level of progress and state of
preparedness of the projects both as regard the existing or the
proposed production capacity or to withhold the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 and 2004-05. If at all the claim
of net-worth as on 31.03.06 was to be cross-checked then the same
would have been possible only if the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 would have been filed by the
company M/s KSSPL alongwith its application.
185. Thus from the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that the sole
intention of both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
was to present A-1 M/s KSPPL as better placed/prepared in terms of
status (stage) level of progress and state of preparedness of the
projects by showing higher production capacity, both existing as well
as proposed. The track record and financial strength of the company
was also presented as sound and capable enough to undertake
future expansion of the end use project or in mining of the coal block
which may be allotted. A picture was also sought to be painted about
the future expansion plan of the company and its techno-economic
capability to do so and thereby present itself as a major bonafide
player in the field of production of sponge iron. The end result of all
the aforesaid activities so undertaken by A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia was clearly to cause wrongful gain to
themselves by procuring allocation of a coal block in favour of
A-1 M/s KSSPL.
186. Thus from my aforesaid discussion it stands proved beyond

shadows of all reasonable doubts that A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia with-held the Audited Annual
Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 and 2004-05 from MOC
dishonestly. It also stands proved beyond shadows of all reasonable
doubts that highly inflated claims regarding its net-worth and the
existing and proposed sponge iron production capacity of sponge iron
of A-1 M/s KSSPL were made in the application dishonestly with a
view to cause wrongful gain to A-1 M/s KSSPL.
187. At this stage, I would also like to deal briefly with one other
submission of Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang for A-1 M/s KSSPL and
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that had there been any malafide
intention in inflating the existing or future proposed production
capacity targets then in accordance with the priority criteria
benchmark fixed by MOC that in steel sector companies having
production capacity to the tune of 1 MTPA (One Million Tonne Per
Annum) shall be given preference, the company would have
mentioned at least its proposed production capacity as 1 MTPA.
188. Though on the face of it the argument appears to be attractive

but on a deeper thought the fallacy in the argument becomes evident.
Certainly there was no restriction if any company chose to mention its
proposed ultimate production capacity as 1 MTPA if not the existing
capacity itself. However in such an eventuality the figures of financial
strength would have been required to be equally inflated. The
proposed total investment required would have grown manifold.
Similarly the requirement of land and other factors would have grown
exponentially high. The requirement of seeking various clearances
from different Government departments would have also arisen.
There would have been also a requirement of putting in a new project
report to show such a proposed plant and keeping in view the
resources available with the company such as land, finance etc. the
preparation of any such report could not have been possible. There
could have been another important issue of non-matching of the coal
reserves as available in the impugned coal block with the requirement
of the company if it was to produce 1 MTPA of sponge iron.
189. However at this stage, I may mention that all the aforesaid
reasons as mentioned above may appear to be presumptive in nature
but the same have been so coined only because Ld. Counsel for
accused persons themselves are calling upon this Court to venture
into such an exercise to analyse as to why company M/s KSSPL did
not mention its proposed ultimate capacity as 1 MTPA. Certainly the
reasons thereof must be to the knowledge of accused persons only
but it can be said with certainty that mere non-mentioning of its
proposed ultimate production capacity of sponge iron as 1 MTPA
does not have any effect of any nature whatsoever on the
conclusions arrived at by this Court in the earlier part of present
judgment. Moreover the issue being considered over here is whether
A-1 M/s KSSPL made highly inflated claims in its application
dishonestly or not.
(E) Whether both Ministry of Steel and State Government of

Madhya Pradesh relied upon the aforesaid highly inflated
claims made by the company M/s KSSPL in its application
believing them to be true, while submitting their
comments/views/recommendation to MOC.
190. The next question which is required to be considered is

whether the claims made by company M/s KSSPL as regard its
financial strength i.e. net-worth or as regard its existing or proposed
production capacity of its end use project were considered by State
Govt of Madhya Pradesh and by Ministry of Steel in making its
recommendation or submitting its comments/views to MOC.
Subsequently it will be also required to be seen as to whether the
screening committee and thereby MOC, Govt of India considered the
said information as given in the application form in arriving at its final
decision.
(i) State Government of Madhya Pradesh
191. PW 9 Sewa Ram, the then Secretary Mines, Government

of Madhya Pradesh had attended two meetings of 36 th Screening
committee meetings as were held on 07.02.2008 and 08.02.2008. In
his deposition he stated that when various applications were received
by Government of Madhya Pradesh from MOC for submitting its
comments/views/recommendations then an empowered committee
headed by Chief Secretary of the State with Secretary Industry,
Secretary Mines, Secretary Energy and Secretary Finance as
members was constituted. He further stated that on the basis of
recommendation of the said empowered committee the Chief Minister
of the State made recommendations to MOC for various coal blocks
in favour of different applicant companies. Accordingly the
recommendations as were made by Government of Madhya Pradesh
were duly communicated by him to Sh. H.C. Gupta during the course
of meeting held on 07.02.08 itself. He thus stated that qua Thesgora-
B/ Rudrapuri Coal block, Government of Madhya Pradesh had
recommended the name of M/s BLA Power Ltd. In his cross
examination this witness stated that the empowered committee duly
chalked out the criteria on the basis of which recommendations were
to be made and the said criteria was duly reproduced in the file by
Sh. S.K. Mandal, Addl. Secretary Mines. He further stated that based
on the said criteria a sub committee comprising of Additional
Secretary, Sh. S.K. Mandal alongwith Director Mines and General
Manager, State Mining Corporation, examined all the applications and
accordingly assigned points for different factors to all the applicant
companies. As regard Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block 85 points
were thus assigned to M/s BLA Power Ltd., whereas 84 points were
assigned to M/s Rewati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and 82 points were
assigned to A-1 M/s KSSPL. In his cross-examination as conducted
on behalf of A-6 K.C Samria this witness however stated it to be
correct that while considering the financial status of the applicant
companies their net-worth was also considered. He further
volunteered that the information as was available in the application
form was considered. In his further cross-examination as carried out
by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia he stated that the sub committee comprising of Mr. S.K.
Mandal had gone through all the applications and had thereafter
prepared detailed charts on the basis of information mentioned in the
applications. He also stated it to be correct that in the said charts the
turnover of the applicant companies for the financial year 2003-04,
2004-05 and 2005-06 was mentioned beside the proposed
investments to be made by the companies. He also stated it to be
correct that in the said charts prepared by the sub committee the net-
worth of the applicant companies as on 31.03.06 was mentioned and
that of A-1 M/s KSSPL was mentioned as 64.75 crores. [ The said
figure was undisputedly picked up from the application of A-1 M/s
KSSPL Ex.PW1/F (Colly)(D-10)].
192. It was also pointed out to the witness in his cross-examination

that in the note dated 02.11.2007 of Sh. S.K. Mandal points were
assigned to various applicant companies on the basis of their
financial position. The relevant portion of the note dated 02.11.07
[available at note sheet page 23-25 in note sheet pages Ex. PW 9/B
(colly) in file Ex. PW 9/A (colly) (D-46)] which read as follows was
also pointed out to the witness:
3. Company ki Vittiya Stithi

1. 100 crore tak 05
2. 101 se 500 crore tak 15
3. 500 crore se adhik 20
193. It was also put to the witness by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s
KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that in order to assess the
Vittiya Stithi of a company it was not only the net-worth of the
company which was considered but many other factors were also
relevant in this regard such as any tie-up for loan, if made by the
company or any other financial arrangements or resources made
available by the company. It was further put to the witness that in the
note dated 06.02.2008 recorded by him on pages 30-35 in note sheet
pages Ex.PW9/B (colly) in file Ex.PW9/A (colly) (D-46) it was stated
that the Vittiya Stithi was assessed on the basis of turnover of the
applicant companies for the year 2005-06.
194. Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang has however submitted

that the purpose of referring to different slabs of Vittiya Stithi of a
company as was done by the sub-committee was only in order to
show that irrespective of the wrong figures of financial strength i.e.
net-worth mentioned in the application the points as were assigned to
M/s KSSPL would have remained the same even if actual figures
would have been mentioned in the application.
195. I may however state that the issue being considered over
here at this stage is whether the figures related to financial strength of
the applicant company as mentioned in the application were
considered by Govt of MP in making its recommendation to MOC or
not. (I shall be separately dealing with the issue of grant of points
under different slabs at a slightly later stage in the light of fact as to
whether the application of M/s KSSPL being incomplete and liable to
be rejected at the initial stage itself, was to be at all even received by
State Government of Madhya Pradesh much less considered].
However from the deposition of PW 9 Sewa Ram coupled with the
notes as prepared by the sub committee and by the empowered
committee in file Ex.PW9/A (Colly) (D-46) it is crystal clear that the
figure of net-worth was a relevant factor duly considered by
Government of Madhya Pradesh in making its recommendation to
MOC. Thus it again stands cogently established that withholding of
Audited Annual Accounts/Reports for the year 2005-06 and 2004-05
beside mentioning highly inflated figures of net-worth or existing or
proposed production capacity are not only acts of dishonest
concealment of facts but also that of dishonest misrepresentation of
facts solely with a view to obtain wrongful gain to A-1 M/s KSSPL.
196. Moreover if the argument of Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan

Narang that if actual figures of net-worth would have been mentioned
in the application form then also points assigned to M/s KSSPL would
not have been different is considered then the same will primarily
amount to overlooking the fact that the application of M/s KSSPL was
in fact per-se liable to be rejected being incomplete in terms of
guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks. In
these circumstances, the question of assigning any points qua any
factor whatsoever would not have arisen at all.
197. Thus from the aforesaid discussion it stands clearly

proved that the figures of financial strength i.e. net-worth of the
company were not only relevant but were also duly considered by
State Government of Madhya Pradesh in sending its
recommendations to MOC.
(ii) Ministry of Steel.
198. Ministry of steel had admittedly placed various applicant

companies under different categories on the basis of its own internal
guidelines. In order to appreciate the issue as to whether Ministry of
steel considered the figures of financial strength as mentioned in the
applications by the applicant companies or the existing and proposed
production capacity of the end use project, it will be worthwhile to first
reproduce the guidelines so framed by Ministry of Steel.
Guidelines to be followed for the consideration of

allotment of Coal Block [available at page 288-290 in file Ex.
PW 13/J-2 (Colly) (D-4A)
0.3mT (million metric Ton) or more capacity of production of
sponge iron either existing or proposed up to December, 2010.
0.5mT (million metric Ton) or more capacity of production of pig
iron either existing or proposed up to December, 2010.
Background of the company-whether associated with steel,
sponge, iron, pig iron or mining activity.
Financial status of the company and the extent of financial tie
up.
Coal washery should be envisaged in the project.
Capacity of the company to quickly undertake development of coal
mines based on experiance or any credible effective steps.
2. While the above criteria will determine eligibility,
following priorities may be considered for allocation of coal
blocks up to 50% satisfaction level which are mentioned
below:-
Category I: Companies having existing eligible capacity (0.3 mT
or 0.5 mT as the case may be)
(a) No coal linkage, no captive coal block.
(b) Partial coal linkage, no captive coal block.
(c) With coal linkage, no captive coal block.
Category II: Companies having existing capacity less than
eligible capacity (0.3 mT or 0.5 mT as the case may be) but
their proposed expansion capacity which is likely to be
commissioned by Dec, 2010 will enable them to have
eligible capacity.
Category III: Any group of companies or consortium whose
individual existing capacities are ineligible, make a viable joint
venture and which joint venture enables it to have eligible
capacity and the application is submitted in the name of joint
venture.
Category IV: Companies having existing eligible capacity (0.3
mT or 0.5 mT as the case may be)
(a) No coal linkage, captive coal block with less than 50%
satisfaction level.
(b) Partial coal linkage, captive coal block with less than 50%
satisfaction level.
Category V: Companies having existing capacity less than
eligible capacity (0.3 mT or 0.5 mT as the case may be) but
their proposed expansion capacity which is likely to be
commissioned by Dec, 2010 will enable them to have eligible
capacity.
(a) No coal linkage, captive coal block with less than 50%
satisfaction level.
(b) Partial coal linkage, captive coal block with less than 50%
satisfaction level.
Category VI: Companies having no existing capacity, but
proposes eligible capacity to be commissioned by December,
2010.
Category VII: Any group of companies or consortium which
forms a Joint Venture and such Joint Venture has Ineligible
existing capacity but proposed expansion capacity of the Joint
Venture enables it to have eligible capacity and the application
is submitted in the name of Joint Venture.
199. Thus from a bare perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it is

clear that before putting various applicant companies under different
categories the eligibility criteria so devised by Ministry of Steel clearly
stated that Financial status of the company and the extent of financial
tie-up shall be a relevant criteria of eligibility of applicant companies
before they are put under one or the other category so devised by
Ministry of Steel. The existing and proposed production capacity of
the end use plant was also an important criteria adopted by Ministry
of Steel in carving out various categories in which the applicant
companies were categorised.
200. PW 16 N.R. Dash, Director, Ministry of Steel was the

Incharge ID-Wing where the applications received in Ministry of Steel
from MOC were examined. In his deposition he stated that while
placing various applicant companies under different categories the
information so required was picked up from the applications of the
companies only.
201. In his cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for

A-6 K.C. Samria he admitted it to be correct that in the guidelines
framed by Ministry of Steel for its internal use the financial status of
the company and the extent of financial tie-up were relevant factors.
He also stated that capacity of the end use project of the company
was an important criteria followed by Ministry of Steel. In his cross-
examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for A-1 company M/s
KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia he admitted it to be correct
that as per the criteria adopted by Ministry of Steel for sponge iron
the applicant company was to achieve 0.3 MT capacity by December
2010, if not already having the same as existing capacity. In fact in
the office memorandum dated 06.12.07, EX. PW13/J-1 in file Ex.
PW13/C (colly) (D-5A) vide which the status of various applicant
companies qua different categories as devised by Ministry of Steel
was communicated to MOC it was specifically stated by Ministry of
Steel in para 6 as under:
"6.0 The Screening Committee may like to discuss and

consider on the following parameters:-
(i) Progress made in respect of the steel capacity
projects for which the application for coal block has
been submitted.
(ii) Potential and credibility of the applicants in setting
up capacity addition in steel sector.
(iii) Efforts made towards development of natural resources
allocated earlier."
202. Thus from the aforesaid observations made by Ministry of

Steel also it is clear that it was very much concerned with the
potential and credibility of the applicants in setting up capacity
addition in steel sector. The progress made qua the end use project
or efforts made towards development of natural resources earlier
allocated were also stated to be relevant factors which the screening
committee may like to consider so as to facilitate the projected growth
of domestic steel capacity. In fact a perusal of minutes Ex. PW 13/L
(colly) of 36th Screening Committee also shows that during the
meeting held on 03.07.2008, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel stated
that blocks be allocated to those companies which are genuine,
technically and financially sound to take up the project and where
capacity addition is expected to be accomplished by the year 2010.
203. Thus from the aforesaid circumstances it is crystal clear
that both financial status of the applicant companies as well as the
existing and projected capacity of the end use project were relevant
factors even to Ministry of Steel while making its recommendations
qua various applicant companies to MOC.
204. It is in the light of aforesaid circumstances that the other

contentions of Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia are required to be seen especially as regard the category
in which A-1 M/s KSSPL was placed by Ministry of Steel or as to
under what circumstances no presentation was stated to have been
made before the screening committee or no feedback form was
submitted on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
205. In the cross-examination of PW 16 N.R. Dash it was

suggested by Ld. Counsel A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia that since A-1 M/s KSSPL was already having coal linkage
so its category under the guidelines issued by Ministry of Steel ought
to have been II (b) and not II (a). However as already discussed while
referring to the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal
blocks the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL ought to have been rejected
at the thresh-hold itself by MOC and thus the very question of
sending the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL to Ministry of Steel for its
recommendation/comments would not have arisen. The question of
placing the company either under category II (a) or II (b) or under any
other category would not have arisen at all. Moreover if the
subsequent conduct of the company after allocation of impugned coal
block is seen then it is found that even till the year 2012 the existing
production capacity of the company continued to remain 87000
tonnes per day [290 TPD]. The claim made by it in its application and
also in the project report annexed with the application regarding its
proposed capacity was also thus never achieved. As earlier also
pointed out that in the project report forming part of application Ex.
PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) it was stated that at present the company is
having existing production capacity of one lac tonne per annum and
that in the year 2007 another capacity of 2 lac tonne per annum shall
be added or that in the 3 rd phase yet another sponge iron production
capacity of 2 lac tonne will be added with yet another one lac tonne
production capacity in the year 2010. Thus as per the guidelines
adopted by Ministry of Steel the company M/s KSSPL failed to
achieve any of its projected targets. In fact this failure of A-1 M/s
KSSPL in not able to achieve its projected targets also seems to
explain the reason as to why A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia chose not
to appear before the Screening Committee for making presentation or
for submitting feedback form also titled "Latest Status of End Use
Project".
(F) Whether any presentation was made before the

Screening Committee on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL and
whether any feedback form was submitted.
206. As is the admitted and undisputed case that all the

applications in response to advertisement issued by MOC in
November 2006 were received latest by 12.01.2007 only and the 36 th
Screening Committee met for the first time on 07.12.2007. Thus on
account of such a long gap in considering the applications it was
decided that all the applicant companies shall be called upon to make
a presentation qua the proposed end use project and shall also
submit a feedback form titled as under:
Form for feedback

(Latest status of end use project)
207. The purpose as is reflected from the title itself was to give the
applicant companies a chance to update their information as was
submitted earlier in their applications. At the same time, it would have
served as a guiding factor to the Screening Committee also in making
its recommendations in a more objective manner by having with it the
latest status/stage of progress made by the applicant companies
towards establishing their end use project.
208. The blank format of the said form for feedback was uploaded
on the website of MOC and the applicant companies were to
download it and after filling it were to submit the same to the
Screening committee alongwith 25 copies thereof to be supplied to all
the members of screening committee at the time of making
presentation. A schedule for all the applicant companies as per which
they were to appear before the screening committee to make
presentation and submit feedback form was also uploaded on the
website of MOC. As per the said schedule M/s KSSPL was to make a
presentation before the screening committee in its meeting held on
08.12.2007. Thus as on 08.12.2007 beside making presentation
about its end use project the company was also supposed to submit
the filled up feedback form mentioning therein the "Latest Status of
End Use Project".
209. Thus if the progress which was proposed to be made by

the company towards achieving its projected targets till the year 2007
as were mentioned in the project report forming part of its application
are seen then as on 08.12.2007 the company would have been
required to explain as to in what manner the projected target of 3 lac
tonne per annum is going to be achieved in another 23 days time i.e.
till 31.12.2007. The progress made by the company towards
achieving the said target and thereafter other targets of achieving 0.6
MTPA by December 2010 would have been required to be explained.
However as earlier also discussed that A-1 M/s KSSPL could not
exceed its production capacity target beyond 87000 MTPA even in
the year 2012 so it is clear that the company could not have achieved
its target of 0.3 MTPA in 2007 much less to add another 0.2 MTPA
capacity in third phase and thereafter to reach the final ultimate
capacity of 0.6 MTPA by December 2010.
210. It is in these circumstances the observations of Ministry of

Steel as were made in its office memorandum dated 06.12.2007 Ex.
PW 13/J-1 (D-5A) would have become immediately relevant. As
earlier also mentioned Ministry of Steel had stated in the said office
memorandum that the Screening Committee may like to discuss and
consider the progress made in respect of the steel capacity projects
for which the application for coal block has been submitted. The said
observations/pointers would have immediately stood attracted being
relevant to the issue. There is also nothing on record to show that
company M/s KSSPL had made any efforts to at least meet the
eligibility criteria of Ministry of Steel i.e. to achieve production
capacity of 0.3 MTPA of sponge iron by December 2010 much less its
own projected capacity of 0.6 MTPA by December 2010. The
observations made by Joint Secretary, Steel during the Screening
Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008 that those companies may be
discouraged who are not expected to set up the projected capacities
based on their track record also shows as to how much importance
was being attached to the latest status/stage of progress made
towards establishing the end use project.
211. Moreover, the issue as to whether a presentation was

made before the screening committee on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL as
claimed by prosecution needs to be seen from two different stand
points.
During the course of investigation A-2 Pawan Kumar

Ahluwalia submitted a reply Ex. PW 3/R (colly) dated 07.01.2013 to a
notice u/s 91 Cr.PC stating that only a power point presentation was
made on behalf of the company before the screening committee but
neither any hard copy of presentation nor any feedback form was
submitted. He however further stated that the said power point
presentation was also not traceable with the company due to lapse of
time. At the same time during the course of investigation copy of no
such presentation if made by A-1 M/s KSSPL or feedback form, if
submitted by the company could be made available to the
investigating agency even by MOC (In fact during the course of
investigation of various coal block allocation matters number of
record of MOC was found to be missing. CBI in fact also registered a
Preliminary Enquiry in this regard also). Thus in these circumstances,
it was stated by Ld. Senior P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma that the investigating
agency was left with no other option but to rely on the said reply of A-
2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia only to prove that a power point
presentation was indeed made on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL by A-3
Amit Goyal. However not only A-3 Amit Goyal on the other hand
denied having made any such presentation before the Screening
Committee but it has also been argued that any reply submitted by
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in response to a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC
issued by the IO during the course of investigation was inadmissible
in evidence being hit by section 162 Cr.PC as the said reply is in the
nature of a statement u/s 161 Cr.PC only. It was also submitted that
even otherwise the said reply being in the nature of a statement of an
accused without recovery of any fact or thing in pursuance thereto
can not be read against another co-accused.
212. In this regard I may state that Ld. Counsel for accused
persons are certainly right that such a reply if given by a witness or
suspect during the course of investigation in response to a notice u/s
91 Cr.PC is certainly inadmissible in evidence being hit by section
162 Cr.PC. Such a reply if received by investigating officer can at the
most serve as a guide or indicator to the investigating officer as to
whether the investigation being carried on by him is proceeding in the
right direction or not and also what other aspects of investigation are
left out or are required to be looked into by him. Certainly on the basis
of such a reply if the investigating officer is able to collect some other
piece of legally admissible evidence then the said reply can certainly
be referred to as indicative of the circumstances in which the
investigating officer proceeded to investigate various aspects of any
such given case or to collect any piece of evidence.
213. Coming back to the case in hand I may state that as

neither the presentation nor the feedback form if any submitted by
company M/s KSSPL was available in the records of MOC nor could
be found in possession of accused persons during the course of
search operation carried out by CBI and the accused persons have
now turned around stating that no such presentation was made
before the screening committee so this court certainly cannot rely
upon any admission made in this regard by A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia in his reply to notice u/s 91 Cr.PC issued by IO during the
course of investigation.
214. However in this regard it will be worthwhile to note the

answers given by A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
to question no. 204 in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC relating to
presentation made by A-1 M/s KSSPL before the Screening
Committee.
Question no. 204 and the answers of the two accused persons read as under:
"Q. 204 It is further in evidence against you that in reply dated

07.01.2013, part of Ex. PW-3/R (colly) submitted by accused
company M/s KSSPL under the signatures of accused Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia as Director/authorised signatory of M/s
KSSPL it was stated in para 5 & 6 that ..A power point
presentation from the computer was made to the Screening
Committee. However the same is not traceable with the
Company due to lapse of time and the Chartered Accountant
of the Company Sh. Amit Goyal went to attend the Screening
Committee meeting on 08.12.2008 as replacement of accused
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia who due to some personal
commitment could not go". What have you to say?
A-1 M/s KSSPL
Ans. It is matter of record.
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
Ans. This information was provided to the IO based on the
inputs provided by the officers of M/s KSSPL, when I had
asked them about the said details. This was done as I had
personally not attended the Screening Committee meetings."
215. Thus from the aforesaid nature of answers given in response to

question no. 204 so put to A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC it is clear that the factum
of submission of reply Ex. PW3/R (colly) (D-63) by A-1 M/s KSSPL
under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia has not been
denied. However the same is now being assailed during the course of
final arguments by Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang on the ground that
the said reply is inadmissible in evidence being hit by section 162
Cr.PC. As already mentioned the said position of law is not being
disputed even though in the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC there is an
admission of such a reply having been submitted by A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia in response to notice u/s 91 Cr.PC Ex.PW18/O (D-
62) served upon him during the course of investigation.
216. However as shall be evident from my subsequent discussion

of the prosecution evidence and the evidence led by the accused
persons in their defence that the accused persons are consistently
changing their stand in this regard during the course of trial. It was in
this context that the answers given by the accused persons in their
statement u/s 313 Cr.PC were highlighted as above.
217. PW 13 V.S. Rana Under Secretary, MOC stated in his

examination-in-chief that when the applicant companies were called
upon to attend the screening committee meeting to make
presentation in accordance with the schedule uploaded on the
website of MOC then they were also required to submit a filled in
feedback form after downloading the proforma thereof from the
website of MOC. He further stated that the applicant companies were
at liberty to make presentations either by way of hard copy or by way
of soft copy or both. He thereafter went on to prove the attendance
sheet Ex. PW13/K-1 as available in file Ex. PW 13/B (Colly) (D-4A) of
the meeting held on 08.12.2007. He also stated that all the
representatives of applicant companies who had come to make
presentations signed on attendance sheets. However in his cross-
examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-
2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia neither any question nor any suggestion
was put that no presentation on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL was made.
On the other hand in his cross examination as conducted by Ld.
Counsel for A-3 Amit Goyal it was however highlighted that the
witness has made improvement over his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC
made to the IO as regard downloading of feedback form from the
website of MOC or the requirement of submitting 25 copies thereof to
the screening committee by the applicant companies. He was also
extensively cross examined as to the sequence in which
representatives of various applicant companies signed the
attendance sheet. He was also asked to point out documents if any
from which it could be ascertained that any presentation was made
on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL or any feedback form was submitted on
behalf of the company. The witness however claimed his inability to
point out any such documents even though similar records qua other
applicant companies was available in the files of MOC. An inference
was thus sought to be drawn from the aforesaid series of questions
that no presentation was made on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL and also
that no feedback form was submitted.
218. PW 16 N.R. Dash, Director, Ministry of Steel attended the

meetings of 36th screening committee alongwith Joint Secretary Steel
Sh. U.P. Singh. He also stated that in the initial three meetings held
on 07/08.12.07 and 07.02.2008 various applicant companies had
made their presentations. He also stated that the representatives of
the applicant companies also used to supply a copy of the
presentation so made by them alongwith copy of feed-back form to
the members of screening committee. Again in his cross-examination
as conducted on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL or A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia neither any question nor any suggestion was put that no
such presentation was made on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL or that no
feed-back form was submitted. On behalf of A-3 Amit Goyal also no
question at all was put to the said witness.
219. Apart from the aforesaid nature of evidence led by the
prosecution it will be also worthwhile to refer to the deposition of DW-
10 K.C. Samria and DW-11 KS Kropha when they both entered the
witness box as defence witnesses u/s 315 Cr.PC.
220. DW-10 K.C. Samria in his examination- in-chief stated that

hard copies of the power point presentations made by the applicant
companies and the feed-back forms submitted by them were
circulated to the members of Screening Committee at the time of
presentation itself as were provided by the applicant companies. This
witness beside being cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP Sh. V.K. Sharma
was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL.
However in his said cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel
for A-1 M/s KSSPL neither any question nor any suggestion was put
that no presentation was made on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL or that no
feed-back form was submitted by the company.
221. As regard the deposition of DW 11 K.S. Kropha I deem it

appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of his examination-in-
chief as under :
"All the applicant companies were invited to make a

presentation before the Committee on the 7 th and 8th December,
2007 and 7th February, 2008. Records show that a
representative of M/s KSSPL, namely, Sh. Amit Goyal had
recorded his attendance during those days. It is logical to
presume that Sh. Amit Goyal must have been heard by the
committee. There was no other reason for him to come and
mark his attendance."
222. However for reasons best known to other co-accused
persons, DW 11 K.S. Kropha was not at all cross-examined on behalf
of any of them much less on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia or A-3 Amit Goyal. It will be also worthwhile to
mention that while examination-in-chief of both DW-10 K.C. Samria
and DW-11 K.S. Kropha was recorded on 19.08.16 itself but they
were cross-examined on 03.09.2016 only. Thus while Ld. Counsel for
A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia chose to cross
examine DW-10 K.C. Samria on 03.09.2016 itself but he did not
prefer to cross examine DW-11 K.S. Kropha.
223. At this stage it will be also worthwhile to note the response

given by A-3 Amit Goyal A-4 H.C Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6
K.C. Samria to question no. 204 in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC as
regard the issue of making presentation by A-1 M/s KSSPL before the
Screening Committee:
"Q. 204 It is further in evidence against you that in reply dated

07.01.2013, part of Ex. PW-3/R (colly) submitted by accused
company M/s KSSPL under the signatures of accused Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia as Director/authorised signatory of M/s
KSSPL it was stated in para 5 & 6 that ..A power point
presentation from the computer was made to the Screening
Committee. However the same is not traceable with the
Company due to lapse of time and the Chartered Accountant
of the Company Sh. Amit Goyal went to attend the Screening
Committee meeting on 08.12.2008 as replacement of accused
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia who due to some personal
commitment could not go". What have you to say?
A-3 Amit Goyal
Ans. While it is correct that Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia's letter
contains that portion of his letter which has been quoted in the
question under reply, the contents of the same are not correct. I
did appear before the Screening Committee but not as a
replacement for Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia nor did I appear
before the Screening Committee as a representative of the
company. I had been requested by Sh. Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
to accompany him in the said meeting and to carry with me the
copies of the relevant Audit reports prepared by me so that I
may answer any queries that the Screening Committee may
have with respect to those Audit reports only. Sh. Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia could not attend the meeting owing to certain
unforeseen circumstances and I informed the Screening
Committee of the same. At that point I was asked to leave. My
interaction with the Screening Committee barely lasted two
minutes and during that time no queries of whatsoever nature
regarding the company were put to me by the members of the
Screening Committee. My engagement with M/s KSSPL has
always been of a professional nature and I have never been a
representative or an authorized representative of the company
and there is no evidence to support any such assertion. The
letter referred to in the question under reply does not suggest
that any presentation was made by me in any event on that day
and I affirmatively submit that no presentation, power point or
otherwise was made by me on that date.
A-4 H.C. Gupta.
Ans. It is a matter of record, but most applicant companies had
made power point presentations before the Screening
Committee.
A-5 K.S. Kropha.
Ans. It is a matter of record. but most applicant companies had
made power point presentations before the Screening
Committee.
A-6 K.C Samria.
Ans. It is matter of record."
224. The purpose of referring to the aforesaid nature of evidence

led by prosecution or by the accused persons coupled with the
responses given by the accused persons in their statements u/s 313
Cr.PC was to only show the inconsistent and contradictory stands
taken by both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia as
regard the issue whether any presentation was made before the
Screening Committee on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL or not. It is not
that in a criminal trial an accused is not permitted to take multiple plea
of defence but what is important to see is whether the said multiple
plea of defence being taken by an accused on any given issue are
self contradictory or inconsistent in nature or not.
225. However at this stage I may mention as a mark of caution that

I am not trying to extend any benefit to prosecution on account of any
such weaknesses of defence but the only point sought to be drawn
home is that at-least A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia could have produced the concerned officer of A-1 M/s
KSSPL who had conveyed the information to A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia that a power point presentation was made on behalf of the
company before the screening committee. The said officer could have
only explained as to in what circumstances he came to convey such
an information to A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia or how he himself
acquired such a knowledge.
226. Coming back to the issue under consideration, I may state

that the present coal block allocation matters are such which are
primarily based on documentary nature of evidence and in a number
of cases like the case in hand the private parties and officers of MOC
were prima facie found to be hands in glove in allocation of various
coal blocks. It is in this light the circumstances relating to missing of
number of records from MOC relating to coal block allocation matters
needs to be seen and appreciated. It is in these circumstances only
the various plea of defence taken by the accused persons needs to
be appreciated. However I may again reiterate that I am still not
drawing any conclusion based on the said reply Ex.PW3/R (Colly)
given by A-1 M/s KSSPL under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia during the course of investigation.
227. This Court is thus left with no other option but to believe
the stand being now taken by A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia and A-3 Amit Goyal that no presentation was made on
that day on behalf of company M/s KSSPL before the screening
committee and also no feedback form was submitted. However in
these circumstances various other questions crops-up for
consideration. Admittedly company M/s KSSPL was called upon to
make presentation before the Screening Committee on 08.12.2007
and as claimed by the accused persons themselves A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia was to himself appear before the screening
committee alongwith A-3 Amit Goyal but due to certain unavoidable
circumstances could not attend the Screening Committee meeting
even though A-3 Amit Goyal reached the meeting venue.
228. It is also the consistent and admitted stand of A-3 Amit Goyal
that he was asked by A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia to accompany him
to the screening committee meeting in order to answer any questions
if raised regarding the audited reports of the company. It is also the
case of A-3 Amit Goyal that while he reached the meeting venue on
08.12.2007 but for some unavoidable reasons A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia could not reach. This fact has not been disputed even by A-
2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
229. In the aforesaid circumstances it will be thus quite logical to
infer that the presentation which was to be made before the
Screening Committee on 08.12.2007 must have been prepared prior
to it in the company M/s KSSPL. Similarly the feedback form which
was to be submitted in 25 copies must have been prepared in the
company prior to 08.12.2007. It was primarily for this reason only that
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in his reply to notice u/s 91 Cr.PC stated
that the power point presentation was made but the same was not
available. As regard feedback form, it was only stated that no
feedback form was submitted. Nothing has been stated even now
during the course of trial as to whether presentation and feedback
form were prepared by A-1 M/s KSSPL or not. At the cost of
repetition, I may state that as A-1 M/s KSSPL was scheduled to make
presentation before the Screening Committee on 08.12.2007 so
keeping in view the natural course of conduct of public and private
business, the Court can certainly presume the existence of some of
such facts as are likely to have happened i.e. the company M/s
KSSPL must have prepared the presentation and the feedback form
to be submitted to the Screening Committee before the date of
meeting of Screening Committee i.e. 08.12.2007. However neither A-
1 M/s KSSPL nor A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia have stated anything
as to what was mentioned either in the feedback form or in the
presentation as were prepared in the company. These are facts of
such a nature which can be exclusively to the knowledge of accused
persons only and the prosecution could not have led any evidence in
this regard. Thus it will be again logical to infer that while preparing
the presentation or while filling up the feedback form the earlier
discrepancies/misrepresentations made in the application Ex. PW
1/F (colly) (D-10) must have come to the notice of A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. However a second plea of there
being again inadvertence in preparing the presentation or the
feedback form would be hard to even put forth much less to believe.
In the alternative, if those misrepresentations as were there in the
initial application form had come to their notice then it was the
bounden duty of both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia to point out the said mistakes in the initial application to the
Screening Committee or at least to MOC, if not on 08.12.2007, i.e. on
the date of presentation but at least on some other later date. It was
primarily for this reason that factum of making presentation before the
Screening Committee or submission of feedback form is being
repeatedly denied and even copies thereof in the records of A-1 M/s
KSSPL are also stated to be not traceable.
230. On the other hand if the said discrepancies/

misrepresentations were being still carried in the feedback form and
presentation then the fact remains that the impugned
misrepresentations or act of withholding of requisite documents
containing relevant facts by A-1, M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia continued till the stage of final allocation of coal block by
MOC. In fact in the absence of presentation and feedback form
having been not submitted to the Screening Committee, the
impugned misrepresentations in the initial application and the act of
withholding of requisite documents continued till the stage of final
allocation of coal block by MOC.
231. Thus from my aforesaid discussion it is clear that the

evidence regarding presentation or feedback from which must have
been available with the company A-1 M/s KSSPL has not been
produced as it would have been unfavourable to the accused
company A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. As
already mentioned the contents of the presentation and the feedback
form which was to be submitted to the Screening Committee on that
day, had A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia reached the meeting venue,
could be exclusively to the knowledge of A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia only. They thus did not produce any
evidence qua the contents thereof only because the same would
have been unfavourable to them.
232. In this regard it would be worthwhile to mention certain

observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court as were made in Para 24 in
the case Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Supra).
24. Leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions, the

onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of
the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution
cannot succeed. The court may, of course, presume, as
mentioned in section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the
existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business. in their relation
to the facts of the particular case. The illustrations mentioned in
that section, though taken from different spheres of human
activity, are not exhaustive. They are based upon human
experience and have to be applied in the context of the facts of
each case. The illustrations are merely examples of
circumstances in which certain presumptions may be made.
Other presumptions of a similar kind in similar circumstances can
be made under the provisions of the section itself Whether or not
a presumption can be drawn under the section in a particular
case depends ultimately upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Human
behaviour is so complex that room must be left for play in the
joints. It is not possible to formulate a series of exact
propositions and confine human behaviour within straitjackets.
The raw material here is far too complex to be susceptible of
precise and exact propositions for exactness here is a fake."
233. At this stage I may also mention that the issue whether by
appearing before the screening committee on behalf of A-1
M/s KSSPL, A-3 Amit Goyal became a part of criminal conspiracy, if
any hatched by the other accused persons or not shall be discussed
by me at a later stage of the present judgment. Moreover while
discussing the role of accused MOC officers as regard the nature of
minutes recorded by them I shall be again reverting back to the issue
of presentation having been not made or feedback form not
submitted by A-1 M/s KSSPL.
(G) Whether the data furnished by A-1 M/s KSSPL was

considered by the Screening Committee, MOC.
234. As already mentioned the guidelines issued by MOC

governing allocation of captive coal blocks clearly stated that for
deciding the inter-se priority of various competing applicants for
allocation of a captive coal block, the status (stage) level of progress
and state of preparedness of the projects beside net-worth of the
applicant company and also the track record and financial strength of
the company shall be relevant factors.
235. However apart from the said guidelines a perusal of the
minutes of 36th Screening Committee also clearly show that the
information as submitted by the applicant companies in their
application form was considered. Though I shall be referring to the
minutes of 36th Screening Committee at length at a later stage of the
judgment while discussing the role of accused MOC officers in the
entire coal block allocation process but it would be worthwhile to refer
to certain relevant portion of the said minutes over here. The same
read as under:
"MINUTES OF THE 36TH MEETING OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE

HELD ON 7TH-8TH December, 2007, 7th-8th February, 2008 and 3rd JULY,
2008 IN NEW DELHI TO CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF 23 COAL BLOCKS
EARMAKRD FOR NON-POWER SECTOR.
1. . . . . . .
2. . . . . . .
3. . . . . . .
4. . . . . . .
5. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
6. Some of the companies did not appear for presentation
despite the notices issued to them through individual letters, as
well as through the Ministry's web-site. However, their
applications were also considered by the Screening Committee
as per the information submitted by them in their application
forms.
7. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
8. (i) The Chairman then invited the Joint Secretary, Ministry of
Steel to brief the members about the rationale followed by the
Ministry of Steel for evaluating the applications relating to
sponge iron, pig iron and steel project. The Joint Secretary, MOS
explained that the present capacity of steel production in the
country is around 60 MT and the Ministry of Steel is projecting a
capacity expansion of 6% to 7% in the immediate future.
Therefore, the blocks be allocated to those companies which are
genuine, technically and financially sound to take up the project
and where capacity addition is expected to be accomplished by
the year 2010. These companies need to be encouraged with
assured supply of coal as raw material and those who are not
expected to set up the projected capacities based on their track
record etc. should be discouraged. Allocation of coal block to
smaller players though desirable, but keeping in view their
technical and financial constraints, it would be difficult for them to
get the block developed in a time bound manner. He suggested
that the requirement of small producers, which are genuine,
should be met through linkages granted from CIL subsidiaries.
He further stated that priority for allocation of coking coal blocks
may be determined in the following order:-
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
9 . . . .
. . . .
10 . . . .
. . . .
11 . . . .
. . . .
12 . . . .
. . . .
13. The Screening Committee, thereafter, 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 Steel, Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion, State Governments concerned, guidelines
laid down for allocation of coal blocks, and other factors as
mentioned in paragraphs 8 to 12 above. As regards inter-se
distribution of shares among the joint allocattees, it was decided
by the Committee that capacity of end-use projects shall be
determined as follows:
i) The capacity indicated in the application form;
ii) The capacity indicated in the MOU entered into between the
applicant company and the State Govt. concerned, wherever
applicable;
iii) The realistic capacity addition likely to materialize by the year
2010, as assessed by the nodal Ministry/ Department concerned;
14. Based on the data furnished by the applicants, and the
feedback received from the State Governments, the Ministry of
Steel and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, 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, recommendations of the State
Governments and the Administrative Ministries concerned etc.
The Screening Committee, accordingly, decided to recommend
for allocation of coal blocks in the manner as follows:
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . ."
236. Thus from the guidelines issued by MOC and the minutes of
36th Screening Committee meetings, it is crystal clear that the
Screening Committee while making its recommendations relied
heavily on the information furnished by the applicant companies in
their application forms and especially the production capacity of the
plant and financial capability of the applicant companies.
(H) Whether the misrepresentations made by the company

M/s KSSPL or withholding/concealment of requisite
documents from MOC had the effect of deceiving MOC,
Government of India.
&
(I) Whether issuance of letter of allotment of coal block
amounted to delivery of property resulting in wrongful gain
to A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
237. Before adverting further it will be worthwhile to refer to the

definition of the offence of cheating as given in Section 415 IPC.
"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."
238. In this regard, it will be now first appropriate to consider as to

what is the meaning of the phrase "deceiving any person" as has
been used in the definition of cheating as provided in Section 415
IPC.
239. In the case Swami Dhirendra Brahamchari Vs. Shailendra

Bhushan, 1995 Cr. L.J. 1810 (Delhi), Hon'ble Delhi High Court while
dealing with the word deceiving as used in Section 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.
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case 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.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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.
240. It was stated 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.
Thus where a person parted 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. 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.
241. Coming to the case in hand it will be suffice to state and as

already discussed at length the prosecution has been successful in
proving beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts that both A-1 M/s
KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia had knowledge that all the
requisite documents as were required to be filed with the application
in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal
blocks were not filed. It also stands well proved that in the application
of A-1 M/s KSSPL as was submitted to MOC under the signatures of
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia highly inflated claims of net-worth and
existing or proposed capacity of the end use plant were made.
242. The sole plea of defence as put forward by A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that the aforesaid acts of not filing
the complete requisite documents or mentioning of wrong figures in
the application were the result of inadvertent mistake on the part of
the staff of the company was also found to be without any substance
worth the name even. Even for the purposes of preponderance of
probability the accused persons could not substantiate it. It was
clearly insufficient to even raise any shadow of doubt over the
credible convincing and reliable nature of evidence led by the
prosecution. In fact in the overall facts and circumstances of the case
the said plea of defence does not even appeal to any legal or logical
reasoning in any manner whatsoever. Thus in the overall facts and
circumstances of the case as already discussed at length this Court
while having regard to common course of events of public and private
business believes in the existence of all such facts and considers
them as proved.
Moreover the fact that the company despite having

opportunities over a period of about one and a half years when the
applications were processed in MOC chose not to rectify the said
mistakes but rather chose to also not attend the Screening
Committee meeting to make a presentation or to submit a feedback
form so that the initial misrepresentations may continue to hold
ground clearly shows that all such acts of omission and commission
of A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia were part of a
well planned strategy to deceive MOC by making it to believe all such
false claims to be true and rely upon them and thereby to induce it to
allot a coal block in favour of A-1, M/s KSSPL.
243. Another important issue raised by Ld. Counsels for accused

persons was that mere issuance of allotment letter can not amount to
delivery of any property as mentioned in Section 420 IPC. In this
regard, the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as were
made in its orders dated 25.08.14, passed in the Manohar Lal case
(Supra) in para 61, 69, 70 and 71, will be worth referring to.
"61. There seems to be no doubt to us that allocation letter is

not merely an identification exercise as is sought to be made
out by the learned Attorney General. From the position
explained by the concerned State Governments, it is clear that
the allocation letter by the Central Government creates and
confers a very valuable right upon the allottee. We are unable
to accept the submission of the learned Attorney General that
allocation letter is not bankable. As a matter of fact, the
allocation letter by the Central Government leaves practically
or apparently nothing for the State Government to decide save
and except to carry out the formality of processing the
application and for execution of the lease deed with the
beneficiary selected by the Central Government. Though, the
legal regime under the 1957 Act imposes responsibility and
statutory obligation upon the State Government to recommend
or not to recommend to the Central Government grant of
prospecting license or mining lease for the coal mines, but
once the letter allocating a coal block is issued by the Central
Government, the statutory role of the State Government is
reduced to completion of processual formalities only. As
noticed earlier, the declaration under Section 1A of the CMN
Act does not take away the power of the State under Section
10(3) of the 1957 Act. It is so because the declaration under
Section 1A of the CMN Act is in addition to the declaration
made under Section 2 of the 1957 Act and not in its
derogation. 1957 Act continues to apply with the same rigour
in the matter of grant of prospecting license or mining lease of
coal mines but the eligibility of persons who can carry out coal
mining operations is restricted to the persons specified in
Section 3(3)(a) of the CMN Act.
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
69. Assuming that the Central Government has competence to
make allocation of coal blocks, the next question is, whether
such allocation confers any valuable right amounting to grant
of largesse? Learned Attorney General argues that allocation
of coal blocks does not amount to grant of largesse since it is
only the first statutory step. According to him, the question
whether the allocation amounts to grant of largesse must be
appreciated not from the perspective whether allocation
confers any rights upon the allocatee but whether allocation
amounts to conferment of largesse upon the allocatee. An
allocatee, learned Attorney General submits, does not get right
to win or mine the coal on allocation and, therefore, an
allocation letter does not result in windfall gain for the
allocatee. He submits that diverse steps, as provided in Rules
22A, 22B, and 22(5) of the 1960 Rules and the other statutory
requirements, have to be followed and ultimately the grant of
prospecting license in relation to unexplored coal blocks or
grant of mining lease with regard to explored blocks entitles
the allocatee/licensee/lessee to win or mine the coal.
70. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned
Attorney General that allocation of coal block does not amount
to grant of largesse. It is true that allocation letter by itself does
not authorize the allottee to win or mine the coal but
nevertheless the allocation letter does confer a very important
right upon the allottee to apply for grant of prospecting license
or mining lease. As a matter of fact, it is admitted by the
interveners that allocation letter issued by the Central
Government provides rights to the allottees for obtaining the
coal mines leases for their end-use plants. The banks,
financial institutions, land acquisition authorities, revenue
authorities and various other entities and so also the State
Governments, who ultimately grant prospecting license or
mining lease, as the case may be, act on the basis of the letter
of allocation issued by the Central Government. As noticed
earlier, the allocation of coal block by the Central Government
results in the selection of beneficiary which entitles the
beneficiary to get the prospecting license and/or mining lease
from the State Government. Obviously, allocation of a coal
block amounts to grant of largesse.
71. Learned Attorney General accepted the position that in the
absence of allocation letter, even the eligible person under
Section 3(3) of the CMN Act cannot apply to the State
Government for grant of prospecting license or mining lease.
The right to obtain prospecting license or mining lease of the
coal mine admittedly is dependant upon the allocation letter.
The allocation letter, therefore, confers a valuable right in
favour of the allottee. Obviously, therefore, such allocation has
to meet the twin constitutional tests, one, the distribution of
natural resources that vest in the State is to sub-serve the
common good and, two, the allocation is not violative of Article
14."
244. Thus in view of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the allocation letter issued by MOC in favour of
accused company M/s KSSPL clearly amounts to delivering of
property i.e. rights qua valuable and natural resource of the country. It
amounts to grant of largesse. The letter of allocation was thus a
valuable security in itself much less a document which was capable
of being converted into a valuable security.
245. It was also argued by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons
that no wrongful gain was caused to the accused persons by the said
allotment of coal block as no coal was at all extracted and thus no
wrongful loss was caused to anyone. In this regard it will be suffice to
state and as also observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar
Lal Sharma case (Supra) that allocation of coal blocks amounted to
grant of largesse in favour of applicant companies and thus it cannot
be stated that no wrongful gain was caused to the applicant
companies. The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
case in para 70 and 71 (as reproduced above) will be worth referring
to.
246. In so far as loss which occurred to the nation as a whole it will

be suffice to state that had coal been extracted if the coal block was
allocated to a genuine and deserving company in an objective
manner then it would have certainly added to the infrastructural
development of the country. This in itself has resulted in wrongful loss
to the country in its economic development and the said loss is
difficult to be accounted for in terms of money. Thus it is again a
fallacious argument that no wrongful loss or gain has been caused on
account of allocation of said coal block to A-1 M/s KSSPL.
(J) Whether the dishonest misrepresentation continued

before Prime Minister as Minister Of Coal and thereby
cheating MOC, Government of India.
247. In this regard it will be also worthwhile to refer to certain

observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Kanumukkala
Krishnamurthy @ Kaza Krishnhamurthy Vs. State of Andhara
Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 333. The issue involved in the said case and
the present case in hand are almost similar.
248. In the said case accused Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy had

applied for appointment of Assistant Surgeon in Madras Medical
Services in pursuant to notification published by Madras Public
Service Commission inviting applications. However, later on, it was
found that the accused had misrepresented himself by impersonating
as some other person and also misrepresented about his parentage
and place of birth. It was also found that accused was not even
holding minimum educational qualification i.e. degree of MBBS and
thus he misled the Public Service Commission Authorities to believe
the said misrepresentation to be true. Upon final conviction of the
accused for the offence U/S 419 IPC i.e. cheating by impersonation
by Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the accused challenged his
conviction before Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave
Petition. The issue as to whether by way of said case of
misrepresentation/impersonation, the accused deceived Government
of Madras or not came up for consideration. While discussing
various aspects of the offence of cheating and thereby that of
cheating by impersonation, the observations made by Hon'ble
Supreme Court will be worth referring to:
11. The only other question to determine now is whether the
appellant deceived the Government of Madras and dishonestly
induced it to deliver something in the form of salary to the
appellant. It is urged that the appointment to the post lay with
the Government and not with the Service Commission and that
'the Government would not have appointed him to the post in
the Medical Service if it had not believed that the appellant
possessed the necessary qualifications which, in his case,
would be a degree of M.B., B.S., and that such a belief was
entertained by the Government on account of the deception
practised by the appellant in misrepresenting in his application
that he held such a degree. On the other hand, it is contended
for the appellant that the delivery of 'property' is to be by the
person deceived, in view of the language of Section 415 I.P.C.,
and that the person deceived, if any, was the Service
Commission and not the Government, the application
containing the misrepresentation having been made to the
Service Commission and not to the Government.
12. We accept the contention for the respondent. The
appointments to the Medical Services are made by
Government. The Service Commission simply selected the
candidates and recommends their names to Government for
appointment. This is clear from letter Exhibit P. 47 from the
Secretary to the Service Commission to the Surgeon-General
with the Government of Madras. The letter refers to the
enclosing of a list containing the names and other particulars of
the candidates who were successful at the examination, their
names being arranged in order of merit. It refers to the relaxing
of a certain rule in view of the paucity of candidates and states
that they may be appointed, if necessary, pending receipt of the
certificate of physical fitness and a further communication from
the commission.
13. This is also clear from the provisions of the Government of
India Act, 1935. Section 241 provided that appointments in
connection with the affairs of a Province will be made by the
Governor of the Province. Sub-Section (1) of Section 266
makes it a duty of the Provincial Public Service Commission to
conduct examinations for appointments to the Services of a
Province. Clause (a) of sub-s. (3) provides that the Provincial
Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all matters
relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil
posts and cl. (b) provides that it shall be consulted on the
principles to be followed in making appointments to civil
services and posts and on the suitability of candidates for such
appointments. The Public Service Commission is constituted in
pursuance of the provisions of Section 264. It is thus a statutory
body and independent of the Government. This aspect of a
Public Service Commission was emphasized in State of U.P. v.
Manbodhan Lal Srivastava when considering the corresponding
provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution. This Court said:
"Once, relevant regulations have been made, they are
meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and it goes without
saying that consultation with the Commission on all disciplinary
matters affecting a public servant has been specifically provided
for in order, first, to give an assurance to the Services that a
wholly independent body, not directly concerned with the
making of orders adversely affecting public servants, has
considered the action proposed to be taken against a particular
public servant, with an open mind; and, secondly, to afford the
Government unbiased advice and opinion on matters vitally
affecting the morale of public services".
It is in view of these provisions that the Public Service
Commission invites applications for appointment to the various
posts under the Government and subsequently makes a
selection out of the candidates for appointment to those posts.
The selection may be after holding a written examination or
after interviewing candidates or after doing both. Names of the
candidates selected are arranged in order of merit and
forwarded to the Government. The Government is expected, as
a rule, to make appointments to the posts from out of the list, in
the same order. It has, however, discretion not to appoint any
part of the persons so selected and securing a place in the
order of merit which would have ordinarily led to his
appointment.
14. Any representation made in an application for
appointments is really a representation made to the
Government, the appointing authority, and not only to the Public
Service Commission to which the application is presented and
which has to deal with that application in the first instance. up to
the stage ,of selection. The object of the applicant was to
secure an appointment and not merely to deceive the Public
Service Commission and sit at the examination or to appear at
the interview. The deception was practised for that purpose and
therefore there seems to be no good reason for holding that the
deception came to an end once the Service Commission was
deceived and had taken action on it as a result of the deception.
A false representation in an application to the Service
Commission continues and persists to be so till the application
is considered by the final authority responsible for making the
appointments and must therefore be deemed to be made to that
final authority as well. In the instant case, when the
recommendation of the Service Commission was sent to the
Government, the qualifications of the recommended candidates,
including the fact that the appellant had passed the M.B.,B.S.
examination were mentioned. The Government therefore
believed that the appellant possessed the degree of M.B.B.S.,
that as the Service Commission had scrutinized the application
in that regard and had satisfied itself that the appellant
possessed that degree. The consequence of that is that the
Government were led to believe that fact, which thus became a
false representation.
We are therefore of opinion that the appellant's mis-
representation to the Service Commission continued and
persisted till the final stage of the Government passing an order
of appointment and that therefore the Government itself was
deceived by the misrepresentation he had made in his
application presented to the Service Commission.
249. Thus it is clear that the dishonest misrepresentation as were
made by the accused persons before the Screening Committee
continued even before Prime Minister as Minister of Coal when he
approved the recommendation of Screening Committee. The
Screening Committee was admittedly constituted to deal with all
applications received for allotment of various coal blocks and to make
its recommendation thereafter. The Prime Minister as Minister of Coal
was thus to act upon the said recommendation only. Accordingly the
dishonest misrepresentation made before the Screening Committee
continued even before the Prime Minister as Minister of Coal when he
approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee.
(However whether the accused MOC officers were acting in
pursuance of any conspiracy with the private parties involved and
thereby facilitated them in continuing with their misrepresentations
even before Minister of Coal or not shall be discussed by me at a
later stage of the present judgment.)
(K) Whether the ingredients of the offence of cheating

stands proved.
250. As already discussed above the various ingredients of the

offence of cheating coupled with delivery of property stands proved
beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts as against A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. They thus clearly deceived MOC,
Government of India on the basis of dishonest misrepresentations
made in the application and by dishonestly with-holding documents
as were available with them so as to induce MOC, Government of
India to allocate Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s
KSSPL. Ministry of Coal, Government of India thus clearly stood
cheated on account of the aforesaid dishonest acts of accused
persons namely A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
resulting in allotment of "Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block" in favour
of company A-1 M/s KSSPL. The offence of cheating i.e. u/s 420
IPC thus clearly stands proved beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts as against A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia.
251. Before proceeding further, I would also like to deal with one
other submission of Ld. Counsel Sh. Pavan Narang for A-1
M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that as all the
necessary facts and different heads of charges such as that of
cheating or of criminal conspiracy were not put to the accused
persons in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC so the said heads of
charges can not be invoked against A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan
Kumar Ahluwalia. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel that the two
accused persons were never put any question in their statements
recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC that they had entered into any criminal
conspiracy with other accused persons or that they had conspired to
cheat Ministry of Coal, Government of India. It was thus submitted
that as no such questions were put to accused persons in their
statements recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC so the charges for the offence
u/s 420 IPC or that of criminal conspiracy u/s 120 IPC cannot be
invoked against them.
252. At the outset, I may state that aforesaid submission of Ld.
Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia is
completely not tenable. In this regard, it will be appropriate to first
have a glance over Section 313 Cr. PC.
313. Power to examine the accused (1) In every inquiry or
trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to
explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against
him, the Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused
put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been
examined and before he is called on for his defence, question
him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has
dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may
also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is
examined under sub- section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by
refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to
them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into
consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or
against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other
offence which such answers may tend to show he has
committed.
1
[(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence
Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to
the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement
by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.]"
253. Thus from a bare perusal of section 313 Cr.PC, it is clear

that objective of examining an accused u/s 313 Cr.PC is to enable
him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against
him. Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.PC further states that after the witnesses
for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on
for his defence, the Court shall question the accused generally on the
case. Thus it is crystal clear that u/s 313 Cr.PC, the Court is only
required to question the accused generally on the case and it is only
the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him which are to
be put to him to furnish any explanation. The law does not require
that the specific heads of charges framed against the accused
persons ought to be put to the accused persons in their statements
u/s 313 Cr.PC. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances the two
accused persons i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia also chose to file their written statements u/s 313 (5) Cr.PC
after their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded.
254. A bare perusal of Section 313 (5) Cr.PC shows that filing
of written statement by the accused shall amount to compliance of
the said section i.e. Section 313 Cr.PC. Thus the contention of Ld.
Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that the
charge of criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B IPC or that of cheating
i.e. u/s 420 IPC cannot be invoked against the accused persons
does not hold ground at all.
(L) Whether the accused persons i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL and
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia acted in pursuance to a
criminal conspiracy.
255. Having come to the conclusion that both A-1 M/s KSSPL and
A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia cheated MOC, Government of India in
order to procure allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri Coal Block in
favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL, the next issue to be considered is whether
such acts of cheating were committed by the two accused persons in
pursuance to a criminal conspiracy hatched by them or not.
256. It has been vehemently argued by Ld. Counsels for the
accused persons that in order to establish the charge of criminal
conspiracy, the prosecution is required to prove that an agreement
was entered into by the accused persons either for doing of an illegal
act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be
illegal. It was submitted that a few bits here and a few bits there
cannot be relied upon by the prosecution in order to prove the charge
of criminal conspiracy. It was submitted that even if no direct
evidence may be available and the charge of criminal conspiracy is
sought to be proved by way of circumstantial evidence then also each
of the circumstance leading to such a conclusion must be
independently explained and proved and the said circumstances
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis or in other words
should not lead to any other conclusion much less consistent with the
innocence of accused persons. It was thus submitted that
prosecution has miserably failed in proving existence of any
agreement between the two accused persons i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia much less with A-3 Amit Goyal or
with the other accused MOC officers.
257. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions of Ld.

Counsels for the accused persons vis-a-vis the case of prosecution, it
will be appropriate to refer to the often quoted observations of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as regard the offence of criminal conspiracy
as were made in the case State through Superintendent of
Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini, 1999 (5) SCC 235. The said
observations have been consistently followed in all the cases till date.
258. In the said case, 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 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 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 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
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.
259. Thus, undoubtedly direct evidence qua offence of criminal

conspiracy is hard to come up but the same is to be ascertained from
the overall facts and circumstances of a given case.
260. Coming now to the facts of the present case, it will be

pertinent to mention that factum of submission of application Ex. PW
1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1 M/s KSSPL under the signatures of its
authorized signatory/director i.e. A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia stands
well proved. As also already discussed at length, A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia cannot disown his responsibility of furnishing correct facts
in the application and in also filing of all necessary requisite
documents along with the application. It has also been discussed at
length that the act of withholding of requisite documents was a
conscious and dishonest act. Similarly, it has also been established
that wrong claims about the financial strength of A-1 M/s KSSPL i.e.
about its net-worth and also about its existing installed production
capacity or highly inflated claims regarding the projected capacity of
the company were also made dishonestly by A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia. Thus, it does not require any further discussion that A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, who admittedly was looking after the day to
day affairs of the company had cheated Ministry of Coal, Government
of India on the basis of various dishonest claims made in the
application and also by dishonestly withholding requisite documents
from Ministry of Coal despite the same being available with the
company in order to obtain wrongful gain in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
From the deposition of PW-3 Prashant Ahluwalia, it is also clearly
evident that A-1 M/s KSSPL was a closely held family company.
Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, company A-1 M/s KSSPL
cannot disassociate itself from the acts of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia for he was acting on behalf of the company being its
director and authorised signatory towards the coal block allocation
matters of the company. The existence of common agreement
between the two is thus writ large on the face of record. The
offence of criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B IPC, thus, clearly
stands proved beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts as
against A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. [The
role of A-3 Amit Goyal shall be however discussed at a slightly later
stage.]
261. At this stage, I would also like to mention that Ld. Counsel Sh.
Pavan Narang for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
also argued that cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy as
taken by this court against the accused persons was bad in law as no
consent in writing of the State Government or District Magistrate for
the initiation of proceedings in accordance with Section 196 (2) Cr.
PC was obtained.
262. However, from a bare perusal of Section 196 (2) Cr. PC, it is
clear that aforesaid submission is completely devoid of any merits.
Clearly in view of the aforesaid discussion of the facts and
circumstances of the case it stands conclusively proved that a
criminal conspiracy was hatched between A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia for the offence of cheating MOC,
Government of India and thereby inducing it to allot a captive coal
block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL. Thus clearly it is not a criminal
conspiracy for the simplicitor offence of cheating but is a criminal
conspiracy for the offence of cheating coupled with delivery of
property i.e. u/s 420 IPC. Moreover the offence of cheating i.e. u/s
420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period which may
extend upto 7 years and fine. Thus, a bare perusal of Section 196(2)
Cr. PC shows that where the offence of criminal conspiracy is for an
offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years
or upwards, then no sanction of State Government or that of the
District Magistrate is required for the initiation of the proceedings.
A-3 Amit Goyal
263. In order to appreciate the role played by A-3 Amit Goyal in the
entire matter, it would be appropriate to first delineate the various
circumstances from which prosecution intends to bring home the
charge of cheating and criminal conspiracy against him.
It has been proved that A-3 Amit Goyal was the statutory
auditor of company A-1 M/s KSSPL. It has also been proved that he
appeared before the Screening Committee on 08.12.2007 on behalf
of A-1 M/s KSSPL and accordingly signed the attendance sheet at
the meeting venue as a representative of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
264. However apart from the aforesaid circumstances, no other

circumstance could be conclusively proved against him. As already
discussed at length, it could not be proved by the prosecution by any
legally admissible evidence that on 08.12.2007, A-3 Amit Goyal made
any presentation before the Screening Committee on behalf of A-1
M/s KSSPL. It also could not be proved conclusively that A-3 Amit
Goyal had any knowledge of the contents of the application Ex. PW
1/F (colly) (D-10) much less that he was aware that A-1 M/s KSSPL
has made misrepresentation about its financial strength in the
application.
265. On the contrary, it stands proved on record that A-3 Amit

Goyal was though the statutory auditor of A-1 M/s KSSPL but was not
an employee of the company. It is also not the case of prosecution
that there was any falsity in the audited balance sheets of A-1 M/s
KSSPL as were audited by A-3 Amit Goyal, though it is certainly a
different matter that A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
did not file the said audited reports alongwith their application in order
to support the false claims as were made in their application
submitted to MOC seeking allocation of a captive coal block.
However no other evidence be it direct or circumstantial has been led
on record by the prosecution which could even remotely show that A-
3 Amit Goyal was in any manner a party to the conspiracy hatched by
A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia to cheat MOC,
Government of India so as to induce it to allocate a captive coal block
in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
266. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

coupled with the nature of evidence led by prosecution as regard the
role played by A-3 Amit Goyal, I am of the considered opinion that
prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against A-3 Amit
Goyal beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts. The charge of
cheating i.e. u/s 420 IPC or that of criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B
IPC as framed against him thus does not stands proved.
I accordingly giving benefit of doubt to A-3 Amit

Goyal hereby acquit him of all the charges as framed against
him in the present matter.
(II) Role of Ministry of Coal officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta,

A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria
267. After having discussed the role played by the private parties
involved i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and A-3
Amit Goyal in the entire coal block allocation process which led to
allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s
KSSPL, I shall be now discussing the role played by Ministry of Coal
officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria in
the said coal block allocation process.
268. In order to appreciate the role of officers of MOC either in

their capacity as Secretary Coal, Joint Secretary Coal or Director
CA-I Section, MOC or as Chairman and Member Convener of the
Screening Committee, it will be important to first delineate the role
which was played by them in the entire coal block allocation process.
Thereafter the effect of all such acts of omission or commission
which have been attributed to them by the prosecution in the entire
coal block allocation process leading to allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block to A-1 M/s KSSPL shall be seen.
269. Admittedly an advertisement inviting applications for allotment
of captive coal blocks reserved for power sector or other end users
was issued by MOC after approval in this regard was given by
Secretary, Ministry of Coal i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta. The guidelines
governing allocation of all such captive coal blocks were also
approved and uploaded on the website of MOC with the approval of
A-4 H.C. Gupta. The period during which the applications were to be
received by MOC was also decided with the approval of Secretary
Coal. The guidelines under the title Where to apply clearly provided
all the details regarding the person to whom the applications in five
copies were to be addressed or the place where the applications
were to be submitted. The guidelines under the title How to apply
further provided for all the details and necessary information
regarding the documents which were required to be enclosed with the
application. It was also provided therein that without the said
enclosures the applications would be treated as incomplete and shall
be rejected. Further the guidelines under the title Guidelines for
allocation of captive blocks and conditions of allotment through the
screening committee inter-alia mentioned various factors on the
basis of which inter-se priority for allocation of a coal block among
competing applicants for a captive block may be decided. It again
provided the details of the documents which were to be annexed with
the application beside stating that an applicant may file any other
document, it may choose to submit. The guidelines under the title
Processing of application specified the manner in which the
applications received in MOC were to be dealt with by it.
In fact the file on all the aforesaid occasions also passed
through the desk of Joint Secretary, Coal, i.e. A-5 K.S. Kropha before
A-4, H.C. Gupta as Secretary Coal accorded his approval to various
matters mentioned above.
270. Though I shall be discussing the purpose of framing all such

guidelines by MOC governing allocation of captive coal blocks at a
slightly later stage of my judgment but at this stage it will be
worthwhile to mention the various questions which this Court needs
to answer while examining the role played by the accused MOC
officers. The first and foremost question which needs to be answered
is whether the aforesaid guidelines were binding upon both MOC and
screening committee. If yes, whether the same were followed and if
not then qua what aspects the same were not followed. The role and
responsibility of A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C.
Samria towards ensuring compliance with the said guidelines also
needs to be thereafter examined. It also needs to be seen as to
whether applications which were found to be incomplete in terms of
the said guidelines were actually rejected or not or in other words
whether incomplete applications were also to be considered by the
screening committee instead of getting rejected at the initial stage
itself in the MOC. The effect of non-compliance with the guidelines on
the coal block allocation process will also be required to be seen.
271. Apart from the aforesaid questions other important issues

which needs to be examined by this Court are, whether non-
compliance with the guidelines to any extent by the accused MOC
officers were their conscious and intentional acts and also whether
the same were in pursuance of any criminal conspiracy hatched by
them with other co-accused persons or not.
272. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issues comprehensively,

it will be appropriate to reproduce relevant portions of the guidelines
once again over here. (The entire set of guidelines have though
already been reproduced in the earlier part of the present judgment).
"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)
II The following documents should be enclosed along
with the application form:
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)
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
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
III Applications without the above accompaniments would

be treated as incomplete and shall be rejected."
273. 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.
274. Further for ascertaining interse 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;
net-worth of the applicant company (or in the case of a new
SP/JV, the net-worth 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;
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.
275. It has been strenuously argued by Ld. Sr. Advocate Sh. Mohit
Mathur for A-4 H.C. Gupta and Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur for A-5
K.S. Kropha that as per "Central Secretariat Manual of Office
Procedure", it was the sole responsibility of CA-I Section, MOC to
ensure compliance with the said guidelines. It was submitted that
admittedly no written note was ever put up by CA-I Section to any of
the senior officers stating that the guidelines so issued by MOC could
not be complied with. It was thus submitted that as no such note was
put up by CA-I Section so there was no way in which Joint Secretary
Coal, K.S. Kropha or Secretary Coal, H.C. Gupta could have known
that the guidelines so issued regarding processing of applications
received in MOC have not been complied with. It was further
submitted that though PW-13 V.S. Rana stated in his deposition in
Court that he had verbally informed the senior officers including A-4
H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that the applications have not been
checked for their completeness and eligibility due to shortage of
manpower and lack of expertise on the part of officials of CA-I
Section but he admittedly did not reproduce the said verbal
information given by him in the files of MOC much less getting the
same confirmed from the senior officers in accordance with the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. His claim of having given
verbal information to senior officers was thus stated to be highly
unbelievable and rather simply an attempt to cover up his acts of
omission and commission. It was also submitted that Secretary Coal
was though administrative head of the Ministry but in such a vast
Ministry he was having 15 Sections working under him and thus he
could not have been expected to look into the detailed working of
each and every section. Similarly as regard Joint Secretary, Coal it
was stated that he too was having work of various wings/sections
under him and thus unless specific information is submitted to him by
any given section about difficulties being faced by them in complying
with the directions issued such as in complying with guidelines issued
in the present case, there was no way in which the senior officers of
MOC could have known that CA-I Section officials have not complied
with the guidelines or that it was difficult for them to comply with the
guidelines. It was also submitted that in the routine functioning of
Govt. of India the senior officers such as Secretary, or Joint
Secretary, in a Ministry works on the basis of trust and belief that the
officers of every section under them must have performed their duties
properly.
276. It was also submitted that whenever a request was put up by

CA-I Section officials seeking services of additional staff from the
office of Coal Controller or Coal India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
CIL), the said request was immediately acceded to by the senior
officers. It was thus submitted that had CA-1 Section officers/officials
brought to their knowledge any such difficulty being faced by them in
complying with the guidelines then certainly additional staff would
have been arranged for or other necessary steps would have been
taken.
277. As regard applicability and requirement of complying with the

provisions of Manual of Office Procedure, it was submitted that even
the minutes of meetings of 36 th screening committee were recorded in
accordance with Para 54 (4) (c) of the Manual of Office Procedure. As
regard the allegation of prosecution that the minutes were silent as to
the reasons for which A-1 M/s KSSPL was recommended for
allocation of a coal block and as to why the name of M/s BLA Power
Ltd. a company recommended by State Government of Madhya
Pradesh was not recommended, it was submitted that as the decision
of the screening committee was unanimous so only essence and
outcome of the deliberations was recorded. It was thus submitted that
the MOC officers/officials were bound to strictly follow the provisions
of Manual of Office Procedure and in case of any deviance the
concerned officer/official was required to record reasons for the same
in accordance with para 30 of the Manual of Office Procedure titled
Deviation from Normal Procedures or Rules.
278. Similarly Ld. Counsel Sh. Percivel Billimoria for A-6 K.C.
Samria also stated that A-6 K.C. Samria was never informed by
anyone that the applications have not been checked for their eligibility
and completeness. It was also submitted that in fact A-6 K.C. Samria
was given additional charge of CA-I Section on 16.03.2007 only and
by which date various copies of applications were already sent to
Administrative Ministries/State Governments concerned and to
CMPDIL. It was further submitted that even from 16.03.2007 till May
2007 A-6 K.C. Samria was having charge of other sections also and
he was finally posted to CA-I Section in the month of May 2007 only.
279. In fact the whole emphasis of all the three accused persons
namely A-4 H.C. Gupta , A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria, was
that it was PW -13 V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, MOC and the officials
of CA-I Section working under him who were primarily responsible
for ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by MOC. It was
also pointed out that while sending copies of the applications to
Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to CMPDIL the
relevant file was never put up before the senior officers by PW-13
V.S. Rana even though for other innocuous matters such as
procuring locks and trunks or for making transportation arrangements
the file was put up to the level of Joint Secretary, Coal. It was thus
asserted that unless the issue of non-compliance with the guidelines
was brought to the notice of senior officers of MOC by PW-13 V.S.
Rana or by the other officials of CA-I, Section there was no way that
the accused MOC officers could have known that the guidelines
governing allocation of coal blocks have not been complied with.
280. In the light of aforesaid nature of detailed submissions made

by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons laying great emphasis on
the applicability of the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure to the
entire coal block allocation process adopted by MOC it becomes
important for this Court to first see as to whether applications so
invited by MOC for allocation of captive coal blocks were even
contemplated to be dealt with as per the provisions of Manual of
Office Procedure or not. It also needs to be examined thereafter as to
whether the subsequent processing of applications after they were
received in MOC or other related issues thereof were dealt with as
per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure or not. It is only
thereafter can it be seen and examined as to what extent the
provisions thereof were not complied with or in what manner or under
what circumstances.
(A) Whether the receiving of applications or their

subsequent processing in MOC was contemplated to be
dealt with under the Central Secretariat Manual of Office
Procedure.
281. As regard the applicability of Central Secretariat Manual of

Office Procedure to the routine working of a Ministry in Central
Government it would be suffice to state that the Manual of Office
Procedure certainly forms the back-bone of process management in
the Central Secretariat. As mentioned in the introduction part of the
manual in Chapter-I itself the very purpose of introducing such a
manual by the Central Government is to attempt to balance the
conflicting consideration of speed and priority.
282. In this regard it would be appropriate to first have a brief

glance of the scheme of various chapters in which the Manual of
Office Procedure has been divided and also the nature of issues
which it intends to address.
Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure, Twelfth Edition, May 2003
The Manual has been divided into 18 chapters titled as follows:
CHAPTER I - Introduction
CHAPTER II - Definitions
CHAPTER III - Machinery of Government
CHAPTER IV - Dal-Receipt, Registration and
Distribution
CHAPTER V - Receipts-Submission and Diarisation
CHAPTER VI - Action on Receipts
CHAPTER VII - Handling of Receipts under Desk
Officer System
CHAPTER VIII - Forms and Procedure of
Communication
CHAPTER IX - Drafting of Communications
CHAPTER X - Issue of Drafts
CHAPTER XI - File Numbering System
CHAPTER XII - Records Management
CHAPTER XIII - Security of Official Information and
Documents
CHAPTER XIV - Checks on Delays
CHAPTER XV - Inspections
CHAPTER XVI - Office Automation
CHAPTER XVII - Electronically Supported Office
Procedure System
CHAPTER XVIII - Miscellaneous
283. Thus from a bare perusal of the titles of various chapters, it is

clear that Chapter-I provides for introduction and Chapter II provides
definition of various terms used in the Manual. Chapter III mentions
the machinery of government vide which the functions of government
are discharged. Chapter IV to VII, primarily deals with Dak, its
Receipt and the Processing thereof. Chapter VIII deals with Forms
and Procedure of Communication and Chapter IX and X deals with
Drafting of Communications and Issue of Drafts. Chapter XI to XVII
primarily deals with maintenance of files and other records in the
office. Chapter XVIII provides for miscellaneous provisions.
284. From the aforesaid scheme of different chapters, it is thus

clear that the Manual of Office Procedure besides dealing with issues
relating to drafting of communications and issue of drafts,
maintenance of files and other records primarily deals with Dak its
Receipt and its processing thereof. In these circumstances, it will
be thus important to briefly note the definition of the word Dak and
Receipt as provided in Para 1 in Chapter II titled "DEFINITIONS"
1 (14) Dak includes every type of written communication

such as letter, telegram, interdepartmental note, file, fax, e-
mail, wireless message which is received, whether by post or
otherwise, in any department for its consideration.
1 (47) Receipt means Dak after it has been received by

the concerned section/officer.
285. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid definition of "Dak" it will be

important to first analyze as to whether the applications so received
by MOC seeking allotment of captive coal blocks in response to
advertisement issued by it can be termed as "Dak" as defined under
the "Manual of Office Procedure". In this regard it will be thus
required to be seen as to whether the applications so received can be
termed as "Written Communication" as contemplated under the
"Manual of Office Procedure".
286. Chapter VIII of the "Manual of Office Procedure" provides for

Forms and Procedures of Communication. Para 50 of the said
Chapter provides for "Forms of Written Communications and
Methods of Delivery". The said list of written communications and
their method of delivery as is generally used by a department talks of
letter, Demi-official letter, office memorandum, inter-departmental
note as forms of written communication and telegram, fax/telex,
registered post/registered AD, speed post, office order, order,
notification, resolution, press-communique/ note, endorsement,
circular, advertisement and e-mail as methods of delivery of written
communications. Para 51 further talks of telephonic communications.
The remaining para(s) of Chapter VIII deals with communications
between inter-department or intra-department etc. Apparently the
applications so received in response to advertisement issued by
MOC inviting applications for allotment of captive coal blocks can
neither be termed as letter, Demi official letter, office memorandum,
inter-departmental note etc. so as to term the said applications as
written communication as contemplated either in Para 50 titled
"Forms of Written Communications and Methods of Delivery" or as
mentioned in the definition of "Dak" in para 1 (14) of the Manual of
Office Procedure.
287. It is thus clear that applications so invited by MOC can not be

termed as "Dak" as contemplated under the Manual of Office
Procedure. In fact from various other circumstances also it is clear
that even MOC itself never intended or even contemplated to
consider or deal with such applications as Dak as per the provisions
of Manual of Office Procedure and were never actually dealt with by
it as such. Certainly it would have been an ideal situation if at least
the other subsequent proceedings carried out in MOC after receipt of
applications would have been as per the provisions of Manual of
Office Procedure. My subsequent discussion would however show
that even senior officers of MOC also never dealt with all such
matters strictly as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure.
The provisions of the Manual of Office Procedure prescribing
Procedure and Rules were observed more in breach.
288. Para 12 in Chapter IV titled "Dak, Receipt, Registration and

Distribution" provides that during office hours the entire Dak of the
department including those addressed to Ministers/officers by name,
will be received in the central registry/Information and Facilitation
Counters (IFC). Where however immediate/important dak addressed
to Ministers/officers by name is sent through Special Messenger
directly to the addressees themselves, it will be received by them or
their personal staff. The chapter further provides for dak if received
after office hours or through other mode of communications such as
fax or e-mails etc.
289. Thus in these circumstances, it will be pertinent to mention

that the guidelines governing allocation of coal blocks specifically
provided the name of the officer to whom the applications were to be
addressed and the place where the same were to be submitted. The
said guidelines titled Where to apply read as under:
"Where to Apply?
The application, in five (5) copies, is to be addressed to

Sh. Sanjiv Mittal, Director (CA-I)
Ministry of Coal
and to be submitted in:
Coal India Limited Office

Scope Minar, 5th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre
Delhi 110092
between 10.30 AM and 4.00 PM on any working day.
The application should reach the Ministry of Coal latest by 12th

of January, 2007."
290. The files of MOC are however completely silent as to why the
applications which were to be received only during office hours were
not directed to be received in the Central Registry/IFC of MOC in
accordance with para 12 of Manual of Office Procedure. Moreover it
also can not be stated that the applications being so received over a
period of about two (2) months were of such a nature as can be
termed as immediate/important dak addressed to Ministers/officers as
contemplated in Para 12 Chapter IV of the Manual of Office
Procedure. Even otherwise the applications even if addressed to
Sh. Sanjiv Mittal, Director (CA-I) were never received either by him
personally or by his personal staff. Thus if the applications were to be
dealt with under the Manual of Office Procedure much less
considering them to be dak then either they ought to have been
received in the Central Registry/IFC or if any deviance from the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure was intended then reasons
for deviance ought to have been recorded as per para 30 of Manual
of Office Procedure.
291. Ld. Counsel for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha all
through the trial and especially while cross-examining PW-13 V.S.
Rana, Under Secretary, MOC placed strong reliance on the
provisions of para 30 titled "Deviation from normal procedures or
rules" to emphasise that in case of any deviance from the provisions
of Manual of Office Procedure the authority concern was supposed to
record reasons for the same in writing.
Para 30 of Manual of Office Procedure read as under:
"Deviation from normal procedures or rules In every case

where a major or minor infraction, other than trivial, of the
existing procedures or rules, is sought to be made, it shall be
the responsibility of the decision making authority to ensure
that reasons are recorded in writing, justifying such a deviation
from the rules or procedures."
292. Clearly as per para 12 of the Manual of Office Procedure the

entire dak was to be received during office hours in the Central
registry/IFC. Thus even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments
that the applications so invited by MOC were considered as dak to be
dealt with as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure then as
already mentioned if A-4 H.C. Gupta being Secretary Coal approved
the guidelines titled "Where to apply" specifying the place where
applications being so invited were to be received and the said place
was undisputedly not the Central Registry/IFC of MOC so the same
clearly amounted to a major deviation from the provisions of Manual
of Office Procedure. In these circumstances as per the provisions of
Para 30 as reproduced above, A-4 H.C. Gupta while approving the
guidelines titled Where to apply ought to have either recorded the
reasons himself or ought to have ensured that reasons are recorded
in writing justifying deviation from the provisions of Manual of Office
Procedure. In fact file for getting the guidelines approved was also
routed through the desk of A-5 K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary, Coal.
He was also thus duty bound to follow the mandate of para 30 of the
Manual of Office Procedure.
293. Moreover, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

it can not be even remotely presumed that A-4 H.C. Gupta or A-5
K.S. Kropha who were senior Government servants were ignorant of
the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. It is also not the case of
accused persons that they forgot to record reasons or to ensure that
reasons are recorded for any such major deviance from the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. In fact in the cross-
examination of PW-13 V.S. Rana it was put to him that qua 34th
Screening Committee applications were first received in the room of
Joint Secretary, Coal and not in CA-I, Section. He stated the said fact
to be correct. This fact again goes to suggest that even when
applications were to be received in Shastri Bhawan office of MOC
then also they were not received in the Central Registry/IFC
suggesting thereby that procedure as prescribed in the Manual of
Office Procedure was never intended to be followed. As already
mentioned there is no noting or office order in the files of MOC
providing reasons as to why the procedure given in the Manual of
Office Procedure be it qua major or minor infraction is not being
followed.
294. The only irresistible conclusion which thus arises from the
overall facts and circumstances of the case is that the applications
being so invited by MOC were never contemplated as "Dak" to be
dealt with under the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. In fact
my later discussion would show that even the subsequent
proceedings thereof were also never carried out strictly as per the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. At this stage I may also
mention that a perusal of the files of MOC rather shows that the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure were never strictly adhered
to even qua such issues which could and ought to have been dealt
with as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure.
295. PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, MOC when in his cross-
examination was confronted with various provisions of Manual of
Office Procedure, also stated that in the routine course of functioning
all provisions of the Manual of Office Procedure are not followed at all
times. It was however emphatically put on behalf of A-4 H.C. Gupta
and A-5 K.S. Kropha that the provisions of Manual of Office
Procedure were mandatorily to be followed. In fact A-4 H.C. Gupta
also examined himself as a defence witness u/s 315 Cr.PC as DW-12
and in his examination-in-chief even stated that if the provisions of
Manual of Office Procedure are not followed then the officer
concerned becomes liable for action. I shall be however highlighting
various other instances also where apparently the provisions of
Manual of Office Procedure were not followed even by the accused
MOC officers even subsequent to receiving the applications as above
and the files of MOC are completely silent as to the reasons for not
complying with the provisions thereof.
296. In fact as will be evident from my subsequent discussion, it

would not be a wrong statement if it is said that the entire working of
MOC with relation to allocation of captive coal blocks was completely
adhoc and casual in nature. There are various acts of omission and
commission on the part of A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6
K.C. Samria which clearly supports the said conclusion. Though at a
later stage of the present judgment, I shall be also demonstrating that
not only all such acts of omission and commission committed by the
accused MOC officers were conscious and deliberate but can be
clearly attributed to their attitude of "WHO CARES". In fact they acted
as if they were completely oblivious to the likely and probable
consequences of their acts despite knowing that the matter being
handled by them was of utmost importance for the industrial
development of the country.
297. Admittedly guidelines were issued by MOC as regard the

manner in which the applications were to be dealt with or the place
where they shall be received or how they shall be processed. The
said guidelines were issued and uploaded on the website of MOC not
only to inform the public at large as to in what manner the
applications are to be submitted or what documents were required to
be annexed with the application and how the applications will be dealt
with in MOC but it also regulated the exercise of discretion regarding
the procedure to be followed in allocation of captive coal blocks by
MOC and the Screening Committee. I may however mention that
even the procedure mandated by the said guidelines was also not
followed in processing of the applications much less the provisions of
Manual of Office Procedure. The intention of MOC officers in not
dealing with the applications as per the provisions of Manual of Office
Procedure is however also writ large on the face of record from the
manner in which the minutes of various meetings of 36 th screening
committee have been recorded. Though I shall be dealing with the
larger issue of contents of the minutes of 36th Screening Committee
meetings at a later stage but it will be worthwhile to mention over
here that admittedly no minutes of the first four (4) Screening
Committee meetings held on 07.12.2007, 08.12.2007, 07.02.2008
and 08/02.2008 were separately recorded much less immediately
after the said meetings were concluded. Admittedly common minutes
of all the five meetings of 36 th screening committee i.e. meetings held
on 07/08.12.2007 and 07/08.02.2008 and 03.07.2008 were recorded
after the final meeting was concluded on 03.07.2008. However as per
Para 54 (4) (c) of Manual of Office Procedure, a record of discussion
of inter-departmental meetings ought to have been prepared
immediately after the meeting and circulated to the other departments
concerned setting out the conclusions reached and indicating the
department or departments responsible for taking further action on
each conclusion.
298. At this stage it will be worthwhile to reproduce para 54 (4) of
Manual of Office Procedure. The same read as under:
54. Inter-departmental consultation -

(1) Inter-departmental consultation may take the form of
inter-departmental notes, inter-departmental meetings or oral
discussions.
(2) In making written inter-departmental references, the
following points should be observed:
(a) . . . .
(b) . . . .
(c) . . . .
(d) . . . .
(i) . . . .
(ii) . . . .
(3) (a) . . . .
(i) . . . .
(ii) . . . .
(b) . . . .
(c) . . . .
(4) Inter-departmental meetings may be held where it is
necessary to elicit the opinion of other departments on
important cases and arrive at a decision within a limited time.
No such meeting will normally be convened except under the
orders of an officer not below the level of Joint Secretary. In
respect of such meetings, it will be ensured that:
(a) the representatives attending the meeting are officers
who can take decisions on behalf of their departments;
(b) an agenda setting up clearly the points for discussion is
prepared and sent alongwith the proposal for holding the
meeting, allowing adequate time for the representatives of other
departments to prepare themselves for the meeting; and
(c) a record of discussions is prepared immediately
after the meeting and circulated to the other departments
concerned, setting out the conclusions reached and
indicating the department or departments responsible for
taking further action on each conclusion.
(5) . . . .
(a) . . . .
(b) . . . .
(c) . . . .
(d) . . . .
. . . .
(6) . . . .
(7) . . . .
(8) . . . ."
299. In fact Ld. Counsels for accused persons have argued that
the minutes have been recorded as per Para 54 (4) (c) of the Manual
of Office Procedure. Both DW-11 K.S. Kropha and DW-12 H.C. Gupta
stated in their examination-in-chief that the minutes of 36 th Screening
Committee meetings were prepared in accordance with Para 54 (4)
(c) of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure. However no
explanation worth the name has been put forward by them as to why
the provisions of Para 54 (4) (c) were not followed by recording the
minutes of meetings held on 07.12.2007, 08.12.2007, 07.02.2008
and 08.02.2008 immediately after the respective meetings were over.
This fact again goes to suggest that Ministry of Coal never dealt with
the applications so received for allotment of captive coal blocks
strictly as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. If it is
presumed otherwise, then as mentioned above there is no
explanation or reasons recorded in the files of MOC as to why the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure regarding immediate
preparation of record of discussion of each inter-departmental
meeting was not adhered to. In fact in the meeting held on
08.02.2008 a decision was admittedly taken to seek information from
CMPDIL whose representative was also a member of screening
committee to furnish information about the available geological
reserves or the extractable reserves in the various coal blocks kept
for allocation. Thus as per Para 54 (4) (c), the record of discussions
to be prepared immediately after the meeting was to also mention
about the conclusions reached and indicating the department or
departments responsible for taking further action on each conclusion.
300. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am thus of the

considered opinion that though one may say that the applications so
invited by MOC for allotment of captive coal blocks ought to have
been dealt as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure but
neither the applications were actually contemplated to be dealt with
under the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure nor their
subsequent processing was ever undertaken strictly as per the
Manual of Office Procedure. In fact my subsequent discussion will
further substantiate the aforesaid conclusion that neither the receipt
nor processing of applications was dealt with by MOC as per the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure.
(B) Whether the guidelines issued by MOC were binding and

were mandatorily to be followed by MOC officers and by the
301. In 1993 when the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was
amended so as to provide for allocation of captive coal blocks to
companies in private sector also who were engaged in specified end
uses, an inter-departmental body called the Screening Committee
was constituted in MOC to screen all such proposals as may be
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, Power or Department of Industrial
Promotion and Policy beside various State Governments where coal
blocks which were proposed to be allocated were situated or the
states where the proposed end use project was to be situated were
members of Screening Committee. Central Mine Planning & Design
Institute Limited, (CMPDIL), Coal India Ltd. (CIL) and its other
subsidiary companies were also part of the Screening Committee.
The purpose was to have views of all concern 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.
302. Though initially no advertisement used to be issued by MOC

for inviting applications for allocation of captive coal blocks but the
34th Screening Committee issued on advertisement in the year 2005
inviting applications for allocation of captive coal blocks. The past
practice and procedure as used to be followed by the earlier
Screening Committees were also compiled at one place and with
suitable additions/modifications, guidelines were issued to govern the
coal block allocation process. Similarly at the time of 35 th and 36th
Screening Committee also applications were invited by way of an
advertisement. After making suitable modifications in the earlier
guidelines issued and beside incorporating the recommendations of
7th Energy Co-ordination Committee headed by Prime Minister and as
were communicated to MOC vide office Memorandum Ex. PW 13/H
(colly) (D-2) fresh guidelines governing allocation of captive coal
blocks were issued by MOC.
303. Thus in the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that

these guidelines were issued by MOC not only to control and regulate
the discretion to be exercised by MOC officers in the coal block
allocation process but also that of the Screening Committee. The
guidelines purportedly provided the mechanism to implement the
provisions of Mine and Minerals Act, 1957 and that of Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973 as it stood amended in 1993. (However
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in its order dated 25.08.2014
passed in Manohar Lal Sharma case (Supra) that the procedure
adopted by MOC or the Screening Committee was in contravention
of the provisions of Mine and Minerals Act, 1957 that it does not find
support even from CMN Act, 1973. Hon'ble Supreme Court however
proceeded to consider and examine the actions of MOC and that of
Screening Committee assuming that Central Government had
powers to allot coal blocks under Mine and Minerals Act, 1957 and
CMN Act, 1973). Similarly in the case in hand also the task before
this Court is to examine the 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 Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL. The said exercise
is thus being undertaken assuming that Central Government had
powers to allocate the various coal blocks. In other words what is
required to be seen is whether the rules/regulations or procedure as
were devised by Ministry of Coal for allocating captive coal blocks
were adhered to by the accused MOC officers or not. If not, than
reasons thereof and their intention in not doing so.
304. Thus from my aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the

guidelines so framed and issued by MOC itself were having binding
force. In fact it is not even the case of any of the accused persons
that the guidelines were not having any binding force. It was rather
argued by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the guidelines
were duly followed by the Screening Committee even for ascertaining
the inter-se priority of the applicant companies. As earlier mentioned
guidelines governing allocation of captive coal blocks were issued not
only to inform the public about the process which shall be adopted by
MOC in allocating various captive coal blocks to different applicant
companies but the guidelines also regulated the exercise of discretion
by MOC officers and by the Screening Committee in the coal block
allocation process.
305. Thus it is clear that the guidelines as were issued by MOC as

part of advertisement Ex. PW 13/F (colly) (D-2) were having binding
force and were mandatorily to be followed both by MOC and the
(C) Whether the applications received in MOC were checked

for eligibility and completeness in accordance with the
guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of captive
coal blocks.
306. After having discussed that the applications so received in

MOC were never dealt with strictly as per the provisions of Manual of
Office Procedure, it needs to be seen now as to in what manner the
applications were actually dealt with by MOC.
307. PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, MOC specifically stated

that the applications so received were never checked in MOC for their
completeness and eligibility at any point of time much less before
sending copies thereof to Administrative Ministries/State
Governments or to CMPDIL. This fact has even been not disputed by
the accused persons. It is also an undisputed fact that as per the
guidelines titled Processing of Application, the applications received
in the Ministry of Coal in five copies after being checked for eligibility
and completeness were to be sent to the Administrative
Ministries/State Government concerned for their evaluation and
recommendations.
308. The three accused MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S.
Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria, however stated that during the course
of investigation of present coal block allocation matters and more
specifically during the trial of present case only they came to know
that the applications so received in MOC were not checked by CA-I,
Section, MOC before copies thereof were sent to Administrative
Ministries/State Governments concerned or to CMPDIL. They
however took a consistent stand during the entire trial that it was the
responsibility of officials of CA-I Section only to comply with the said
guidelines. It was also stated by them that at no point of time CA-I
Section officials brought to their notice that the guidelines qua
checking of applications for completeness or eligibility have not been
complied with. It was submitted that in none of the files of MOC any
written note was ever made by CA-I Section officials which could
show that the senior officers were informed about non-compliance of
guidelines as above. It was thus submitted that there was no other
way in which the accused persons i.e. the senior officers of MOC
could have known that the guidelines have not been complied with in
MOC.
309. Though I shall be dealing with the aforesaid issues at length

at a slightly later stage of the present judgment but the fact remains
that the applications so received in MOC were never checked for their
completeness and eligibility at any point of time much less before
sending copies of the applications to Administrative Ministries/State
Governments concerned or to CMPDIL.
310. As regard the role of Screening Committee in complying with

the guidelines so issued, it would be suffice to state at this stage that
the minutes of 36th Screening Committee does not show that the
Screening Committee followed the guidelines qua ascertaining the
interse priority of the competing applicants. However I shall be
discussing the said issue at length at a slightly later stage of the
present judgment.
311. Thus from my aforesaid discussion, it stands well proved on

record that the guidelines issued by MOC qua checking of
applications for their completeness and eligibility were not complied
with at any point of time during the entire coal block allocation
process much less before sending them to Administrative
Ministries/State Governments concerned.
(D) Whether A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C.
Samria were aware that applications have not been checked
for completeness and eligibility in terms of the guidelines.
312. As already mentioned A-4 H.C. Gupta, Secretary Coal, A-5

K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary Coal and A-6 K.C. Samria, Director, CA-
I Section, MOC all through the entire trial and also at the stage of
final arguments claimed that at no point of time they were informed by
PW-13 V.S. Rana or by other officials of CA-I Section that the
applications have not been checked for their eligibility and
completeness. It was submitted that no note was put in any of the
MOC files by CA-I Section officials which could show that the factum
of applications having been not checked for their completeness and
eligibility was brought to the notice of senior officers at any point of
time. It was also submitted that though PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under
Secretary, CA-I Section, MOC stated that he had informed verbally to
both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that checking of
applications has not been carried out but the same was clearly found
to be an improvement made by him over his earlier statement u/s 161
Cr.PC made to IO and that too in order to escape away from his own
liability. While relying upon the provisions of Manual of Office
Procedure, it was asserted that in case any such verbal information
was given by PW-13 V.S. Rana, then he ought to have recorded the
same in the files at least at some later point of time and got the same
confirmed from the senior officers. It was thus submitted that as no
such note regarding verbal information having been given to senior
officers was ever recorded in the files of MOC so not only PW-13 V.S.
Rana is now introducing a new case but is in fact making an effort to
save his own skin since being Under Secretary, CA-I Section, it was
his responsibility to ensure that the guidelines issued by MOC are
duly complied with. It was also submitted that admittedly copies of the
applications were sent to concerned State Governments and to
Administrative Ministries under the signatures of PW-13 V.S. Rana
himself and at that time the file was not put up before the senior
officers seeking their approval even though for other innocuous
matters such as procuring locks or trunks or for making transportation
arrangements for sending the applications to different entities as
above, the file was put up to the senior officers. A-6 K.C. Samria even
stated that he was given the additional charge of CA-I, Section only
on 16.03.2007 and by that time copies of applications were already
sent to Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to CMPDIL.
313. In this regard, I may mention at the thresh-hold itself that from
the manner in which the applications have been dealt with in MOC, it
is clearly apparent that the work of Ministry of Coal as regard
allocation of captive coal blocks has been completely arbitrary and
adhoc in nature. Rules, regulations or procedures seems to have
been given a complete go by. As shall be evident from my
subsequent discussion, the accused MOC officers seems to have
worked in the most casual and arbitrary manner despite the fact that
they were senior officers of the rank of Secretary, Government of
India, Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary and were dealing with
the allocation of important Nationalised natural resources of the
country i.e. coal. The fact that the then Prime Minister of the country
Dr. Manmohan Singh thought it appropriate to retain the charge of
Ministry of Coal with himself only, clearly shows as to how important
the work of said Ministry was. The fact that 7 th Energy Co-ordination
Committee headed by Prime Minister with a view to give energy and
infrastructure matters in the country a push, directed MOC to
expedite allocation of captive coal blocks again shows the important
and crucial nature of work which was to be discharged by MOC for
the overall infrastructural development of the country.
314. In this regard even the observations of Hon'ble Supreme

Court as made in its order dated 25.08.2014 in the case Manohar Lal
Sharma case (Supra) in Para 1 would be worth referring to.
Para 1 of the said order dated 25.08.2014 read as under:
"1. Coal is king and paramount Lord of industry is an old saying

in the industrial world. Industrial greatness has been built up on
coal by many countries. In India, coal is the most important
indigenous energy resource and remains the dominant fuel for
power generation and many industrial applications. A number of
major industrial sectors including iron and steel production
depend on coal as a source of energy. The cement industry is
also a major coal user. Coals potential as a feedstock for
producing liquid transport fuels is huge in India. Coal can help
significant economic growth. Indias energy future and
prosperity are integrally dependant upon mining and using its
most abundant, affordable and dependant energy supply
which is coal. Coal is extremely important element in the
industrial life of developing India. In power, iron and steel, coal
is used as an input and in cement, coal is used both as fuel and
an input. It is no exaggeration that coal is regarded by many as
the black diamond."
315. The manner in which the applications have been either

processed in MOC or have been subsequently dealt with by the
Screening Committee which was headed again by Secretary, Coal, A-
4 H.C. Gupta as Chairman with A-5, K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary,
Coal as its member Convener in fact speaks volume about the
arbitrary exercise of powers/discretion by the Government officers
involved without even caring slightly for the rules/regulations or
procedure to be followed. All through the entire trial while placing
reliance upon various provisions of Manual of Office Procedure, it
was the constant and consistent effort of all three officers of MOC
arrayed as accused that the junior officers/officials in MOC did not
work as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. It was also
submitted that it was the sole responsibility of officers/officials of CA-I
Section, MOC only to ensure due compliance with the guidelines
issued by MOC. The effort was also made to show that till the time
matters were not brought to the notice of senior officers they could
not have known about the nitty-gritty of the procedure undertaken by
CA-I Section in dealing with the applications so received.
316. Though I have already demonstrated that MOC neither
contemplated to deal with the applications so received in accordance
with the provisions of Manual Of Office Procedure nor it so dealt with
them but even otherwise if the said Manual of Office Procedure is
presumed to be held applicable then also the senior officers
themselves did not care to adhere to the said provisions. Non-
compliance with provisions of para 54 (4) (c) of Manual of Office
Procedure regarding recording of minutes of inter-departmental
meetings immediately after the meeting is over has already been
discussed at length. The contention that as per Manual of Office
Procedure reasons for non-compliance with the provisions thereof
were to be recorded by the officers concerned as per para 30 titled
"Deviation from Normal Procedure or Rules" has also been dealt with.
It was also argued by the accused MOC officers that the decision
making authority who deviates from the existing procedure or rules is
responsible to record reasons justifying for any such deviation from
the rules or procedures. However neither A-4 H.C. Gupta nor A-5 K.S.
Kropha or even A-6 K.C. Samria cared to record any reasons in the
files as to why para 54 (4) (c) of Manual of Office Procedure was not
complied with qua recording the minutes of the Screening Committee
meetings held on 07.12.2007, 08.12.2007, 07.02.2008 and
08.02.2008 immediately after the meetings were over. Similarly no
reasons were recorded as to why the applications were not directed
to be received in Central Registry/IFC, MOC.
317. However I shall be further discussing now from the records of
the present case itself i.e. from the files of MOC only that the three
accused senior officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha
and A-6 K.C. Samria did not follow the provisions of Manual of Office
Procedure on other aspects also. The files of MOC not only show that
all the three officers were well aware of the manner in which the
applications were dealt with in MOC but also that they were
conscious of the need to carry out scrutiny of the applications in
accordance with the guidelines so issued but they chose to ignore the
same for reasons best known to them. Various notings in the files of
MOC were referred to extensively by Ld. Counsels for A-4 H.C.
Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria to show that only such
facts came to their knowledge as were put in writing by the officers of
CA-I, Section. It was asserted by both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S.
Kropha that as they were looking after the work of a number of wings
and sections in the Ministry so they could not be expected to look into
the detailed working of each section or wing of the Ministry.
318. However in order to show that all the three accused persons
i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were well
aware of the fact that before sending copies of applications to
Administrative Ministries/State Governments concerned, the
applications have not been checked for their eligibility and
completeness in MOC, it would be apt to refer to the minutes of a
meeting held on 11.05.2007 in MOC under the chairmanship of
Secretary Coal, i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta. Both A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6
K.C. Samria were also present in the said meeting.
319. The files of MOC show that a meeting with representatives of
Nodal Administrative Ministries represented in the Screening
Committee and with representatives of various other organizations
such as CMPDIL, CIL etc who were also members of Screening
Committee was held in MOC on 11.05.2007. The said meeting took
place even prior to considering the applications so received either for
allocation of coal blocks reserved for power sector or for blocks
reserved for other end users by 35th or 36th Screening Committee.
The minutes of the said meeting held under the Chairmanship of A-4
H.C. Gupta, Secretary, Coal clearly demonstrates that all the three
accused persons i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C.
Samria were aware of the action taken so far on the applications
beside other details of the applications. The said minutes were put to
PW-13 V.S. Rana by Ld. Counsel for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S.
Kropha in his cross-examination only and the said minutes
accordingly stands proved and exhibited as Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly)
[In file Ex. PW 1/H-1 (Colly) (D-9)]. The said meeting was attended by
representatives of Nodal Ministries i.e. Ministry of Power, Ministry of
Steel, DIPP and by the representatives of CIL, Coal Controller
Organization and CMPDIL. The officers of MOC namely A-5 K.S.
Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were also present alongwith Sh. P.R.
Mandal, Advisor (P), MOC.
320. Before I advert on to discuss the contents of the said minutes,

it will be worthwhile to reproduce the said minutes alongwith
attendance sheet thereof of the officers who attended the said
meeting:
"Minutes of Meeting held under the chairmanship of Secretary (Coal) with

the representatives of Nodal Ministries represented in the Screening
Committee, representatives of CIL, Coal Controllers Organisation and
CMPDIL.
A meeting was convened on 11th May 2007 at 10:30
AM in the office chamber of Secretary (Coal) with the
representatives of Nodal Administrative Ministries
represented in the Screening Committee, representatives
of CIL, Coal Controllers Organization and CMPDIL to
discuss the modalities for scrutiny and evaluation of
applications received for allocation of 38 coal blocks for
captive use. List of participants is attached as Annexure.
Opening the discussion, Secretary (coal) gave brief
account of the process followed, the guidelines notified for
allocation of captive coal blocks in this round, details of
applications received, and action taken so far on the
applications. He pointed out that as against 740
applications received during the last round of allocation of
captive blocks, the number of applications received for 38
blocks this time is 1,422, which is almost double the
applications received on the last occasion. The
representative of CMPDIL informed that in terms of
applicant companies, the number would be around 344.
Going by the past experience, the exercise is anticipated to
be far more cumbersome in case personal audience is
given to each applicant. Also, in order to determine the
most eligible applicant, it needs to be considered whether
a set of more specific bench mark criteria, in conformity
with the broad parameters indicated in the guidelines,
could be evolved against which the eligibility of applicants
could be measured based on information furnished in the
application forms. He also sought the views of the
members on whether based on such criteria, non serious
applicants could be filtered in the first round of scrutiny,
leaving only the more serious contenders who only could
be called for personal hearing. This would ensure more
objective and critical evaluation of the competing
applicants. The conventional way of calling each applicant
would be extremely time consuming and it may take a long time
for the Screening Committee to complete the exercise and
make its recommendation.
The Advisor, Ministry of Power stated that they had
already suggested broad guidelines for evaluation of
applications based on which scrutiny can be made.
Secretary(coal) observed that it would not serve the purpose as
the parameters suggested are of very general nature and not
very specific, against which the applicants could be evaluated.
The Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion, Ministry of Steel suggested that parameters such as
minimum capacity of end use plant, minimum net-worth,
preparedness of the project etc. could be considered as criteria
for initial scrutiny and short-listing. The Director, Ministry of
Steel also endorsed this suggestion.
Some of the members expressed concern that the action
of the Screening Committee in eliminating some applicants
based on net-worth criteria alone may be challenged in Courts
on the ground that it could be only one of the factors and not
the sole factor to be taken into account while determining the
eligibility of the applicants. Such elimination may, therefore, be
challenged on the ground of equality of opportunity.
After detailed deliberations, it was agreed that the
respective Administrative Ministries would examine this issue
further and suggest some criteria based on specific parameters
to determine the inter-se priority amongst the applicants from
the respective sectors i.e. power, iron & steel and cement. This
may be furnished to the Ministry of Coal on priority. Thereafter,
if necessary, another meeting would be convened to discuss
the matter further. In the meantime, CMPDIL will carry out an
exercise to identify the applicant companies that have minimum
net-worth of 20% of the investment required for projected
capacities of end use plants."
"List of participants in the Screening Committee meeting

held on 11th May 2007 at 10:30 AM in the office Chamber of
Secretary (Coal).
Ministry of Coal
(i) Sh. H.C. Gupta, Secretary
(ii) Sh.K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Coal.
(iii) Sh. P.R. Mandal, Advisor (P).
(iv) Sh.K.C. Samria, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Coal.
Ministry of Steel
(i) Sh. N.R. Dash, Director
Coal India Limited
(i) Sh. N.C. Jha, Director (Tech.).
Coal Controller Organization
(i) Sh. An. Saha, Coal Controller.
(ii) Sh. A.Panda, Director.
Coal mine Planning and Design Institute.
(i) Sh.S.Chaudhuri,
(ii) Sh. A.K. Wahi, GM, ES, CMPDIL."
321. It will be also worthwhile to mention at this stage that in the

same file at page No. 105-106 the draft minutes of the said meeting
are available in which certain corrections have been made by hand.
The said draft minutes were put to DW-12 H.C. Gupta (When he
examined himself in his defence u/s 315 Cr.PC) by Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh.
V.K. Sharma in his cross-examination and he stated that the said
draft minutes carries corrections in the hand of A-5 K.S. Kropha. In
fact an endorsement dated 30.05.2007 in the hand of A-5 K.S.
Kropha at note sheet page 23 in file Ex. PW 1/H (colly) (D-2) also
supports the aforesaid fact. The said draft minutes as above are
available in file Ex. PW 1/H-1 (colly) (D-9) and have been exhibited
as Ex. DW 12/PX-7.
322. However from a bare perusal of the minutes Ex. PW-13/DX-

16 (colly) of the meeting held on 11.05.2007, it is clearly evident that
Secretary Coal, i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta while opening the discussion not
only gave brief account of the process followed and the guidelines
notified for allocation of captive coal blocks in this round, but also
stated about details of applications received, and action taken so far
on the applications. He also pointed out that as against 740
applications received during the last round of allocation of captive
blocks the number of applications received for 38 blocks, this time
was 1422 i.e. double the number of applications received on the last
occasion. The minutes however further talks of the discussion held
amongst the members about the procedure or modalities to be
adopted so as to determine the most eligible applicant. The issue of
laying down specific benchmark criteria in conformity with the broad
parameters indicated in the guidelines was also discussed. The need
to have an objective and critical evaluation of the competing
applicants was also stressed upon. The meeting however finally
concluded with the decision that the respective Administrative
Ministries would examine and suggest some criteria based on
specific parameters to determine the inter-se priority of the various
applicant companies. At the end of the minutes it is also mentioned
that in the meantime, CMPDIL will carry out an exercise to identify the
applicant companies that have minimum net-worth of 20% of the
investment required for projected capacities of end use plants. In this
regard it will be also worthwhile to have a glance over the last
paragraph of the draft minutes of the said meeting which have also
been proved on record as Ex. DW 12/PX-7 [available at page 105-
106 in file Ex. PW 1/H-1 (colly) (D-9)]. The last para of draft minutes
Ex. DW 12/PX-7 read as under:
"It was further suggested by Secretary (Coal) that 20% of the
investment required for projected capacities of end-use plants
may be accepted as a bench mark criteria for first round of
scrutiny. However, at the end it was decided that nodal
Ministries to come forward with their suggestion in this regard
in respect of applications concerning their sector."
323. I shall be reverting back to the said draft minutes again at a
later stage of my present judgment while further discussing the
manner in which applications were dealt with either by Screening
Committee or in MOC.
324. However the purpose of reproducing and referring to the

minutes of meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) at
this stage is only to show the falsity in the claim made by the accused
MOC officers that at no point of time the facts regarding total number
of applications received in MOC or the manner of their processing or
the details of the applications or the action taken so far on the
applications were brought to their knowledge by CA-I, Section
officers/officials. In fact in the note sheet pages of the files of MOC I
have been unable to find any noting where the total number of
applications so received or the manner in which they were processed
or any other details of the applications were specifically mentioned at
least till the date of aforesaid meeting i.e. till 11.05.2007. Even in the
cross-examination of PW-13 V.S. Rana in response to a question put
to him, he stated that no note was put up by CA-I, Section as to how
many applications in all were received either for power sector or for
non-power sector coal blocks. Thus in these circumstances when the
minutes of aforesaid meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16
(colly) have been relied upon by the accused MOC officers
themselves then it was for them to explain only as to in what manner
they came to know about the total number of applications so received
or the action taken so far on the applications. The minutes says that
Secretary Coal also gave a brief account of details of applications
received. The onus in this regard thus again remained on A-4 H.C.
Gupta only as to what details of the applications were to his
knowledge which were shared by him with the other members of the
Screening Committee present in the said meeting. Moreover as per
the attendance sheet of the officers who attended the said meeting,
all the three accused persons i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha
and A-6 K.C. Samria were present from MOC beside Sh. P.R.
Mandal, Advisor (P). The role of Sh. P.R. Mandal, Advisor (P) in the
entire coal block allocation process has neither been asserted to by
the prosecution nor the accused persons have ascribed any role or
any knowledge of the process to him. Moreover the presence of PW-
13 V.S. Rana or any other officer of CA-I Section in the meeting can
not be presumed as the attendance sheet is silent in this regard. Had
it been so the attendance of such other officers of MOC would have
been there in the attendance sheet in the same manner in which it
was there in the attendance sheets of various meetings of 36th
Screening Committee even though A-6 K.C. Samria and PW-13 V.S.
Rana were admittedly not members thereof. Even otherwise, if the
presence of said officers/officials of CA-I, Section is presumed in the
said meeting then also the only irresistible conclusion which arises
from the overall facts and circumstances is that the senior officers of
MOC were informed at least on the day of meeting held on
11.05.2007, if not before by the officers/officials of CA-I, Section
about the total number of applications received and action taken so
far on the applications or other details of the applications. Thus the
three accused senior officers of MOC can not claim that they were
not aware of the details of the applications received or total number of
applications received or the action taken on the applications so far, at
least as on 11.05.2007 if not before thereto. Certainly when nothing
has been stated by the three accused MOC officers as to what all
knowledge they had about the details of the applications or the action
taken on the applications till 11.05.2007 much less the source from
whom they came to know about all such details so it will be
completely logical and legal to presume that all the three accused
MOC officers had knowledge that the applications have not been
checked for their eligibility and completeness in accordance with the
guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks before
copies thereof were sent to Administrative Ministries/State
Governments or to CMPDIL. Otherwise the accused MOC officers
ought to have stated as to what facts relating to action taken so far on
the applications was shared by them with other members of
Screening Committee in the meeting held on 11.05.2007. These facts
certainly can be to the exclusive knowledge of accused MOC officers
only and thus they ought to have disclosed about the same more so
when the said minutes Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) have been relied
upon by them only.
325. However, at this stage, I may make a note of caution that I

am not trying to draw any conclusion merely based on the
weaknesses of the defence but I am simply trying to reinforce my
conclusion which is borne out from the files of MOC itself that the
applications so received in MOC were neither contemplated to be
dealt with as per the provisions of Central Secretariat Manual of
Office Procedure nor were ever dealt with as per the said provisions.
There is admittedly no noting in any of the files of MOC from which
any details of the applications so received in MOC or total number of
applications so received or the manner in which they have been dealt
with in MOC could be ascertained. Admittedly all the three accused
senior MOC officers also did not put any noting in the files of MOC
even after 11.05.2007 as to how and from whom they came to know
about the total number of applications received, details of
applications so received or the action taken so far on the applications
much less to question CA-I, Section officers/officials as to for what
reasons the guidelines qua checking of applications for eligibility and
completeness were not complied with.
326. The aforesaid facts and circumstances not only goes to

suggest that the working of MOC was completely adhoc in nature but
also is a strong indicator of the malafide intention of the accused
MOC officers who despite having acquired knowledge that the
guidelines governing coal block allocation process have not been
complied still chose to keep mum and probably because the same
facilitated them in exercising their discretion in the coal block
allocation process as per their whims and fancies. Arbitrary
functioning and consequently lack of objectivity and transparency in
the exercise of discretion seemed to be the order of day in MOC
without any attention being paid to the rule of law.
327. At the cost of repetition, I may mention that from my aforesaid
discussion, it stands conclusively proved that all the three MOC
officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria
irrespective of the volume of work being handled by them were well
aware of the total number of applications received or the details of the
applications or the manner in which the applications were dealt with
in MOC. As regard the exact date when the three officers came to
know about said non-compliance with the guidelines, it can be well
stated that at least as on 11.05.2007 all the three senior officers of
MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria had
acquired the said knowledge, if not before. Though I may mention
that keeping in view the nature of functioning of MOC at least as
regard coal block allocation process it is difficult to believe that the
three accused MOC officers were not aware about all such details of
applications or the manner in which they have been dealt with even
prior to 11.05.2007.
328. Thus the only irresistible conclusion which arises in the

overall facts and circumstances as discussed above is that all the
three senior officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha
and A-6 K.C. Samria at least as on 11.05.2007 were well aware that
the applications have not been checked for their completeness and
eligibility in terms of the guidelines governing allocation of coal
blocks. The said conclusion in no way can be stated to be based on
any presumptions much less on conjectures and surmises.
329. There is yet another aspect of the matter. From the facts and
circumstances which stands proved on record it is also clear that the
applications received even qua 34th and 35th Screening Committee
were also never checked for their eligibility and completeness. Non-
compliance with the guidelines governing allocation of coal blocks
thus seems to be an accepted norm in MOC and that too with
complete knowledge of the three accused MOC officers.
330. In his cross-examination, PW-13 V.S. Rana in response to a

question put to him on behalf of A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha,
stated as under:
"The procedure with respect to application received for 36th

Screening Committee followed in MOC right upto the time
when the applications were put up before the Screening
Committee for consideration was the same which was followed
as regard the applications received for 34th or 35th Screening
Committee.
331. Similarly both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha in their
examination-in-chief when examined as DW-12 and DW-11
respectively also stated that the CA-I, Section undertook the scrutiny
of the applications as per their understanding and as per the past
practice. Admittedly both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha were
respectively the Chairman and Member Convener of 34th Screening
Committee and 35th Screening Committee also. Thus to state that
the applications were dealt with as per the past practice clearly leads
to only two conclusions. Firstly the applications were not even
checked in MOC for their completeness and eligibility even at the
time of 34th Screening Committee and 35th Screening Committee
and this fact was well to the notice of both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5
K.S. Kropha and for this reason only it was stated by them in their
examination-in-chief that the applications on this occasion also i.e. at
the time of 36th Screening Committee were dealt with by CA-I,
Section as per their understanding and as per the past practice.
332. On the other hand, if both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S.
Kropha claims that even at the time of 34th and 35th Screening
Committee also they were not aware as to in what manner the
applications were dealt with by CA-I, Section then such a claim being
made even after final allocation of various coal blocks having been
made by 34th and 35th Screening Committee to different applicant
companies clearly fortifies my earlier conclusion that the entire
process of allocation of captive coal blocks as was undertaken in
MOC was completely arbitrary and that too without paying any heed
to the rules and regulations or guidelines governing such allocation of
captive coal blocks. In these circumstances also it was for A-4 H.C.
Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha to explain as to in what context they
stated in their examination-in-chief as recorded u/s 315 Cr.PC or it
was put to PW-13 V.S. Rana in his cross-examination on their behalf
that CA-I, Section undertook scrutiny of the applications as per their
understanding and as per the past practice. They ought to have
explained as to what understanding of CA-I, Section or past practice
they were referring to qua the scrutiny of applications.
333. Thus in either of the two situations, it was for A-4 H.C. Gupta
and A-5 K.S. Kropha only to spell out their knowledge about the
understanding of CA-I, Section in scrutinizing the applications or their
knowledge qua the past practice.
334. From my aforesaid discussion it thus stands reinforced that all

the three accused MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha
and A-6 K.C. Samria were well aware at least as on 11.05.2007 that
the applications have not been checked in MOC for their
completeness and eligibility.
(E) Whether the three accused MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C.
Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were
responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidelines
issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks.
335. In the light of my aforesaid discussion the next issue which is

required to be examined is as to whether A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S.
Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were responsible to ensure compliance
with the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of captive
coal blocks. As earlier also mentioned it has been the consistent
stand of all the three accused MOC officers that it was the sole
responsibility of CA-I, Section officers/officials to comply with the said
guidelines and in case they were finding it difficult to comply with the
said guidelines they ought to have brought the said facts in writing to
the notice of senior officers.
336. In this regard it will be worthwhile to mention that PW-13 V.S.

Rana in his cross-examination stated that it was the job of CA-I,
Section, MOC to receive the applications and to thereafter process
them. Even otherwise since coal block allocation matters were
admittedly being dealt with by CA-I, Section in MOC so it was
certainly the said section which was to remain associated with all the
stages of coal block allocation process as were undertaken in MOC.
However the issue of ensuring compliance with the guidelines in
MOC needs to be seen on a broader platform keeping in view the
importance of matter being dealt with and also as to what all steps
were required to be undertaken in this regard. It also needs to be
seen as to whether the senior officers of MOC who not only approved
the guidelines as above but were also involved in the entire coal
block allocation process either as officers of MOC or as Chairman
and Member Convener of Screening Committee were even conscious
of the consequences which may result in case the guidelines are not
complied with especially as regard checking of applications for their
completeness and eligibility or still whether they deliberately
abdicated their responsibility in this regard so as to benefit certain
given applicant companies. It also needs to be seen whether the
senior officers of MOC were even alive to the voluminous nature of
task involved in checking of applications or whether CA-I, Section
officers/officials were capable and competent to undertake any such
checking of applications as was envisaged in the guidelines.
337. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to mention that PW-13 V.S.

Rana, Under Secretary, CA-I, Section MOC stated in his deposition
that beside him there was one other Section Officer and two Dealing
Assistants working in CA-I, Section. However irrespective of the
strength of officials/officers posted in CA-I, Section and before I
advert on to the issue as to who all were responsible for complying
with the guidelines so issued by MOC governing allocation of coal
blocks, I am unable to restrain myself from observing that if the
contentions of A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria
are to be believed then the issue of complying with the guidelines qua
country i.e. coal which was essential for the overall industrial
development of the country and had a great monetary value in the
market was left to the mercy of LDC, UDC or a Section Officer or
even to the level of an Under Secretary of the Ministry. All the three
senior officers who were members of Indian Administrative Service
have completely disowned their responsibility in the matter by stating
that once the guidelines were approved and issued by them then it
was the sole responsibility of the concerned section i.e. the lowest
rung of the Ministry to comply with the said guidelines. They have
taken a categorical stand that till the time matters were not brought to
their notice by their subordinates that the guidelines have not been
complied with neither the said facts came to their knowledge nor they
had any reason to believe that the guidelines have not been complied
with or more specifically that the applications have not been checked
for their eligibility and completeness before sending copies thereof to
the Administrative Ministries or to State Governments or to CMPDIL.
However as I have already discussed and demonstrated in the earlier
part of present judgment that from the minutes of meeting held on
11.05.2007 it is crystal clear that all the three senior officers of MOC
i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were well
aware of the manner in which the applications have been dealt with
till then by MOC and they were also conscious of the requirement to
scrutinize and evaluate applications in an objective manner so that
non-serious applicants could be filtered out. Thus even if it is
presumed for the sake of arguments that it was the sole responsibility
of CA-I, Section to comply with the said guidelines then also when
the action taken so far on the applications as on 11.05.2007 had
come to the knowledge of all the three senior officers then at least
they ought to have raised a red flag as to why the guidelines have not
been complied with in letter and spirit. Their silence in this regard or
omission to act even after the meeting held on 11.05.2007 clearly
reinforces the irresistible inference/conclusion that all the three
accused officers of MOC deliberately and consciously ignored the
issue of compliance with the guidelines i.e. to ensure that the
applications are checked for their completeness and eligibility at least
after 11.05.2007. One copy of the applications was admittedly
available with MOC. It is in these circumstances, if the claim of A-4
H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha as made in their examination-in-
chief as DW-12 and DW-11 respectively that CA-I, Section undertook
the scrutiny of the applications as per their understanding and as per
the past practice is seen then it is found that even at the time of 34th
and 35th Screening Committee meetings also no such checking of
applications for their completeness and eligibility was undertaken by
MOC. PW-13 V.S. Rana also in his cross-examination clearly stated
that the process adopted by CA-I, Section, MOC for processing
various applications received for allotment of different coal blocks
with respect to 36th Screening Committee was the same which was
adopted by CA-I, Section with respect to applications received qua
34th and 35th Screening Committee. He also stated that even as
regard applications dealt with by 34th and 35th Screening Committee
no scrutiny of applications qua their completeness and eligibility was
carried out. He thus categorically stated that the applications
dealt with by 36th Screening Committee were also not checked for
their eligibility and completeness in MOC.
338. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is thus clear that

even if the responsibility to comply with the guidelines qua checking
of applications for eligibility and completeness is presumed to be that
of CA-I Section then also it was equally the responsibility of the senior
officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C.
Samria to ensure that the applications are duly got checked for their
completeness and eligibility in MOC if not before 11.05.2007 then at
least after the meeting held on 11.05.2007. Admittedly one copy of
applications was still available with MOC. As already discussed that
at least on the day of meeting held on 11.05.2007 all the three
accused MOC officers were aware as to how the applications have
been dealt with so far in MOC.
339. In fact as regard the deposition of PW-13 V.S. Rana, it has

been argued that he is trying to introduce new facts over and above
his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC made to IO by stating that oral
information was given to senior officers of MOC that applications
have not been checked for their completeness and eligibility. It was
submitted that PW-13 V.S. Rana was now making improvements
solely with a view to save his own skin as being Under Secretary, CA-
I, Section, it was his responsibility only to comply with the guidelines
or in case of any difficulty being faced in complying with the
guidelines, then to bring the relevant facts to the notice of senior
officers in writing and which act he clearly failed to do. His testimony
was thus stated to be completely unreliable.
340. In this regard it will be worthwhile to reiterate that there is

admittedly no written note in the files of MOC prior to 11.05.2007 from
which it may be even slightly inferred as to how the applications so
received have been dealt with in MOC. There is also no note prior to
11.05.2007 in which total number of applications received might have
been mentioned. Similarly there is no note mentioning any details of
the applications so received by MOC. In these circumstances when
A-4 H.C. Gupta admittedly in the meeting held on 11.05.2007 talked
about the details of the applications or the total number of
applications received or the process followed or the action taken so
far i.e. till 11.05.2007 on the applications, so it was incumbent upon
A-4 H.C. Gupta only to furnish details of the information as was
shared by him in the meeting or the source and mode of receiving the
said information by him. Thus in the absence of any written note in
the files of MOC it has thus to be presumed that the said information
was provided to him and to A-5 K.S. Kropha who too was also
present in the said meeting alongwith A-6 K.C. Samria, orally by CA-I,
Section officers/officials only.
341. In these circumstances when PW-13 V.S. Rana stated that he
had orally informed both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that
applications have not been checked for their completeness or
eligibility then he certainly appears to be stating true and correct
facts. Moreover as already discussed and demonstrated above that
even after receipt of applications the provisions of Manual of Office
Procedure were hardly followed or adhered to in MOC. Also when
admittedly none of the three senior officers of MOC raised any
objection as to why the guidelines have not been followed than it is
clear that it was an accepted practice in MOC from the time of 34th
and 35th Screening Committee that before sending one copy of the
applications to Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to
CMPDIL the applications were not to be checked for their eligibility
and completeness even though the guidelines issued by MOC itself
mandated so.
342. Thus as there was no practice or mechanism put in place in

MOC regarding checking of applications in terms of the guidelines
from the time of 34th Screening Committee itself so no efforts were
made at any level of officers/officials in MOC to ensure checking of
applications for their completeness and eligibility in terms of the
guidelines even at the time of 35th or 36 th Screening Committee also.
It was for this reason only that there is no noting in any of the files of
MOC mentioning that the applications have not been checked for
their completeness and eligibility even though for various other
issues, be it trivial or not there are notings in the files. Thus rightly or
wrongly since the line of action to this extent of dealing with the
applications was clear to CA-I, Section officers/officials so in
accordance with para 5 (9) (f) of Manual of Office Procedure the
drafts were put up without much noting by CA-I, Section officials.
343. In these circumstances even if it is presumed for the sake of

arguments that till 11.05.2007 it was the sole responsibility of PW-13
V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, CA-I Section, MOC or that of other
officials of CA-I, Section to undertake checking of applications for
their completeness and eligibility or to put up a note to the senior
officers in the files of MOC regarding non-compliance with the
guidelines then as discussed and demonstrated above at least after
11.05.2007 it was the duty of A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-
6 K.C. Samria to ensure due compliance with the guidelines in both
letter and spirit. Moreover if after 34th Screening Committee it was to
the knowledge of A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that CA-I,
Section is not capable enough to carry out checking of applications
for their eligibility and completeness then some proper mechanism
ought to have been provided for in the guidelines framed qua 35th
and 36th Screening Committee to ensure that the applications are
duly checked for their eligibility and completeness in MOC. Again
after 35th Screening Committee the three accused MOC officers
could have put into place such a mechanism in MOC to ensure that
applications are checked for their eligibility and completeness.
344. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances

that there has been complete abdication of duties by the three
accused MOC officers. The accused MOC officers acted in the most
arbitrary manner and that too without paying any heed to the rules,
regulations or procedures governing allocation of captive coal blocks.
Their conduct in not ensuring compliance with the guidelines at least
after 11.05.2007 clearly shows that their all such acts were conscious
and deliberate. However my subsequent discussion while examining
the other acts of omission and commission as were undertaken by
the three accused MOC officers in the later part of coal block
allocation process which finally led to allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL will further fortify
the aforesaid conclusion. The accused MOC officers thus so acted as
if they were completely oblivious of the consequences of not
complying with the guidelines governing allocation of captive coal
blocks i.e. the consequences of not ensuring that the applications are
checked for their eligibility and completeness.
(F) Consequences of not checking the applications for their

eligibility and completeness in terms of the guidelines.
345. While discussing the role of private parties i.e. of A-1 M/s
KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, I have already
demonstrated that the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was liable to be
rejected at the initial stage being incomplete as it was not
accompanied with all the required documents as mandated by the
guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks.
346. DW-12 H.C. Gupta in his cross-examination as conducted by

Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma also admitted that the application of A-1
M/s KSSPL in the absence of requisite documents having been not
enclosed with it was incomplete and thus ought to have been
rejected. He however stated that he came to know about this fact
only during the investigation of the present case and more clearly
during the course of present trial. Similar has been the stand of A-5
K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria in their respective deposition when
they entered the witness box as defence witnesses u/s 315 Cr.PC.
347. However A-4 H.C. Gupta also took a very strange stand in his
deposition as DW-12 when he stated that irrespective of an applicant
company being eligible or not his application was to be placed before
the Screening Committee. He however further stated that
recommendation for allocation of a coal block was in fact to be made
in favour of most eligible company. A-5 K.S. Kropha also in his
deposition as DW-11 denied the suggestion that in the Screening
Committee the applications of only such applicant companies were to
be placed for consideration whose applications were found to be
complete and the applicants being eligible. He in fact further went on
to state voluntarily that as per his understanding of the guidelines
under the title "Processing of Application" all the applications received
by MOC whether they were complete or not were to be sent to
Administrative Ministries/State Governments for their evaluation and
recommendations and upon receipt of their recommendations all the
applications were to be put up before the Screening Committee for its
consideration. Similarly A-6 K.C. Samria as DW-10 also denied the
suggestion that incomplete applications or applications of companies
which were not eligible ought not to have been placed before the
Screening Committee. He also stated that it was the sole prerogative
of Screening Committee to consider the applications of various
applicant companies and to look into the aspect as to whether any
given applicant company was an eligible company or not as per the
guidelines issued by MOC for allotment of a captive coal block. As
regard the completeness of any given application, he further stated
that regardless of the said fact all the applications were to be placed
before the Screening Committee for its consideration.
348. Before adverting further, I may however state that in view of

the aforesaid nature of interpretation being now put to the guidelines
governing allocation of coal blocks by the accused senior officers of
MOC who in fact were actively involved in the entire coal block
allocation process including the process vide which the said
guidelines came to be framed and approved, it will be apt to refer to
certain observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court as were made while
dealing with the principle of "Contemporanea Expositio" in its order
dated 25.08.2014 in Manohar Lal Sharma case (Supra)
"67. In Desh Bandhu Gupta 11, this Court has dealt with the
principle of Contemporanea Expositio. While doing so, this
Court referred to Crawford on Statutory Construction (1940 ed.)
and the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Baleshwar
Bagarti12 and Mathura Mohan Saha13 and culled out the legal
position in para 9 (page 572 of the Report) as under:
9. It may be stated that it was not disputed before us that these
two documents which came into existence almost
simultaneously with the issuance of the notification could be
looked at for finding out the true intention of the Government in
issuing the notification in question, particularly in regard to the
manner in which outstanding transactions were to be closed or
liquidated. The principle of contemporanea expositio
(interpreting a statute or any other document by reference to
the exposition it has received from contemporary authority) can
be invoked though the same will not always be decisive of the
question of construction (Maxwell 12th ed.p. 268). In Crawford
on Statutory Construction (1940 ed.) in para 219 (at pp. 393-
395) it has been stated that administrative construction (i.e.
contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or
executive officers charged with executing a statute) generally
should be clearly wrong before it is overturned; such a
construction, commonly referred to as practical construction,
although not controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable
weight; it is highly persuasive. In Baleshwar Bagarti v.
Bhagirathi Dass [ILR 35 Cal 701 at 713] the principle, which
was reiterated in Mathura Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Saha
[ILR 43 Cal 790 : AIR 1916 Cal 136] has been stated by
Mookerjee, J., thus:
It is a well settled principle of interpretation that courts
in construing a statute will give much weight to the
interpretation put upon it, at the time of its enactment
and since, by those whose duty it has been to
construe, execute and apply it..... I do not suggest for a
moment that such interpretation has by any means a
controlling effect upon the courts; such interpretation
may, if occasion arises, have to be disregarded for
cogent and persuasive reasons, and in a clear case of
error, a court would without hesitation refuse to follow
such construction.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
349. Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter went on to further observe

that in view of the aforesaid consistent view an interpretation to the
statute received from contemporary authority is not binding upon the
Courts and may have to be disregarded if such interpretation by the
contemporary authority is clearly wrong.
350. It has been however also argued by Ld. Counsels for the
accused MOC officers that as the guidelines so framed by MOC were
not having any statutory force so the interpretation as understood and
put to them by the officers concerned should prevail over any other
view.
351. In this regard I may however state that not only such an
argument is riddled with inconsistency but even otherwise such an
interpretation appeals neither to logic nor can be stated as a meaning
which could be assigned to the guidelines by a reasonably prudent
person.
352. Firstly, the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court

qua the principles of "Contemporanea Expositio", as is reflected in
the observations itself will hold ground also qua the guidelines in
question irrespective of the fact whether the guidelines were having
any statutory force or not. Moreover, as already discussed the
guidelines were framed in order to implement the provisions of Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (herein-after
referred to as MMDR Act) and that of Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1973 (herein-after referred to as 'CMN Act') and were having
binding force both upon MOC officers as well as on the Screening
Committee. Moreover it is not the case of anyone at all during the trial
that guidelines were not having any binding force. On the other hand,
it was rather argued by the accused persons that the guidelines were
followed even for ascertaining the inter-se priority of the applicant
companies during the Screening Committee meeting held on
03.07.2008.
In fact the guidelines were framed admittedly to control
and regulate the discretion to be exercised by MOC officers and the
Screening Committee in recommending allocation of captive coal
blocks.
353. Secondly, if the interpretation as is being given by the MOC

officers is accepted then the very purpose of framing of the guidelines
shall stand defeated. If application of none of the companies was to
be rejected despite being incomplete or the company being ineligible
or in other words applications of all companies were to be put up
before the Screening Committee irrespective of the fact as to whether
they were eligible or not or their applications were complete or not
then no purpose would have been served by carrying out their
checking qua completeness or eligibility. Certainly no purpose could
have been served by placing applications of any such companies
before the Screening Committee for the said company(ies) could not
have been recommended for allocation of any coal block. The very
purpose of mentioning the words in the guidelines that applications
without the requisite documents shall be rejected would loose their
meaning and purpose.
354. It was also argued by Ld. Counsels for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-
5 K.S. Kropha and by Ld. Counsel for A-6 K.C. Samria that State
Governments concerned and Administrative Ministries were suppose
to carry out detailed evaluation of the claims made by the applicant
companies by carrying out techno-economic appraisal of the
companies. However a bare perusal of minutes of meeting held on
11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) clearly shows that the
Administrative Ministries were not carrying out any detailed scrutiny
or evaluation of the applications so sent to them. Subsequently from
the recommendations so received from the Administrative Ministries
also it was evident that no such checking of applications for
completeness or eligibility has been carried out by them. In fact
Ministry of Steel in its communication dated 06.12.2007 Ex. PW 13/J-
1 (colly) in file Ex. PW 13/C (colly) (D-5A) clearly called upon the
Screening Committee to consider the potential and credibility of the
applicants in setting up capacity addition in steel sector or progress
made in respect of the steel capacity projects. The minutes of 36th
Screening Committee Ex. PW 13/L (colly) (D-6A) also clearly shows
that even during the course of Screening Committee meeting it was
clear that the Administrative Ministries have not carried out any
detailed scrutiny of applications much less verifying the claims made
in the applications.
355. Thus, it was clear to the accused MOC officers that no

checking of applications for their eligibility and completeness has
been carried out by the Administrative Ministries to whom applications
were sent for their comments/recommendations. It is thus crystal
clear that the applications in accordance with the guidelines issued
were to be checked for their completeness and eligibility by MOC
only. It is also clear that in terms of the guidelines the applications of
all such companies as were incomplete or the applicants being
ineligible were to be rejected at the initial stage itself and were not to
be even sent to Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to
CMPDIL much less placing them before the Screening Committee.
Moreover, as already discussed and demonstrated that in terms of
the guidelines, the application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1, M/s
KSSPL was clearly incomplete as it was not accompanied with all the
requisite documents as were asked for by MOC. The application of
the company was thus liable to be rejected at the initial stage itself
being incomplete as per the mandate of the guidelines.
356. Thus, it will be completely fallacious to state that all the

applications even if anyone of them or more was incomplete in terms
of the guidelines were to be put up before the Screening Committee.
The said plea of defence thus clearly seems to have been put forward
only because on account of non-checking of the applications for their
completeness and eligibility in MOC, the application of A-1, M/s
KSSPL instead of getting rejected at the initial stage itself being
incomplete came to be placed before the Screening Committee for
consideration and in fact was even recommended by the Screening
Committee for allocation of a coal block. The claim that all the
applications whether they were complete or not or even if the said
applicant companies were eligible or not, were to be put up before the
Screening Committee for consideration is thus clearly an attempt to
cover-up the acts of omission and commission on the part of accused
MOC officers in not ensuring that the applications are checked for
their completeness and eligibility.
357. Thus from the overall facts and circumstances of the case
and the manner in which the applications were dealt with in MOC, it
will be entirely logical to infer and conclude that the accused MOC
officers consciously and deliberately ignored compliance with the
guidelines and that too without caring for the consequences which
were likely to occur in case application of any company which is liable
to be rejected being incomplete or company being ineligible on any
factor, is processed further and is put at par with the applications of
such other companies who were not only eligible but their
applications were also complete, in as much as all the necessary
documents asked for by MOC were duly annexed with the
application. In fact the intention of accused MOC officers in doing so
appear to be to keep the field open at the stage of initial scrutiny by
not ruling out any applicant company from the zone of consideration
of the Screening Committee. The subsequent events rather shows
that in the Screening Committee the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL
was not only considered but was also recommended for allocation of
a captive coal block by A-4 H.C. Gupta.
358. At this stage, I may also deal with yet one other submission of
Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that
prosecution has not proved on record that the applications of other
companies who had applied for allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri
coal block were complete or that those companies were eligible for
allotment of a captive coal block.
359. However in this regard it would be suffice to state that the

aforesaid submission of Ld. Defence Counsel is based on a fallacious
assumption. If the checking of applications for their eligibility and
completeness would have been undertaken in terms of the guidelines
then not only the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL but also that of all
such other companies whose applications would have been found to
be incomplete or ineligible would have stood rejected. Thus
applications of only such companies would have been placed before
the Screening Committee whose applications would have been found
to be complete or eligible. Yet another fallacy in the submission of Ld.
Defence Counsel is that even if applications of all the applicant
companies for any given coal block would have stood rejected, had
checking of applications for eligibility and completeness undertaken in
MOC, then also there was no compulsion either upon MOC or upon
the Screening Committee to compulsorily allocate the said given coal
block to one or the other applicant company. In such an eventuality
the said coal block would have remain unallocated.
360. In fact the aforesaid circumstances in itself takes care of a

number of other arguments put forth by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s
KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that A-1 M/s KSSPL was the
most suitable and appropriate applicant company to be
recommended by the Screening Committee. It was submitted by him
that as per the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Steel, though for its
internal use, the company M/s KSSPL ought to have been placed
under category II(b) and not under II(a) as the company M/s KSSPL
was already having a coal linkage. In order to bring home the fact that
A-1 M/s KSSPL was the most suitable company alongwith M/s Revati
Cement Pvt. Ltd. to be recommended for allotment of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block a comparative analysis of the application of A-
1 M/s KSSPL with that of other applicant companies who had applied
for Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was also attempted by Ld.
Counsels for the accused persons during the course of cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses and in the deposition of
defence witnesses.
361. However the said contentions of Ld. Counsels for the

accused persons does not hold ground at all since the application of
A-1 M/s KSSPL was liable to be rejected at the initial stage itself in
MOC being incomplete. Had it been done so, the question of it being
one of the most suitable company would not have arisen at all.
Similarly the issue of change of its category by Ministry of Steel would
not have come into picture at all, for the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL
would not have been even sent to Ministry of Steel for examination by
MOC. The question of any comparison of the claims made in the
application by A-1 M/s KSSPL with that of other applicant companies
would not have arisen at all.
362. Ld. Counsels for the accused MOC officers also placed
strong reliance upon the description of duties of various levels of
officers in a Ministry under Central Government as mentioned in the
Manual of Office Procedure. Though I have already held that the
applications received in MOC were never dealt strictly as per the
provisions of Manual of Office Procedure and in fact the provisions
were observed more in breach but still in order to appreciate the role
and responsibilities of various levels of officers in a Ministry under
Central Government it will be appropriate to refer to the same as are
mentioned in the Manual of Office Procedure. Para 5 in Chapter III
titled "Machinery of Government" provides for the function of
department and various levels of functionaries as under:
Chapter III
Machinery of Government
1.
. . . . .
. . . . .
2.
. . . . .
. . . . .
3.
. . . . .
. . . . .
4.
. . . . .
. . . . .
5. Department -
(1) A department is responsible for formulation of policies of

the government in relation to business allocated to it and also
for the execution and review of those policies.
(2) For the efficient disposal of business allotted to it, a
department is divided into wings, divisions, branches and
sections.
(3) A department is normally headed by a secretary to the
Government of India who acts as the administrative head of the
department and principal adviser of the Minister on all matters
of policy and administration within the department.
(4) The work in a department is normally divided into wings
with a Special Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint
Secretary in charge of each wing. Such a functionary is
normally vested with the maximum measure of independent
functioning and responsibility in respect of the business falling
within his wing subject, to the overall responsibility of the
Secretary for the administration of the department as a whole.
(5) A wing normally comprises a number of divisions each
functioning under the charge of an officer of the level of
Director/Joint Director/Deputy Secretary. A division may have
several branches each under the charge of an Under
Secretary or equivalent officer.
(6) A section is generally the lowest organisational unit in a
department with a well-defined area of work. It normally
consists of assistants and clerks supervised by a Section
Officer. Initial handling of cases (including noting and
drafting) is generally done by, assistants and clerks who are
also known as the dealing hands.
(7) While the above represents the commonly adopted
pattern of organisation of a department, there are certain
variations, the most notable among them being the desk officer
system. In this system the work of a department at the lowest
level is organised into distinct functional desks each manned by
two desk functionaries of appropriate ranks e.g. Under
Secretary or Section Officer. Each desk functionary handles the
cases himself and is provided adequate stenographic and
clerical assistance.
(8) The other notable variation is the Integrated
Headquarters of Ministry of Defence where, the Vice Chiefs of
Staff, the Principal Staff Officers of the concerned branches
and other appropriate authorities, exercise the powers
delegated by the Raksha Mantri through he various Branches
and the Directorates of the Integrated Headquarters of the
Ministry of Defence.
(9) Functions of various levels of functionaries :
(a) Secretary A Secretary to the Government of
India is the administrative head of the Ministry or
Department. He is the principal adviser of the Minister on
all matters of policy and administration within his
Ministry/Department, and his responsibility is complete
and undivided.
(b) Special Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint
Secretary When the volume of work in a Ministry exceeds
the manageable charge of a Secretary one or more wings may
be established with Special Secretary/Additional
Secretary/Joint Secretary, incharge of each wing.
Such a functionary is entrusted with the maximum
measure of independent functioning and responsibility in
respect of all business falling within his wing subject, to
the general responsibility of the Secretary for the
administration of the wing as a whole.
(c) Director/Deputy Secretary Director /Deputy
Secretary is an officer who acts on behalf of the
Secretary. He holds charge of a Secretariat Division
and is responsible for the disposal of Government
business dealt within the Division under his charge. He
should, ordinarily be able to dispose of the majority of cases
coming upto him on his own. He should use his discretion in
taking orders of the Joint Secretary/Secretary on more
important cases, either orally or by submission of papers.
(d) Under Secretary An Under Secretary is in
charge of the Branch in a Ministry consisting of two or
more Sections and in respect thereto exercises control
both in regard to the despatch of business and
maintenance of discipline. Work comes to him from the
sections under his charge. As Branch Officer he disposes of as
many cases as possible at his own level but he takes the
orders of Deputy Secretary or higher
Officers on important cases.
(e) Section Officer -
A. General Duties
(i) Distribution of work among the staff as evenly as
possible;
(ii) Training, helping and advising the staff;
(iii) Management and co-ordination of the work;
(iv) Maintenance of order and discipline in the section;
(v) Maintenance of a list of residential addresses of the
Staff.
B. Responsibilities relating to Dak
(i) to go through the receipts;
(ii) to submit receipts which should be seen by the
Branch Officer or higher officers at the dak stage;
(iii) to keep a watch on any hold-up in the movement of
dak; and
(iv) to scrutinize the section diary once a week to know
that it is being properly maintained.
C. Responsibilities relating to issue of draft
(i) to see that all corrections have been made in the draft
before it is marked for issue;
(ii) to indicate whether a clean copy of the draft is
necessary;
(iii) to indicate the number of spare copies required;
(iv) to check whether all enclosures are attached;
(v) to indicate priority marking;
(vi) to indicate mode of despatch.
D. Responsibility of efficient and expeditious
disposal of work and checks on delays
(i) to keep a note of important receipts with a view to
watching the progress of action;
(ii) to ensure timely submission of arrear and other
returns;
(iii) to undertake inspection of Assistants table to ensure
that no paper of file has been overlooked;
(iv) to ensure that cases are not held up at any stage;
(v) to go through the list of periodical returns every week
and take suitable action on items requiring attention
during next week.
E. Independent disposal of cases
He should take independently action of the following
types
(i) issuing reminders;
(ii) obtaining or supplying factual information of a non-
classified nature;
(iii) any other action which a Section Officer is authorized
to take independently.
F. Duties in respect of recording and indexing
(i) to approve the recording of files and their
classification;
(ii) to review the recorded file before destruction;
(iii) to order and supervise periodic weeding of unwanted
spare copies;
(iv) ensuring proper maintenance of registers required to
be maintained in the section;
(v) Ensuring proper maintenance of reference books,
Office Orders etc. and keep them up-to-date;
(vi) Ensuring neatness and tidiness in the Section;
(vii) Dealing with important and complicated cases
himself;
(viii) Ensuring strict compliance with Departmental
Security Instructions.
(f) Assistant/Upper Division Clerk He works under
the orders and supervision of the Section Officer and is
responsible for the work entrusted to him. Where the line
of action on a case is clear or clear instructions have been
given by the Branch Officer or higher officers, he should
put up a draft without much noting. In other cases he will put
up a note keeping in view the following points :-
(i) to see whether all facts open to check have been
correctly stated;
(ii) to point out any mistakes or incorrect statement of the
facts;
(iii) to draw attention, where necessary, to precedents or
Rules and Regulations on the subject;
(iv) to put up the Guard file, if necessary, and supply
other relevant facts and figures;
(v) to bring out clearly the question under consideration
and suggest a course of action wherever possible.
(g)Private Secretary/PersonalAssistant/Stenographer
He will keep the officer free from routine nature of work by
mailing correspondence, filing papers, making appointments,
arranging meeting and collecting information so as to give the
officer more time to devote himself to the work in which he has
specialised. The Personal Assistant will maintain the
confidentiality and secrecy of confidential and secret papers
entrusted to him. He will exercise his skill in human relations
and be cordial with the persons who come in contact with his
boss officially or who are helpful to his boss or who have
dealings with the boss as professional persons. Some of the
more specific functions are enumerated below :-
(i) taking dictation in shorthand and its transcription in
the best manner possible;.
(ii) fixing up of appointments and if necessary canceling
them;
(iii) screening the telephone calls and the visitors in a
tactful manner;
(iv) keeping an accurate list of engagements, meetings
etc. and reminding the officer sufficiently in advance for
keeping them up;
(v) maintaining, in proper order, the papers required to
be retained by the Officer;
(vi) keeping a note of the movement of files, seen by his
officer and other officers, if necessary;
(vii) destroying by burning the stenographic record of the
confidential and secret letters after they have been
typed and issued;
(viii) carrying out the corrections to the officers reference
books and making fair copies of draft demi-official
letters to be signed by the officer;
(ix) generally assisting him in such a manner as he may
direct and at the same time, he must avoid the
temptation of abrogating to himself the authority of his
boss.
(h) Lower Division Clerk Lower Division Clerks are
ordinarily entrusted with work of routine nature, for example
registration of Dak, maintenance of Section Diary, File
Register, File Movement Register, Indexing and Recording,
typing, comparing, despatch, preparation of arrears and other
statements, supervision of correction of reference books and
submission of routine and simple drafts etc."
363. Thus from a bare perusal of Para 5 (a), it is clear that a

Secretary to the Government of India is not only the Administrative
Head of the Ministry or Department but he is also the Principal
Advisor of the Minister on all matters of policy and administration
within his Ministry/Department. It has been further provided that the
responsibility of the Secretary shall be complete and undivided.
Similarly while describing the functions of Special Secretary/Joint
Secretary, it has been stated that though such a functionary is
entrusted with the maximum measures of independent functioning
and responsibility in respect of all business falling within his wings but
it is further stated that the same shall be subject to the general
responsibility of the Secretary for the administration of the wing as a
whole. As regard Director/Deputy Director, it has been provided that
he is an officer who acts on behalf of the Secretary. It has also been
stated that he should use his discretion in taking orders of Joint
Secretary/Secretary on more important cases, either orally or by
submission of papers. Similarly, in the functions of Assistant/Upper
Divisional Clerk as provided in the Manual of Office Procedure, it has
been stated that though he works under the orders and supervision of
the Section Officer and is responsible for the work entrusted to him
but where the line of action on a case is clear or clear instructions
have been given by the branch officer or higher officer he should put
up a draft without much noting. In other cases he is supposed to put
up a note keeping in view various points such as, whether all facts
open to check have been correctly stated; to point out any mistakes
or incorrect statement of the facts; to draw attention, where
necessary, to precedents or Rules and Regulations on the subject; to
put up the Guard file, if necessary, and supply other relevant facts
and figures and to bring out clearly the question under consideration
and suggest a course of action wherever possible etc.
364. Though as regard the responsibility of Secretary which has

been stated to be complete and undivided, DW-12 H.C. Gupta stated
that on account of volume of work handled by a Secretary, in a
Ministry, the Secretary thereof can not be expected to look into the
detailed working of each and every section of the Ministry. It was
further stated that senior officers in a Ministry work on the basis of
trust and belief that each section must have completed his work
properly. He further stated that as number of files used to come
before him everyday so the system functions on the basis of trust and
the contribution of all concern towards final decision.
365. In order to better appreciate the aforesaid submissions of A-4
H.C. Gupta, it will be worthwhile to once again revisit the
circumstances in which the decision to allot captive coal blocks to
private companies engaged in certain specified end uses was taken
by the Central Government or the consequent guidelines governing
allocation of coal blocks were issued. On account of acute scarcity of
coal in the country, the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was
amended in the year 1993 and thereafter provision was made for
allocation of coal blocks to private companies engaged in specified
end uses for their captive use. Admittedly the 7th Energy Co-
ordination Committee in order to avoid undue delay also directed
MOC to expedite the process of allocation of captive coal blocks and
pursuant to which the advertisement in question was issued in
November 2006 alongwith guidelines as above. The important
question which however arises is whether any instructions were
issued at any point of time by Ministry of Coal as to in what manner
the guidelines shall be complied with or by whom. As already
demonstrated above the applications were neither contemplated nor
were dealt or processed strictly as per the provisions of Manual of
Office Procedure. However an important issue to be kept in mind
while appreciating all these aspects is that the issue being dealt with
by MOC was of immense importance in which large business houses
were expressing great interest. The pride of place which coal as an
important raw material had, was also not unknown to the MOC
officers. However the guidelines issued by MOC provided for various
conditions which the applicant companies were to comply with or
what all documents were required to be annexed with the applications
or what shall be the consequences if any of the said document(s) are
not annexed, were completely silent as regard any implementation
mechanism. Nothing was mentioned in the guidelines as to who shall
be responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidelines or as to in
what manner or by what mechanism the guidelines shall be complied
with. It was thus imperative for the authorities approving the said
guidelines to have given a thought as to how large number of
applications which were expected to be received shall be dealt with.
PW-13 V.S. Rana in his cross-examination stated that with respect to
deciding modalities of allocation of coal blocks, the competent
authority was Secretary Coal. As is evident from the records and the
experience of 34th Screening Committee which A-4 H.C. Gupta and
A-5 K.S. Kropha admittedly had, it is clear that the senior officers of
MOC were well aware that large number of applications are likely to
be received in response to the advertisement. They were also aware
that applications will be voluminous in nature. From the minutes of
the meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly), it is clear
that in the last round of allocation of captive coal blocks, 734
applications were received by MOC. The said fact was undisputedly
to the knowledge of accused persons as A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S.
Kropha were Chairman and Member Convener, respectively, of 34th
Screening Committee also. The said Committee had thus dealt with
734 applications. Moreover it was for this reason only that the place
of receipt of applications was fixed at Coal India Limited office, Laxmi
Nagar as not only large number of applications were expected to be
received but also because the applications to be so received were
bound to be bulky in nature. It is for this reason only that certain
officials from the office of Coal Controller, Kolkata as deposed to by
PW-12 Amlendu Khamru were called to assist CA-I, Section officials
in sorting out the applications. Even PW-13 V.S. Rana admitted in his
cross-examination that due to paucity of space the applications were
received only at Laxmi Nagar office of CIL and were never received at
Shastri Bhawan office of MOC.
366. Thus in these circumstances it will be completely permissible

for this Court to presume keeping in view the routine course of
transaction of business in MOC that the senior officers thereof must
have been aware as to the tedious and voluminous nature of work
which will be required to be put for checking of applications for their
eligibility and completeness in terms of the guidelines issued. As
already mentioned such a knowledge can certainly be attributed to
A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha primarily on account of their
past experience of handling quite a large number of applications i.e.
about 734 applications received qua 34th Screening Committee.
Moreover after 34th Screening Committee and prior to the present
meeting of 36th Screening Committee these very officers were also
involved with the recommendation of various applicant companies
qua different coal blocks reserved for power sector as the same were
dealt with by 35th Screening Committee. At that time also about 700
applications were dealt with by 35th Screening Committee.
367. Thus if in the aforesaid circumstances, senior officers of MOC

dare to claim that they were not aware as to in what manner the
applications received qua 34th or 35th Screening Committee meeting
were dealt with by MOC then without any further discussion it can be
stated that the conduct of accused MOC officers be it in their capacity
as MOC officers or as Chairman and Member Convener of various
Screening Committees is shrouded with suspicion and is not free
from doubts. Their actions are thus certainly not above board. In fact
from the overall facts and circumstances of the case as discussed
above coupled with various acts of omission and commission of the
accused MOC officers, it is clear that it is not simplicitor a case where
they were oblivious of the likely consequences of their acts of
omission and commission but they deliberately ignored the guidelines
so as to ensure that all applications whether complete or not or
applicant companies being eligible for allotment of captive coal blocks
or not are considered by the Screening Committee as the same
would facilitate arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in them in the
coal block allocation process. The intention was certainly clear in as
much as they wanted to favour any applicant company as they may
choose to at a subsequent stage.
368. The only purpose of discussing the aforesaid circumstances

was to highlight that the task of checking of applications for their
completeness and eligibility in terms of the guidelines was a tedious
and cumbersome task. Thus the senior officers of MOC despite being
aware of the aforesaid nature of work involved chose to not issue any
directions or instructions at the time of approving the guidelines as to
whose responsibility will it be to comply with the said guidelines or as
to in what manner the same will be complied with. In fact the senior
officers of MOC admittedly did not even care to enquire even at a
later stage as to whether the guidelines qua checking of applications
for completeness or eligibility have been complied with or not. Their
consistent stand that unless the officers/officials of CA-I, Section had
brought to their notice any difficulty, if faced by them in this regard,
they were not supposed to look into the same has already been
found to be not tenable or as being completely devoid of any merits.
369. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that A-4 H.C. Gupta being Secretary Coal can not
shirk off his complete and undivided responsibility as mentioned in
Manual of Office Procedure by merely stating that as Secretary Coal
he can not be expected to look into the detailed working of each and
every section. Similarly A-5 K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary Coal or A-6
K.C. Samria, Director, CA-I, Section, also can not absolve themselves
of their responsibilities with respect to coal block allocation process
by stating that they were having work of other sections/wings of MOC
also to look after. Moreover A-4 H.C. Gupta was aware that Ministry
of Coal will allot various coal blocks based on the recommendations
of Screening Committee only. Also as Secretary Coal, A-4 H.C. Gupta
was not only the administrative head of the Ministry but was also the
principle advisor of the Minister on all matters of policy and
administration within his Ministry. Thus as the file containing
recommendation of Screening Committee was to put up to Prime
Minister as Minister of Coal so his responsibility all the more was
more onerous in ensuring that complete and correct facts are placed
before him. However at a later stage I shall also discuss that MOC
officers even with-held information from PMO that the guidelines
governing of allocation of coal blocks have not been complied with
either in MOC or in the Screening Committee.
370. While A-5 K.S. Kropha was associated with the entire coal
block allocation process with A-4 H.C. Gupta from beginning but from
March 2007 onwards even A-6 K.C. Samria was also associated with
the said allocation process. In fact PW-12 Amalendu Khamru, the
official of the office of Coal Controller who had come to assist CA-I,
Section officials in processing of applications clearly stated that they
were asked to only sort out the applications in five different boxes
after putting serial numbers on them and they were never asked to
check the applications for their eligibility and completeness. He also
stated that A-5 K.S. Kropha had visited them when they were so
carrying out the sorting work and had told them that we must first
complete the sorting work before going back to our office at Kolkata.
He further stated that on the asking of A-5 K.S. Kropha they
extended their stay in Delhi beyond the initial period of 10 days. PW-
13 V.S. Rana also corroborated his testimony in this regard stating
that A-5 K.S. Kropha was not only initially informed about the arrival
of said four officials from the office of Coal Controller but later on he
also visited them at Laxmi Nagar office.
371. At this stage as a mark of caution, I may mention that I am

not trying to draw any presumption regarding the role and
responsibility of senior officers of MOC on the basis of conjectures
and surmises. In fact all the inferences/conclusions being drawn by
me are clearly borne out from the overall facts and circumstances of
the case as stands proved on record.
372. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, the responsibility to

comply with the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of
coal blocks can not be solely attributed to CA-I, Section
officers/officials. In fact even if the arguments put forth by Ld.
Counsels for the three MOC officers are accepted that it was the
responsibility of CA-I, Section officers/officials to carry out the actual
physical work of checking the applications but even then the same
was to be carried out under the supervision of senior officers of MOC
only. The said supervision also can not be left at the level of Under
Secretary, by simply stating that while sending one set of applications
to State Governments concerned or to Administrative Ministries he
did not care to put up the file to senior officers even though the file
was put up to the senior officers on other innocuous matters such as
procuring 130 locks and trunks or for making transport arrangements.
In this regard, I may simply state that since the applications in MOC
were being dealt with in the same manner as were handled on earlier
occasions so as per Manual of Office Procedure where the line of
action on a case is clear then without much noting, the file was to be
put up. Thus since the line of action on sending one set of
applications to State Governments concerned or to Administrative
Ministries or to CMPDIL was clear in as much as on earlier occasions
also the applications were dealt with in the similar manner so the
noting in that regard ended at the level of Under Secretary, V.S. Rana
(PW-13). The Manual of Office Procedure clearly states that an Under
Secretary as branch officer disposes of as many cases as possible.
In fact while approving the said note on 19.02.2007, PW-13 V.S.
Rana also made an endorsement that "Issue to only those states for
which applications are ready". Thus if in the aforesaid circumstances
the arguments of senior officers of MOC are considered that it was
the sole responsibility of PW-13 V.S. Rana as under Secretary and
Branch Incharge of CA-I, Section to ensure compliance with the
guidelines then vide his aforesaid noting one can say that he had
also put a mark of caution to his subordinates that applications be
sent to only those states for which applications are ready. Thus the
final responsibility will then rest somewhere with the Section Officer
or even on the two dealing Assistants under him who in fact had put
up the note dated 19.02.2007 as available at note-sheet page 10 in
file Ex. PW 1/H (colly) (D-2) of MOC stating that applications received
for allocation of 39 coal blocks are ready to dispatch.
373. Thus if in the overall facts and circumstances of the case

coupled with the detailed nature of guidelines issued governing
allocation of such important Nationalised natural resources of the
country, the responsibility of checking the applications for their
completeness and eligibility is left at the level of a dealing assistant of
the rank of LDC or UDC in one section of the Ministry then the senior
officers of MOC certainly failed grossly in not only supervising the
functioning of the officers below them but also in not putting in place a
system comprising of responsible officers/officials who could have
ensured compliance with the guidelines. In fact as stands reflected
from the subsequent events which took place in the coal block
allocation process the acts of accused senior officers of MOC in not
ensuring compliance with the guidelines was also part of a well
planned strategy to keep the field open so that during Screening
Committee meetings they may exercise their discretion in favour of
any applicant company, they may choose to. As regard the issue that
the file regarding arrangement of 130 big size trunks and transport
arrangements to be made by CIL for carrying the applications was put
up to the level of Joint Secretary, Coal K.S. Kropha, it would be
suffice to state that since the procurement of big size trunks or
making of transportation arrangements can not be stated to be part of
a routine nature of working of a Ministry and also the said issue
involved financial implications qua purchase of big size trunks or for
making transportation arrangements and that too to be made by
another department i.e. CIL so in those circumstances one can
reasonably infer that file was put up to the level of Joint Secretary for
necessary approval. If that be not so then at least the Director
through whom the file moved to the desk of Joint Secretary could
have always approved the note at his own level without forwarding it
to the desk of Joint Secretary. One may however say that as
mentioned on the said note sheet page 9 the concerned Director CA-
I, Section was on election duty and thus the file was put up before the
Link Director and he thus could not have approved the note at his
own level. The aforesaid submission however may not hold ground at
all for various reasons. Firstly the link Director was also an officer of
MOC and there can not be an order or direction issued to any such
link Officer that he will not take any final decision at his level being a
link officer. The Manual of Office Procedure also does not say so.
Secondly the Link Director while forwarding the file to Joint Secretary
specifically made an endorsement "May kindly see before issue". He
was thus conscious of the matter which he was forwarding to Joint
Secretary and he thus put a note of caution for the Joint Secretary.
374. At this stage, I may however mention that in the present case
what is being examined is the role played by the three accused MOC
officers in the coal block allocation process in as much as whether
the same constitutes any criminal offence or not. The role and
responsibility of either PW-13 V.S. Rana or that of other officials of
CA-I, Section is being referred only to the extent as is necessary to
appreciate the role played by the three accused MOC officers.
375. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, I may also state that
both DW-10 K.C. Samria and DW-11 K.S. Kropha stated in their
deposition that to scrutinize the applications for their eligibility was the
job of Screening Committee. If that be so then the record of MOC is
completely silent as to whether the Screening Committee ever
scrutinized the applications for their eligibility or not. The two accused
persons themselves highlighted the said eligibility conditions viz. the
applicant should be a registered company or that it should be
engaged in one or the other end uses i.e. generation of power,
production of iron and steel or cement. Yet another eligibility condition
was that the applications ought to be received in MOC by the last
date i.e. 12.01.2007. Though there are certain issues dealt with in the
files of MOC, where clarifications were sought from Secretary Coal as
to whether last date of receipt of applications in the light of request
made by certain applicant companies be extended or not. However
there is no noting in any of the MOC files as to whether any enquiry
was made at any point of time either by the senior MOC officers or by
the Screening Committee regarding checking of applications for their
completeness or that the eligibility of the applicant companies was
checked or not. One may refer back to the guidelines titled
"Processing of Application" wherein it has been clearly provided that
the applications so received shall be checked for their completeness
and eligibility. Thus if the applications were to be checked for
eligibility by the Screening Committee as deposed to by DW-10 K.C.
Samria and DW-11 K.S. Kropha and as per the consistent stand of
all three accused MOC officers, the applications were to be checked
for completeness by CA-I, Section then the guidelines were
completely silent in this regard. In such a situation the guidelines
ought to have stated under "Processing of Application" itself that
while the applications will be checked for completeness by CA-I,
Section but qua eligibility the applications will be scrutinized by the
376. However in view of the aforesaid nature of stand taken by

both DW 10 K.C. Samria and DW-11 K.S. Kropha in their deposition it
would be difficult to presume or conclude that to check the
applications for their completeness and eligibility in terms of the
guidelines titled "Processing of Application" was the sole
responsibility of officers/officials of CA-I, Section only.
377. The important question which however arises for

consideration is as to why the MOC despite being headed by a senior
and well experienced IAS officer or having other senior Indian
Administrative Service officers looking after the work of important
sections/Wings in MOC relating to coal block allocation matters and
despite being aware of the important nature of work being dealt with
by them chose to put an adhoc system to deal with the applications
so received by MOC seeking allocation of captive coal blocks. The
answer in the overall facts and circumstances appears to be only that
the aforesaid attitude of accused MOC officers towards the coal block
allocation process was part of a well designed strategy by them to
keep the field open so that they may exercise their discretion at a
later stage in favour of any applicant company they may choose to.
378. However in this regard if one was to say that it was due to
inefficiency or incapability of the officers at the helm of affairs in MOC
as was submitted by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons then this
Court would seriously not believe the said claim. Though during the
course of final arguments or rather during the course of trial it used to
be repeatedly urged by Ld. Counsels for accused MOC officers that
all these lacunas in different coal block allocation matters may be the
result of inefficiency or incapability of the officers of MOC but there
was no criminal element involved in their said action.
379. However in the overall facts and circumstances of the case as

discussed above coupled with the vast experience which the three
accused MOC officers were having at their command, it can not be
stated by any stretch of imagination that the aforesaid casual and
adhoc nature of arrangement put in place in MOC to deal with coal
block allocation matters was on account of inefficiency or incapability
of the senior officers of MOC. However, it will not be wrong to say if
the attitude of senior MOC officers in dealing with the coal block
allocation matters is termed as that of "WHO CARES".
380. Moreover as earlier also discussed, by not undertaking any

such checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility the
field was sought to be kept open by MOC officers whereby none of
the applicant companies will ever be ruled out either on the ground
that their application is not complete in terms of the guidelines issued
by MOC or that they were not eligible for allocation of a captive coal
block and thereafter in the Screening Committee they will have an
open field to arbitrarily exercise their discretion in favour of any
applicant company. In fact from a perusal of the minutes of 36th
Screening Committee Ex. 13/L (colly) (D-6A) it is clear that objectivity
and transparency were two alien concepts to the working of
Screening Committee. As admitted by both DW-11 K.S. Kropha and
DW-12 H.C. Gupta, the minutes Ex. 13/L (colly) of 36th Screening
Committee meeting were completely silent as to on what ground A-1
M/s KSSPL was recommended for allocation of a coal block or M/s
BLA power Ltd. i.e. the company which was recommended by
Government of Madhya Pradesh was not recommended. Nothing can
even be ascertained from the minutes as to why other applicant
companies who had applied for Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block
were not recommended for allocation of the said coal block. Similar is
the situation with respect to recommendation made by 36th
Screening Committee even qua other coal blocks in favour of other
applicant companies.
381. During the course of trial Ld. Counsels for the accused
persons though tried to point out various factors on which the other
applicant companies who had applied for Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal
block could not have been recommended for allocation of the said
coal block or as to why A-1 M/s KSSPL alongwith M/s Revati Cement
Pvt. Ltd. were the only two most appropriate companies who could
be recommended by Screening Committee for joint allocation of
Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block. It was also submitted that since
Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block was reserved for non-power sector
so M/s BLA Power Ltd. who intended to establish a power project
could not have been recommended for the said coal block.
382. However in this regard it would be suffice to state that even if

all the aforesaid arguments being now put forth during trial by Ld.
Counsels for the accused persons are considered as correct then
also the fact remains that the minutes of 36th Screening Committee
are completely silent in this regard. It is no where ascertainable from
the records as to what prevented 36th Screening Committee in
recording the reasons as to why M/s BLA Power Ltd. though
recommended by Government of Madhya Pradesh was not being
recommended by the Screening Committee for Thesgora-B/
Rudrapuri coal block or as to why from amongst 10 applicant
companies A-1, M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. are only
being recommended. Though the MOC officers have now argued that
all relevant factors for deciding inter-se priority were duly taken into
consideration but as is reflected from the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly).
The said fact is no where ascertainable. DW-12 H.C. Gupta however
further stated that whenever there used to be unanimity qua any coal
block then as Chairman A-4 H.C. Gupta he used to announce the
recommendation of the Screening Committee but where there used
to be no such unanimity then the decision used to be arrived at by
way of broad consensus. It was however claimed by A-4 H.C. Gupta
and A-5 K.S. Kropha, that the detailed reasons were not mentioned in
the minutes as all the members of the Screening Committee were at
unanimity qua all the recommendations. However DW-13 Shivraj
Singh who was present in the 36th Screening Committee meeting as
a representative of Government of Jharkhand categorically stated
that in cases where there used to be no unanimity then Chairman
Screening Committee used to announce recommendation of
Screening Committee after hearing the views of all and such
recommendations used to be on the basis of broad consensus which
used to develop during the course of discussion. Thus from the
deposition of DW-13 Shivraj Singh, a witness examined by A-4 H.C.
Gupta, only it is clear that there were certain recommendations of
Screening Committee which were based on broad consensus only as
emerged during the course of discussion but the said
recommendations strictly speaking were not unanimous in nature.
However a bare perusal of minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) (D-6A) of 36th
Screening Committee meeting shows that nothing is ascertainable as
to which of such recommendations of Screening Committee were not
unanimous or were simply based on broad consensus. In fact the
word "unanimous" or there being unanimity in the recommendations
so made is completely missing from the minutes.
383. At this stage it would be pertinent to reproduce the minutes

Ex. PW 13/L (colly) (D-6A) of 36th Screening Committee meeting as
the same will give a clear and better understanding of the nature of
proceedings which took place in the various meetings of 36th
Screening Committee. (As already mentioned common minutes of all
5 meetings of 36th Screening Committee were prepared after the last
meeting as was held on 03.07.2008)
MINUTES OF THE 36TH MEETING OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HELD

ON 7TH-8TH DECEMBER 2007, 7TH-8TH FEBRUARY 2008 AND 3RD JULY 2008 IN
NEW DELHI TO CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF 23 COAL BLOCKS
EARMARKED FOR NON-POWER SECTOR
****
The 36th meeting of the Screening Committee for
screening applications submitted by the applicants for allocation
of coal blocks earmarked for allocation to specified end-uses
other than power was held on the 7 th-8th December 2007 and 7th
February, 2008. The Secretary (Coal) gave the background
relating to advertisement, total 674 applications were submitted
by 184 companies for allocation of coal blocks earmarked for
non-power sector. Some companies had applied for more than
one block and some had submitted more than one application
for a single block for different end-use plants located at different
locations. The applications of the companies were sent to the
Central Ministries of Steel, Commerce and Industry
(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) etc and the
concerned States where the blocks are located and also to the
States where the proposed end use projects are located, for
their comments. He pointed out that in exercise to screen the
proposals and advised the members to take note of minute
details of each application, for taking collective decision. He
further drew the attention of the Committee members to the
guidelines (which are displayed on the website of the Ministry)
on the matter of allocation of coal blocks notified along with the
officer notice. It was also explained that the inter-se priority
among the applicants for allocation of coal blocks is to be
determined on the basis of the criteria of suitability of the block
to the requirement of the end use plant, techno-economic
viability of the project, level of progress is setting up of the end-
use project by the applicants, track record and financial strength
of the company, recommendations of the Administrative Ministry
and the State Governments concerned etc. It was decided that
all the applicants would be given an opportunity to present their
case one by one and thereafter the Committee would discuss
and make it s recommendation in respect of each block. In case
an applicant has applied for more than one block, he would
make his presentation for all the applied blocks together.
2. Accordingly, the Committee screened the proposals of
the applicants on three days i.e. on 7th and 8th December 2007
and 7th February 2008. The applicant companies were invited
int eh alphabetical order to make their presentation with regard
to information given in the application form and to clarify points,
if any, raised by the members. The list of members of the
Screening Committee that attended the meeting is placed at
Annexure-I. The list of the representatives of the applicant,
companies that appeared before the Committee is given at
Annexure-II.
3. The committee met again on 8th February, 2008 to
finalise its recommendation. However, there were some
differences of opinion amount the Committee members with
regard to accommodation of prospective allocatees in coal
blocks based on mine capacity or minable reserves.
Accordingly, a decision was taken to get the mine capacity and
reserves reassessed by CMPDIL. The report received from
CMPDIL was circulated to the members of the Committee for
their comments. The members had taken note of the revised
details of reserves etc. for giving their views.
4. The 23 coal blocks (4 coking and 19 non-coking) under
consideration were Urtan, Beharaband North Extn., Tandsi-III
& Tandsi-III extn., Urtan North (coking blocks), Macherkunds,
Rajhara North (Central & Eastern), Moira-Madhujore (North &
South), Datima, Bhaskarpara, Kudari, Bikram, Vijay Central,
Rajgamar Dipside (South of Phulakdih Nala), Kesla North,
Gondkhari, Kappa & Extn. Dahegaon-Makardhokra-IV, Bander,
Hurilong, Hutar Sector C, Rajgamar Dispside (Deavnara),
Tehsgora-B/Rudrapuri and Andal East (Non Coking blocks). The
status of geological reserves of 23 blocks is given at
Annexure-III, the mine capacities and extractable reserves of b
locks are only tentative. Some blocks are either partially
explored or only regionally explored. The share of quantities
among the joint allocatees shall remain in the same proportion
subsequent to exploration, formulation of GR and approval of
mining plan.
5. The details of each applicant company in respect of core
business, proposed capacity of end-use plant, location etc. as
per the application forms are given at Annexure-IV.
6. Some of the companies did not appear for presentation
despite the notices issued to them through individual letters, as
well as through the Ministrys web-site. However, their
applications were also considered by the Screening Committee
as per the information submitted by them in their application
forms.
7. In the meeting of the Screening Committee convened on
rd
3 July 2008, the Secretary (coal) informed the members that
there were a few issues which need to be brought to the notice
of the Committee. The were as follows:-
i) Representations were received from some companies,
which were not able to present their case due to delay in receipt
of notice, to be considered in the meeting. The following
companies have made the representation:
M/s Shanno Business
M/s Shanti GD Ispat
M/s Special Blasts Limited
M/s Eastern Steel and Power Limited
Though the notices were issued individually and was also
placed in the Ministrys Website, however, keeping in view the
request made by the above companies, the information
submitted by them was placed before the Screening Committee
for consideration of their cases also, along with the others.
ii) Modification in the boundaries of Moira Modhujore and
Behraband North Extn. Coal blocks offered for allocation;
(iii) SECL and CMPDIL have intimated that the reserves in
the Kudri block have been exhausted. Therefore, it may not be
considered for allocation.
The Screening Committee took note of the information
submitted by the above companies for consideration and also
change in the status of blocks offered for allocation.
8. (i) The Chairman then invited the Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Steel to brief the members about the rationale
followed by the Ministry of Steel for evaluating the applications
relating to sponge iron, pig iron and steel projects. The Joint
Secretary, MoS explained that the present capacity of steel
production in the country is around 60 MT and the Ministry of
Steel is projecting a capacity expansion of 6% to 7% int eh
immediate future. Therefore, the blocks be allocated to those
companies which are genuine, technically and financially sound
to take up the project and where capacity addition is expected
to be accomplished by the year 2010. These companies need
to be encouraged with assured supply of coal as raw material
and those who are not expected to set up the projected
capacities based on their track record etc. should be
discouraged. Allocation of coal block to smaller players though
desirable, but keeping in view their technical and financial
constraints, it would be difficult for them to get the block
developed in a time bound manner. He suggested that the
requirement of small producers, which are genuine, should be
met through linkages granted from CIL subsidiaries. He further
stated that priority for allocation of coking coal blocks may be
determined in the following order:-
I. To those companies which have integrated steel plants
without any coking coal block;
II. To those companies which are opting for blast furnace route,
and the end use plants are likely to be commissioned by 2010;
III. To those big companies, which are yet to commission their
plants, but are opting for blast furnace route;
IV. Stand-alone pig iron producers supplying foundry grade pig
iron may not be considered for coking coal blocks.
(ii) It was further suggested that for cling coal blocks,
companies with minimum capacity of 0.5 MTPA and for non-
coking coal blocks, DRI plants with minimum capacity of 0.3
MTPA be given priority in view of scarcity of resource, it was
suggested that ceiling of maximum end use plant capacity of 2
MTPA for coking coal blocks (coal requirement 2 MTPA) and 1.2
MTPS for non-coking coal blocks (Coal requirement 1.96
MTPS) be imposed to ensure equitable distribution of
resources. This has been arrived at by multiplying the minimum
capacity by a factor of 4 (four) and keeping in view that
maximum applicants have applied for plant capacities in range
of 0.3-1.0 MTPA (for DRI route) and 0.5-1.5 MTPS (for Blast
Furnace route).
9. Representative of DIPP observed that since hardly any
blocks were allocated to cement plants in the past this sector
should get a higher share in this round, as large number of
established companies have applied for coal blocks. He further
advised that preference may accorded to cement plants with
minimum capacity of 2 MTPA.
10. Chief Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh expressed
the view that as per the past trends, major players have been
getting the coal blocks but the smaller players are not getting
coal blocks for the reason of smaller capacity and weaker
financial strength compared to major players. For this reason,
they are finding it difficult to compete with those bigger
companies which are enjoying assured raw material at a lower
coast for captive iron ore and coal mines. Therefore he
suggested that the interest of smaller players may be taken
care of by allocating coal blocks to consortium formed by these
companies. The representative from the State Governments
reiterated that location of end-use project within the coal
bearing State and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with that State Government should e the main consideration for
allocation of coal blocks. The Chairman observed that while the
views expressed by the State Governments would be given due
weightage, these cannot be accepted as the sole basis or a
mandatory qualifying prerequisite for allocation of coal blocks.
This would not be in conformity with the guidelines laid down for
allocation of coal blocks. There are many other factors which
would have to be taken into account before the Screening
Committee makes its recommendations. Coal is a national
resource, and needs to be tapped optimally to sub-serve the
economic interest of the whole country. However, he assured
the representatives of the State Govts. That the Committee
would take into consideration the interests of State Govts. As
well.
11. The Screening Committee suggested that in case of
allocation to consortium companies, it should be ensured that
consortium is a well defined entity in terms of equity
participation by the member units. It was, therefore, decided
that thorough verification be made about the consortium in
terms of number of participants, equity participation, end use
capacity, coal requirement etc. before the allocation of coal
block to consortium company is made.
12. After detailed deliberations the parameters suggested by
the Ministry of Steel and Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion, were agreed to. It was also accepted that an upper
cap on projected capacity should be placed in order to secure
more equitable distribution of limited resources. Therefore,
ceiling of 1.2 MTPA for DRI, 2 MTPA for Steel and 4 MTPA for
cement were agreed upon. It was also decided that in case
companies have been allocated blocks in the past for the same
project, then reserves allocated for such blocks may be
adjusted while assessing the total requirement and share of
coal of such companies.
13. The Screening Committee, thereafter, 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 Ministry of Steel, Department of
Industrial Policy and Promotion, State Governments concerned,
guidelines laid down for allocation of coal blocks, and other
factors as mentioned in paragraphs 8 to 12 above, as regards
inter-se distribution of shares among the joint allocattees, it was
decided by the Committee that capacity of end-use projects
shall be determined as follows:
ii) The capacity indicated in the MoU entered into between
the applicant company and the State Govt. concerned,
wherever applicable;
iii) The realistic capacity addition likely to materialize by the
year 2010, as assessed by the nodal Ministry/Department
concerned;
Whichever is the lowest.
the Screening Committee, accordingly decided to recommend
for allocation of coal blocks in the manner as follows:
S. State Name of Geological Tentative Mine Name of End Use Location Share
No. the Block Reserves Extractable Capacity Company Plant
Reserves Capacity
(in MTPA)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR PIG IRON (Coking coal)
1
2
3...
BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR OTHER END USES NON COKING COAL
1
2
3....
15. A signed copy of the recommendations of the Screening

Committee is placed at Annexure-V.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair."
384. Thus the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) as reproduced above

clearly shows that the same are completely sketchy in nature and are
also completely silent about any discussion which is stated to have
taken place during the meeting qua allocation of various coal blocks.
Moreover if the claim of accused persons that as all the decisions of
the Screening Committee were unanimous so the details of the
discussion which took place were not mentioned is believed even for
the sake of arguments, then also the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) are
also silent even about this fact. The word "unanimous" or the phrase
that the decision of Screening Committee were arrived at with
unanimity of all members present are completely missing from the
minutes. It is in these circumstances, it will be worthwhile to once
again refer to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court as were
made in the order dated 25.08.2014 in Manohar Lal Sharma case
(Supra) as regard the nature of minutes of 36th Screening
Committee.
154. To sum up, the entire allocation of coal block as per
recommendations made by the Screening Committee from
14.07.1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through the
Government dispensation route suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness and legal flaws. The Screening Committee has
never been consistent, it has not been transparent, there is no
proper application of mind, it has acted on no material in many
cases, relevant factors have seldom been its guiding factors,
there was no transparency and guidelines have seldom guided
it. On many occasions, guidelines have been honoured more in
their breach. There was no objective criteria, nay, no criteria for
evaluation of comparative merits. The approach had been ad-
hoc and casual. There was no fair and transparent procedure,
all resulting in unfair distribution of the national wealth.
Common good and public interest have, thus, suffered heavily.
Hence, the allocation of coal blocks based on the
recommendations made in all the 36 meetings of the Screening
Committee is illegal. "
385. The question which next arises for consideration in these

circumstances is that if no such scrutiny or review of the process so
undertaken by MOC in allocating various coal blocks for captive use
to different applicant companies was carried out in the Courts then
whether the record of MOC or even that of Screening Committee
reflects that there was objectivity and transparency in the entire coal
block allocation process. The answer is a big "No". The accused
MOC officers can not claim that even though the minutes Ex. PW
13/L (colly) are silent about reasons for recommending allocation of
any coal block in favour of any given applicant company but if
someone would have questioned them then they would have
explained the said reasons or basis of their decision. Such a claim, if
made would not be even worth considering.
386. Thus if such important nationalised natural resources of the
country are dealt with in such a vague and arbitrary manner then the
accused MOC officers can not ever complain, if their actions are
subject of judicial scrutiny either with a view to assess whether their
actions constitute any civil wrong or the same were actuated with any
malice or malafide intention. The coal block allocation process which
finally led to allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudapuri coal block in favour
of A-1 M/s KSSPL was clearly handled by MOC officers both in MOC
as well as in Screening Committee as if their actions can never be
subject of any such judicial scrutiny. On the other hand no such
judicial scrutiny can be possible if from the entire process it is not
ascertainable as to what prevailed either in MOC or in the Screening
Committee which led to making of recommendations for allocation of
various coal blocks in favour of different applicant companies. The
reasons will then have to be gathered from the overall facts and
circumstances and especially from the manner in which the entire
issue of coal block allocation has been dealt with by Ministry of Coal
officers. Their intention in so handling or dealing with such an
important matter involving large public interest will also be gathered
from all such circumstances only.
387. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the following passage

of Justice Holmes in United States Vs. Wurzbach 1930 (280) US
396.
"Whenever 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."
388. At this stage, it would be also worthwhile to mention that
since the guidelines were laid down by MOC itself to govern the
allocation of captive coal blocks to various applicant companies so it
was equally binding upon the MOC as it was on the applicant
companies. Thus the applications were to be submitted by applicant
companies in accordance with the said guidelines and the method of
processing of applications in MOC was also spelled out in the said
guidelines with a view to inform the public at large as to how MOC
proposes to deal with their applications or in other words as to how
MOC proposes to allocate the Nationalised natural resources of the
country i.e. coal. Thus undoubtedly the said guidelines were equally
binding mandatorily upon both MOC and the Screening Committee. It
also need not be re-emphasized that the entire issue involved great
public interest as the property involved i.e. coal was an important raw
material for the industrial development of the country. Major industrial
houses of the country were having interest in the allocation of said
captive coal blocks.
389. In fact at a later stage, I shall be also discussing that apart

from the issue that applications were not checked for their
completeness and eligibility as mandated by the guidelines, even the
subsequent part of the guidelines which talked of various factors on
which inter-se priority from amongst competing applicant companies
was to be arrived at was also not followed. Thus from the over all
facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that irrespective of the
claim of accused MOC officers that PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under
Secretary, MOC, is now improving upon his earlier statements made
to the IO in order to save his own skin, they themselves i.e. the
accused MOC officers are also now furnishing various reasons or
explanations for non-compliance with the guidelines only with a view
to cover their follies as committed by them in the entire coal block
allocation process. Undoubtedly as contrasted to PW-13 V.S. Rana
who is a prosecution witness the three MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C.
Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria being accused are
entitled to take as many plea(s) of defence as may be permissible to
them under the law. However as is evident from my aforesaid
discussion, none of the said plea of defence taken by the accused
persons is either cogent, convincing or reliable even for the sake of
preponderance of probability in as much as they have miserably
failed in making any dent in the evidence led by prosecution to prove
various circumstances.
(G) Whether the recommendation of 36th Screening

Committee were unanimous in nature.
390. It has been the constant and consistent stand of A-4 H.C.
Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that during the Screening Committee
meeting held on 03.07.2008 detailed discussion were held qua the
claim of each of the applicant company when the issue of allocation
of various coal blocks were individually taken up. It was also
submitted that since the recommendation of Screening Committee
were unanimous in nature so in accordance with the letter and spirit
of Para 54 (4) (c) of Manual of Office Procedure the essence of
outcome of the deliberations was duly recorded. As regard non-
mentioning of reasons for choosing one or the other company from
amongst many applicant companies for any given coal block it was
submitted that had such detailed discussion was to be mentioned
then the minutes would have run into hundreds of pages. While
referring to the deposition of various prosecution witnesses as well as
that of DW-13 Shivraj Singh, it was submitted that all the members
were free to air their views and there was no restriction on anyone to
give any contrary or conflicting opinion. It was also submitted that at
the conclusion of the meeting held on 03.07.2008 recommendation
sheets containing final decision of the Screening Committee were
prepared and all the members so present duly signed the said
recommendation sheets without recording any objection or dissenting
views. It was also submitted that even subsequent to the Screening
Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008, no objections were received
from either Administrative Ministries or from the State Governments
concerned or from any other member of Screening Committee
regarding the final recommendations so arrived at by the Screening
Committee. It was also submitted that in the minutes itself, it is clearly
mentioned in para 14 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 project, financial and technical
capabilities of applicant companies, recommendations of the State
391. However before I advert on to discuss the circumstances
under which the 36th Screening Committee appears to have made its
recommendations, it would be appropriate to first discuss the nature
and purpose of constitution of Screening Committee. Admittedly the
Screening Committee was constituted with a view to expedite the
captive coal block allocation process. While MOC was the Nodal
Ministry for allocation of coal blocks but the views of Administrative
Ministries such as Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, DIPP were
important as the coal blocks were proposed to be allocated to those
companies who were engaged in either generation of power or
production of iron and steel or cement. Thus as the end use projects
pertained to the jurisdiction of said other Administrative Ministries so
their views were certainly important in considering the issue of
allocation of various coal blocks to different applicant companies
engaged in production of one or the other end use products. Similarly
the views of the State Governments where either the coal blocks
proposed to be allotted or the existing or proposed end use plant was
established/to be established were equally important. Similarly the
views of CMPDIL or CIL or its other subsidiary companies were
important from the point of view of obtaining technical details of the
coal blocks proposed to be allocated or the progress made by any
applicant company, if previously allocated any coal block. An effort
was thus made by Government of India to constitute such an inter-
departmental body called Screening Committee so as to screen the
proposals of various applicant companies by obtaining
views/comments of all concerned at one single place and thereafter
to make recommendation for allocation of various coal blocks in
favour of different applicant companies in an objective and
transparent manner. It was in order to achieve the said objective only
that MOC framed detailed guidelines and brought them to the notice
of the public at large as to in what manner the applications will be
received in MOC or in what manner they shall be processed or how
the inter-se priority amongst various applicant companies for any
given coal block shall be decided.
392. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid objective for which the
Screening Committee came to be constituted i.e. to screen the
proposals received for captive mining in an objective and transparent
manner, all the applicants were directed to submit their applications in
five copies. Four copies thereof were accordingly sent to concerned
Administrative Ministry(ies) and to the concerned State
Government(s) beside also sending one copy to CMPDIL. One copy
of the application was however retained in MOC. Thus one set of
applications of all such companies which were either having an
existing steel plant or were proposing to establish a sponge iron plant
was sent to Ministry of Steel and not to Ministry of Power. Similarly
one set of applications of all such companies who were proposing to
establish a power project was sent to Ministry of power and not to
Ministry of Steel or to any other Administrative Ministry. Similar was
the situation qua the applications of companies proposing to establish
an end use project in cement sector. Copy of their application was
sent only to DIPP for comments and not to Ministry of Power or Steel.
On similar lines, one copy of the applications was sent to only those
State Governments where any given coal block was situated qua
which applications were submitted by the company(ies) or their
existing end use plant was situated or any end use plant was
proposed to be established. In this manner the copy of applications
of all the applicant companies was sent only to concerned State
Governments and to concerned Administrative Ministries and not to
all State Governments or Administrative Ministries who were
members of Screening Committee.
393. Thus from the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that in the

Screening Committee meetings, representative of any given State
Government was not concerned with application of any such
company who was neither applying for any coal block situated in the
said state nor was proposing to have its end use project in the said
State. Admittedly application of any such company was not even sent
to those states. Similarly the Administrative Ministries were also not
concerned with the applications of all such companies who were
neither engaged nor were proposing to engage in any end use
product relating to their Ministry. A natural consequence of the
aforesaid scheme of arrangement was that such state governments
or Administrative Ministries were neither having any knowledge of the
claims of the applicant companies qua any factor much less their
financial strength or their technical capabilities or progress made by
them towards establishing their end use project nor they were
concerned as to for which coal block any such given applicant
company is being recommended as long as the said coal block is not
situated in their state.
394. If in the aforesaid circumstances the constitution and working

of Screening Committee is seen and visualized then it emerges out
as an irresistible conclusion that the Screening Committee was
though constituted as a large broad based inter-departmental
committee but in its actual functioning it was working as a
conglomeration of various small Screening Committees. Thus in its
actual working whenever discussion qua any given coal block used to
take place in the Screening Committee then applications of only
those companies who had applied for the allocation of said coal block
used to be considered. Officers of MOC however used to participate
in the discussion qua every coal block and also qua each of the
applicant companies being the representatives of Nodal Ministry. On
the other hand representatives of only such State Governments used
to participate in the discussion in whose states either the given coal
block under discussion was situated or the applicant companies
being considered were proposing to have their end use project in
their state. Similarly representative of any Administrative Ministry
used to participate in the discussion only qua such companies who
were either already engaged or were proposing to engage in an end
use product relating to the said Administrative Ministry. It is important
to understand the aforesaid working of Screening Committee since it
will help in better understanding the claim raised by Ld. Counsels for
accused persons that the decisions made in the Screening
Committee were unanimous in nature as while signing the
recommendation sheets the various members of Screening
Committee did not raise any objection. However from the aforesaid
nature of working of Screening Committee it becomes crystal clear
that in the discussion which took place in the Screening Committee
meeting held on 03.07.2008 qua any given coal block and while
considering applications of various applicant companies who had
applied for the said coal block under discussion only members of
such smaller Screening Committee would have participated and none
else. Thus representative of Ministry of Steel could have given his
opinion or views only qua such companies who were either having
any existing sponge iron or steel plant or were proposing to establish
any such plant. Similarly representative of DIPP could have given his
views/comments only qua such companies who were either having
any existing cement plant or were proposing to establish any such
cement plant. Similarly as Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was
situated in the state of Madhya Pradesh so the representative of the
state of Madhya Pradesh would have been interested in the
discussion qua each of the applicant companies who were seeking
allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block situated in their state.
The representative of all other State Governments would be
interested in the discussion only if any, of the applicant company
seeking allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was either
having any existing end use project or is proposing to establish its
end use project in their state. Thus other members of the Screening
Committee would have no concern with any such discussion for they
were neither having any information about the applicant companies or
about their proposed end use project nor any information qua the
coal block under discussion for it was not situated in their state.
Admittedly applications of all such companies were not even sent to
them by MOC.
395. Thus if in the light of these circumstances the signing of

various recommendation sheets are seen at the end of the meeting
held on 03.07.2008 then it is found that all the members of the
Screening Committee present have signed recommendation sheets
qua each of the coal blocks irrespective of the fact whether the said
coal block was situated in their state or not or the companies
recommended for allocation were having any existing end use project
or were proposing to establish their end use project in their state or
not. Similarly representative of all Administrative Ministries signed the
recommendation sheets irrespective of the fact as to whether the
recommended companies were either engaged or were proposing to
engage in any end use product relating to their Ministry or not. Thus
the factum of signing of said recommendation sheets can at the most
signify that such a decision was taken in the Screening Committee
meeting on that day but in no way the signing of said
recommendation sheets by all members present can signify that the
said decisions were unanimous in nature. It is in these circumstances
only that the contention that none of the Screening Committee
members while signing the recommendation sheets did not raise any
objection needs to be seen and appreciated.
396. In this regard it would be now worthwhile to refer to the
deposition of PW-11 S.K. Mishra who as Secretary Mineral
Resources Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh had
attended Screening Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008. He
stated that when he went to attend the Screening Committee meeting
then he was carrying alongwith him copy of the recommendation
which was earlier sent by Government of Madhya Pradesh to MOC
qua various coal blocks situated in the state. He denied that at that
time he was carrying the entire file of Government of Madhya
Pradesh with him. He further stated that during the course of
Screening Committee meeting various coal blocks were taken up for
discussion in seriatum. He however stated that at the time of
discussion qua Thesgora-B coal block he reiterated
recommendation of Government of Madhya Pradesh as was made in
favour of M/s BLA Power Ltd. but stated that after discussion as was
evident from para 10 of the minutes of the meeting it was decided
that the recommendation of state Government of Madhya Pradesh
can not be accepted. He also stated that discussion qua Thesgora-B
coal block took place between him and MOC officers i.e. H.C. Gupta,
Secretary Coal, K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary Coal and K.C. Samria,
Director, MOC. He however claimed ignorance as to whether
representative of the Administrative Ministry participated in the
discussion or not. He also stated that while he signed the attendance
sheet at the beginning of the meeting but later on when the
recommendation of the meeting were finalised then he signed the
recommendation sheets only as a token of participating in the
meeting. However in his cross-examination he denied the suggestion
that during the Screening Committee meeting the net-worth of various
applicant companies or status of end use project or the techno
economic feasibility report or the financial status of the applicant
companies was discussed. He also claimed ignorance as to whether
any comprehensive appraisal of applicant companies was sent to
Screening Committee by the Administrative Ministries or not as he
stated that no such document was supplied to him. He also denied
the suggestion that the decision of the Screening Committee was
unanimous. In his cross-examination this witness also denied the
suggestion that he was competent to take any decision in the
Screening Committee meeting either on behalf of his department or
on behalf of Government of Madhya Pradesh as he stated that he
was deputed only to communicate the decision i.e. recommendation
already made by Government of Madhya Pradesh. He also denied
having given any merit list of various applicant companies to the
Screening Committee on the basis of any points assigned to them by
Government of Madhya Pradesh. He also specifically stated that the
final decision of the Screening Committee qua Thesgora-B coal
block was not with his consent. He also denied that he did not record
any objections in the recommendation sheet while putting his
signatures over there only because the decision of the Screening
Committee was unanimous.
397. At this stage, I would like to mention that it is the claim of the
accused persons that PW-11 S.K. Mishra had come to attend the
Screening Committee meeting on 03.07.2008 carrying alongwith him
the entire file of Government of Madhya Pradesh wherein detailed
chart assigning different marks to various applicant companies was
available. It is also their claim that as Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal
block was reserved for non-power sector companies and M/s BLA
Power Ltd. was proposing to establish a power project so it could not
have been recommended for the said coal block and accordingly the
next two best placed companies as per the chart available in the file
of Government of Madhya Pradesh i.e. M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd.
and A-1 M/s KSSPL were recommended jointly for Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block. Though as already mentioned PW-11 S.K.
Mishra has categorically denied the suggestion that while coming to
attend the Screening Committee meeting he was carrying alongwith
him the entire file of Government of Madhya Pradesh but even if it is
presumed for the sake of arguments that PW-11 S.K. Mishra was
indeed carrying the entire file with him then also the minutes of 36th
Screening Committee meeting Ex. PW 13/L (colly) are completely
silent as to the reasons for which M/s BLA Power Ltd. was not
recommended or as to why M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. or A-1 M/s
KSSPL were recommended. The minutes are also silent that status of
next two most suitable companies was ascertained not only as per
the criteria adopted by State Government of Madhya Pradesh but
also from the file of Government of Madhya Pradesh as was available
with PW-11 S.K. Mishra. It is not in dispute that the application of M/s
BLA Power Ltd. was sent to Government of Madhya Pradesh for its
views/comments by MOC only. It is also not in dispute that M/s BLA
Power Ltd. appeared before 36th Screening Committee which was
constituted to screen proposals of non-power sector companies only.
It is also not in dispute that M/s BLA Power Ltd. also made a
presentation before the Screening Committee. Though the
circumstances in which M/s BLA Power Ltd. came to be invited for
presentation before 36th Screening Committee meeting are also not
beyond the shadows of suspicion. There is on record a letter written
by M/s BLA Power Ltd. dated 10.10.2007 Ex. PW 13/O (At page 153
in D-9) addressed to A-6 K.C. Samria. In the said letter M/s BLA
Power Ltd. had requested A-6 K.C. Samria while making a reference
to a meeting which its Managing Director Sh. Anup Aggarwalla had
with A-6 K.C. Samria on 08.10.2007, that their application may be
sent to Ministry of Power for their views. There is however also
available on record, one typed note dated 08.10.2007 (available at
page 152 in D-9). In the note it is stated that from out of 38 coal
blocks earmarked by Ministry of Coal for allocation, 15 have been
specifically earmarked for power sector. From out of remaining 23
coal blocks 4 blocks are earmarked for pig iron producers. As regard
other 19 coal blocks it was stated that they were earmarked for
"other". It was thus stated that it would be proper for MOC to allot
these 19 blocks to power generating companies also as they were
not specifically earmarked for any category of end users. Though it is
not ascertainable from the said note as to who prepared it but the
said note was marked by A-6 K.C. Samria to Under Secretary, CA-I,
Section (PW-13 V.S. Rana) on 08.10.2007 itself with an endorsement
as follows:
"If this is true than we need to send these applications to MOP
for their comments."
398. Though the notings in the MOC file shows that a proposal
thereafter mooted for sending application of such companies to
Ministry of Power was turned down by the then Minister of State for
Coal, Sh. Dasari Narayan Rao after both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5
K.S. Kropha proposed that these coal blocks reserved for "other"
shall be considered only for companies engaged in such end use
other than power. However despite such a refusal by Minister of State
for Coal admittedly M/s BLA Power Ltd. was invited to make a
presentation before 36th Screening Committee and its representative
i.e. Sh. Anup Aggarwalla, Managing Director did appear to make
presentation before the 36th Screening Committee.
399. Thus the circumstances in which M/s BLA Power Ltd. came
to be invited for making presentation before the 36th Screening
Committee which was constituted to consider applications of only
such companies who were not engaged in generation of power is
also a strong indicator not only of the casual manner in which the coal
block allocation process was handled in MOC but also raises fingers
of suspicion upon the conduct of MOC officers in handling of the
entire coal block allocation process.
400. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the application of M/s
BLA Power Ltd. was sent to Government of Madhya Pradesh by
MOC and after considering various factors, Government of Madhya
Pradesh recommended the said company for allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block. The company M/s BLA Power Ltd. was
thereafter also invited by MOC to appear before 36th Screening
Committee and to make a presentation and submit a feedback form
and the company duly complied with the same. Thus in these
circumstances even if the claim of MOC officers that since M/s BLA
Power Ltd. was proposing to establish a power project and
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was reserved for non-power sector
companies so it could not have been recommended for the said coal
block is accepted as a true and correct reason then also the least
which could have been done was to mention these very reasons in
the minutes of the meeting. It could have been explained in the
minutes itself as to under what circumstances the application of M/s
BLA Power Ltd. was sent to Government of Madhya Pradesh or
under what circumstances the said company was invited to make
presentation before the Screening Committee even though 36th
Screening Committee was considering the applications qua only
such coal blocks as were reserved for non-power sector companies.
Similarly if as per the claim of accused MOC officers, the merits of
next two best placed companies i.e. M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and
A-1 M/s KSSPL were pointed out by PW-11 S. K. Mishra only then
again for reasons best known to the accused persons minutes Ex.
PW 13/L (colly) are completely silent in this regard. In fact the
minutes of 36th Screening Committee as have been reproduced
above are so casual and cryptic in nature in as much as nothing is
ascertainable as to on what factors any given applicant company as
compared to other applicant companies was recommended for
allocation of any given coal block by the Screening Committee. It is
also not ascertainable from the minutes as to whether the
methodology adopted by Government of Madhya Pradesh in
assigning various points to different applicant companies as referred
to in their files was also considered or not by the Screening
Committee members or only the final points as were assigned to
various applicant companies were only considered. It is also not
ascertainable from the minutes as to in what manner the various
factors which were to govern the inter-se priority of the applicant
companies and as were mentioned in the guidelines governing
allocation of coal blocks issued by MOC were considered.
401. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, it will be also

worthwhile to mention that in the minutes of meeting held on
11.05.2007, it was decided that CMPDIL will carry out an exercise to
identify the applicant companies that have minimum net-worth of 20%
of the investment required for projected capacity of end use projects.
In fact from the draft minutes Ex. DW 12/PX-7 of the said meeting it is
clear that Secretary Coal (i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta) had himself suggested
that 20% of the investment required for projected capacities of end
use plants may be accepted as a bench mark criteria for first point of
scrutiny. However irrespective of the fact as to whether A-4 H.C.
Gupta so proposed or not (since in the final approved minutes Ex.
PW 13/DX-16 it is not mentioned that this suggestion was proposed
by Secretary, Coal, H.C. Gupta) the fact remains that in the meeting
held on 11.05.2007 CMPDIL was directed to prepare a chart so as to
identify the applicant companies that were having minimum net-worth
of 20% of the investment required for projected capacity of end use
project. Once again the minutes of 36th Screening Committee Ex.
PW 13/L (colly) are completely silent as to whether any such chart
was prepared and submitted by CMPDIL or not and if submitted then
whether the same was taken into consideration or not. As regard
application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1 M/s KSSPL it is clearly
evident that for its ultimate capacity of 0.6 MTPA the total proposed
investment was stated as Rs. 600 crores. Thus even if the highly
inflated claim of A-1 M/s KSSPL regarding its net-worth as on
31.03.2006 i.e. Rs. 64.75 crores is considered then also the company
was well short of having 20% minimum net-worth of the investment
required for the proposed ultimate capacity of its end use project.
Even the highly inflated figure of net-worth of the company was only
about 11% of the proposed investment figure of Rs. 600 crores as
mentioned in the application itself.
402. I am still not on the issue that the actual net-worth of A-1 M/s
KSSPL as already discussed in the earlier part of judgment was
much below Rs. 64.75 crores. What is however important to note is
that even the said wrongly mentioned figure did not fulfill the criteria
as decided by Screening Committee in its meeting held on
11.05.2007 for the first stage of scrutiny.
403. However even if it is argued that CMPDIL was merely asked

to prepare a chart and the said criteria was never followed by
Screening Committee then in those circumstances it was imperative
that if such a fact was mentioned in the initial meeting held on
11.05.2007 wherein all the members of Screening Committee except
the State Government representatives were present then a reference
ought to have been made in the final minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) as
to whether such a criteria is being followed or not coupled with
reasons for the said decision.
404. The aforesaid various aspects of the entire coal block

allocation process are being simply highlighted by referring to various
documents which stand conclusively proved on record beside also
from the deposition of prosecution witnesses and that of defence
witnesses only with a view to show that neither the minutes of
meetings of 36th Screening Committee which was admittedly an
inter-departmental body were drawn up in accordance with para 54
(4) (c) of Manual of Office Procedure nor they speak of any reason
whatsoever for the decision taken during the meeting. Nothing is
ascertainable from the minutes as to what factors prevailed with the
Screening Committee in recommending one company for allocation
of any given coal block as compared to other applicant companies
who were also interested in the allocation of said coal block in their
favour. Moreover as earlier mentioned the minutes Ex. PW 13/L
(colly) are completely silent as to whether the recommendation of
Screening Committee were unanimous or were by way of broad
consensus. Thus in the overall facts and circumstances as discussed
above it can not be presumed that the final recommendations of 36th
Screening Committee were unanimous in nature.
405. At this stage I also deem it appropriate to mention that while
this Court has neither got any jurisdiction nor any intention to review
the policy laid down by the government of the day which may govern
the process of allocation of captive coal blocks to private applicant
companies as the same is the exclusive prerogative of the
government and lies within their exclusive jurisdiction. It is for the
government only to decide as to on what factors or in what manner
the Nationalised natural resources of the country will be better
distributed and to whom the same shall be allocated. However the
important issue to be taken care of is that once a policy has been laid
down by the Government in this regard and the executive branch of
the Government is directed to implement the same then it can never
be claimed that such action of the executive wing can not be
subjected to judicial scrutiny. While every action of the executive can
be the subject matter of judicial scrutiny unless specifically barred by
statute or law framed in this regard but the Court does raise question
marks over any such decision so taken by the executive wing if it is
found that the same is ultra vires to the guidelines or policy as may
be decided by the Government. Thus if such a decision is per-se
illegal or is dehors the guidelines or policy laid down governing
exercise of such discretion then the Courts of law will be well within
their jurisdiction to carry out judicial scrutiny of any such decision or
the process of arriving at any such decision. It is in fact this very
exercise which was undertaken by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its
detailed order dated 25.08.2014 passed in the case Manohar Lal
Sharma case (Supra), consequently resulting in cancellation of all
such coal blocks allocated by all the 36 Screening Committees of
MOC. Hon'ble Supreme Court made detailed observations about the
working of all 36 Screening Committees and the minutes recorded by
them. Similar observations were recorded by Hon'ble Supreme Court
as regard the minutes of 36th Screening Committee also. The same
read as under:
149. In the 36th meeting, which was held on 07.12.2007-

08.12.2007, 07.02.2008-08.02.2008 and 03.07.2008, the
Screening Committee considered allocation of 23 coal blocks
earmarked for non-power sector. For these 23 coal blocks
earmarked for non-power sector, 674 applications were
submitted by 184 companies for allocation. Some companies
had applied for more than one block and some had submitted
more than one application for single block for different end use
plants located at different locations. The geological reserve of
23 blocks## was noted by the Screening Committee. The
minutes of the 36th meeting show that the Committee decided to
recommend blocks earmarked for pig iron (coking coal) jointly
to two or more than two companies and nineteen blocks
earmarked for other end- uses/non-cooking coal were
recommended for allocation to single companies as well as
jointly to two or more companies. The minutes of 36 th meeting
do not contain the particulars showing consideration of each
application. There is no assessment of comparative merits of
the applicants who were selected for recommendation. The
minutes do not disclose how and in what manner the selected
companies meet the norms fixed for inter se priority. Many of
the selected companies were neither recommended by the
State Government nor by the Administrative Ministry. Some of
them were recommended by the State Government but not
recommended by the Administrative Ministry while one of them
was not recommended by the State Government but
recommended by the Administrative Ministry. For Rajhara North
(Central & Eastern) coal block, Vini Iron & Steel Udyog Ltd. had
no recommendation by the State Government or by the
Administrative Ministry. Similarly, for Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal
block, Revati Cement P. Ltd. did not have recommendation
either from the State Government or from the Administrative
Ministry. As regards Tandsi-III and Tandsi-III (Extn.), Mideast
Integrated Steels Ltd. did not have recommendation from the
State Government. Similarly, as regards Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri,
Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Limited had no recommendation
from the State Government. As regards Moira Madhujore coal
block, Ramswarup Lohh Udyog Ltd. had no recommendation
from the Administrative Ministry.
150. From the above discussion, it is clear that 21 coal blocks
stood allocated to private companies in pursuance of Screening
Committees recommendations during the period from the 1 st
meeting held on 14.07.1993 till the 21 st meeting held on
19.08.2003. For the period from 04.11.2003 (22 nd meeting) to
18.10.2005 (30th meeting) in pursuance of Screening
Committees recommendations, 26 coal blocks stood allocated to
private companies. Following 32nd meeting held on
29.06.2006/30.06.2006 till the 34 th meeting on
07.09.2006/08.09.2006, in pursuance of the recommendations
made by the Screening Committee, two coking coal blocks were
allocated to private companies and twelve non-coking coal
blocks were allocated to private companies. In pursuance of the
recommendations made by the Screening Committee in 35 th and
36th meetings, 33 coal blocks were allocated to private
companies. Some of the coal block allocations made to the
private companies have been de-allocated from time to time. For
consideration of legality and validity of allocations made to such
companies, it is not necessary to deal with de-allocation aspect.
It needs no emphasis that assuming that the Central
Government had power of allocation of coal blocks yet such
power should have been exercised in a fair, transparent and non-
arbitrary manner. However, the allocation of coal blocks to the
private companies pursuant to the recommendations made by
the Screening Committee in 36 meetings suffers from diverse
infirmities and flaws which may be summarized as follows:
1st Meeting to 21st Meeting
1.. . . . .
. . . . .
2. . . . . .
. . . . .
3. . . . . .
. . . . .
4. . . . . .
. . . . .
5. . . . . .
. . . . .
6. . . . . .
. . . . .
7. . . . . .
. . . . .
8. . . . . .
. . . . .
9. . . . . .
. . . . .
22nd Meeting to 30th Meeting
10. . . . . .
. . . . .
11. . . . . .
. . . . .
12. . . . . .
. . . . .
13. . . . . .
. . . . .
14. . . . . .
. . . . .
15. . . . . .
. . . . .
16. . . . . .
. . . . .
17. . . . . .
. . . . .
18. . . . . .
. . . . .
32nd Meeting to 36th Meeting
19. . . . . .
. . . . .
20. . . . . .
. . . . .
21. . . . . .
22. The minutes of the 36th meeting do not contain the particulars
showing consideration of each application for allocation of 23
coal blocks earmarked for non-power sector. There is nothing in
the minutes to indicate how and in what manner the selected
companies meet the norms fixed for inter se priority. Many of the
selected companies were neither recommended by the State
Government nor by the Administrative Ministry. Some of them
were recommended by the State Government but not
recommended by the Administrative Ministry while one of them
was not recommended by the State Government but
recommended by the Administrative Ministry. Many companies
which had failed to secure allocations earlier yet they were
recommended. The Screening Committee failed to consider
capability and capacity of the applicant in implementing the
projects.
151. 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.
406. Though it was argued by Ld. Counsels for the accused

persons that the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme court in the
said order dated 25.08.2014 can not be referred to by this Court in
the present proceedings as Hon'ble Supreme court in the said matter
never dealt with the issue of criminality of the persons involved and
had only discussed the manner in which various coal blocks were
allocated to different applicant companies in contravention of MMDR
Act, 1957 and CMN Act 1973. In this regard it would be suffice to
state that the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court either
qua the importance of coal towards industrial development of the
country or as regard nature of minutes recorded by 36th Screening
Committee meeting or even as regard the lack of objectivity and
transparency in the working of Screening Committee are being
referred to only show that the conclusions arrived at by this Court on
the basis of evidence led in the present trial coupled with documents
which stands conclusively proved on record, are not based on
presumptions much less on conjectures and surmises. It is only the
process of Screening Committee which was analysed and discussed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is being referred to over here. No
conclusion is however being drawn as regard the criminality of the
persons involved on the basis of any such observations of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as were made in the said order dated 25.08.2014.
407. Thus from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the manner
in which the Screening Committee functioned or dealt with the issue
of allocation of various coal blocks and as is reflected from the
minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly), the recommendations even qua
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL were
not based on any objective or transparent criteria. No such elements
are discernible either from the minutes of 36th Screening Committee
meetings or from the files of MOC. In fact Ld. Counsels for the
accused persons are now trying to present various reasons for the
decision taken by them and are now calling upon this Court to read all
such reasons as inherent in the said minutes and that too after
carrying out a detailed comparative analysis of applications of various
applicant companies who had applied for allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block including that of A-1 M/s KSSPL. In this
regard I may once again state that to carry out such a comparative
analysis now is primarily based on a misconception. As already
discussed at length and demonstrated that the application of A-1 M/s
KSSPL was bound to be rejected at the initial stage itself being
incomplete and thus it ought not to have been sent either to
Administrative Ministry i.e Ministry of Steel or to State Government of
Madhya Pradesh much less placed before the Screening Committee.
Had MOC officers been vigilant enough then the question of
considering application of A-1 M/s KSSPL for allocation of any coal
block much less Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block would not have
arisen at all. This Court thus does not find any necessity to undertake
any such comparative analysis of applications of various applicant
companies who had applied for Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block.
Even otherwise as already mentioned such a comparative analysis
with reasons thereof ought to have been mentioned in the minutes
Ex. PW 13/L (colly) itself. It can not be stated by anyone that reasons
would have been disclosed later on to all such authorities who would
have questioned the correctness of their decision. As already
mentioned the minutes in themselves are cryptic in nature and does
not disclose any reasons which prevailed with the Screening
Committee in making recommendation for any given coal block in
favour of any company much less in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
408. It is for this reason only that in the earlier part of my judgment
also I have observed that on account of such nature of acts of
omission and commission directly attributable to accused MOC
officers, the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL despite being incomplete
came to be placed before the Screening Committee and the same
was not only considered but was even recommended for allocation of
a coal block. It is in this light the claim made by A-4 H.C. Gupta and
A-5 K.S. Kropha that irrespective of the applications being complete
or not, all the applications were to be placed before Screening
Committee, needs to be seen and appreciated. The said claim as
earlier also stated is clearly an attempt to cover up their initial acts of
omission and commission in not ensuring that the applications were
duly checked for their eligibility and completeness in accordance with
the guidelines issued by MOC or in ensuring that such applications
which were not complete in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC
ought to have been rejected and should not have been placed before
the Screening Committee.
409. Thus at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the various
acts of omission and commission as are attributable to the accused
MOC officers clearly show that they so acted consciously and
deliberately as part of a well designed scheme of things. In fact the
subsequent conduct of MOC officers while sending recommendation
of Screening Committee to Prime Minister as Minister of Coal and
thereafter at post-approval stage i.e. after the recommendations of
Screening Committee were approved by Prime Minister as Minister of
Coal further supports the aforesaid conclusion.
(H) Checking of applications post-approval of

recommendations of Screening Committee by Prime
Minister as Minster of Coal.
410. It was pointed by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that
in the order dated 13.10.2014, this Court while disagreeing with the
final conclusion arrived at by the CBI to close the case observed that
even in the selection of Lower Divisional Clerks in Government of
India where number of applicants is usually too large, the scrutiny or
verification of their testimonials/certificates may not be though carried
out at the initial stage i.e. before permitting them to appear in the
written examination but certainly at a subsequent stage when the
selection process is over but prior to issuance of appointment letters,
the testimonials/certificates of the selected/short listed candidates are
checked. The purpose is only to ensure that no candidate may get
appointment on the basis of fictitious documents and at least their
claims as made in their application be cross-checked and verified
from their certificates. It was however submitted by Ld. Counsels for
the accused persons that the said analogy as is sought to be drawn
by this Court does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. It was submitted that admittedly MOC had issued
specific guidelines governing allocation of captive coal blocks and the
said guidelines were completely silent about any such scrutiny or
checking of applications post approval of recommendation of
Screening Committee by the Prime Minister as Minister of Coal. It
was thus submitted that introduction of any such criteria now at this
stage of the matter is certainly not permissible under the law and no
liability in this regard can be now fixed upon the accused persons.
411. Though on the face of it the submissions made by Ld.

Counsels for the accused MOC officers appears to be attractive and
well founded but if the overall facts and circumstances of the case are
seen coupled with the manner in which the guidelines have been
tweaked or not followed at all by accused MOC officers then it will be
found that the analogy sought to be drawn by this Court at the initial
stage itself while rejecting the closure report filed by CBI applies with
full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
reasons are ample and clear.
412. Admittedly the purpose of checking the applications for their

eligibility and completeness as mentioned in the guidelines was only
to ensure that application of no such company which is either not
eligible or whose application is not complete is considered by MOC
much less by the Administrative Ministries or the State Governments
or the Screening Committee. The intention was clear and apparent
that all such applications should be rejected at the initial stage of the
process itself. It is in these circumstances the reasons adduced by
the accused persons on account of which checking of applications
could not be carried out need to be appreciated. It was submitted that
as the applications were too many i.e. more than 1400 applications
and there was acute shortage of staff in CA-I, Section and also due to
lack of technical knowledge of the matters, CA-I, Section could not
carry out the checking of the applications which were even otherwise
voluminous in nature. Apart from such an explanation coming on
record from the mouth of PW-13 V.S. Rana, it also now stands well
proved that the present three accused persons who were senior
officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C.
Samria were well aware of the process which was undertaken qua
the applications in MOC till 11.05.2007. As already discussed the
three accused MOC officers can not now claim that they were not
aware of the manner in which the applications were dealt with in
MOC. The guidelines as were issued by MOC governing allocation of
captive coal blocks were also admittedly to the knowledge of all the
three accused MOC officers. Thus even though it was to the
knowledge of the three accused MOC officers that the guidelines
issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks have not been
followed in as much as the applications have not been checked for
their eligibility and completeness but they still also did not initiate any
action at that stage to ensure compliance with the guidelines titled
"Processing of Application". It is in these circumstances it becomes
important to note that in the guidelines itself it was stated that after
the Screening Committee would make its recommendation then on
the basis of recommendation of the Screening Committee, Ministry of
Coal will determine the allotment. However while forwarding the file to
Prime Minister as Minister of Coal for approval of the
recommendation of the Screening Committee, it was no where
mentioned by any of the MOC officers much less by A-4 H.C. Gupta
that the applications have not been checked for their eligibility and
completeness. There was thus no reason in the facts and
circumstances of the case for the Prime Minister as Minister of Coal
to presume that the guidelines issued have not been complied with.
It is not only apparent from the record but it is certainly permissible to
draw a presumption in the overall facts and circumstances of the
case that Prime Minister as Minister of Coal proceeded to consider
the recommendation of the Screening Committee on the assumption
that the applications must have been checked in MOC for their
eligibility and completeness or that the guidelines must have been
duly followed even by the Screening Committee. Thus if in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of Ld. Counsels for
the accused persons is considered that the guidelines were silent as
regard post approval checking or scrutiny of the applications for their
eligibility and completeness then it will be worth mentioning that the
MOC officers have all through the coal block allocation process have
rather chosen to act as per their own whims and fancies and even
beyond the purview of guidelines. A clear example of such an act on
their part was in calling upon each of the applicant company for a
presentation before the Screening Committee and to also ask them to
submit a feedback form titled "Latest Status of End Use Project".
413. Before proceeding further, I may state as a mark of caution

that I am not questioning the justification for such a decision of MOC
in calling upon the companies to make a presentation before the
Screening Committee or to submit a feedback form titled "Latest
Status of End Use Project" as the same may be a step to ensure
better appreciation of claims made by applicant companies or to
ensure more objectivity and transparency in the matter. However the
issue which is under consideration now is whether the guidelines
issued by MOC provided for any such mechanism for calling upon the
applicant companies to make presentation before the Screening
Committee and to also submit a feedback form titled "Latest Status of
End Use Project" or not. The answer in this regard is a clear "NO". In
fact the minutes Ex. PW 13/DX-16 of meeting held on 11.05.2007
itself shows such a concern on the part of MOC officers. The MOC
officers as members of Screening Committee were conscious of this
fact that the guidelines issued by MOC were completely silent as
regard any provision of making presentation by applicant companies
or submission of any feedback form. It is primarily for this reason only
that the 36th Screening Committee even proceeded to consider
applications of those companies which had not appeared before the
Screening Committee to make any presentation or to submit any
feedback form. (The issue as to whether the application of A-1 M/s
KSSPL could have been considered by the Screening Committee
even when the company as per its own claim had not made any
presentation before the Screening Committee or no feedback form
was submitted by it shall be separately dealt with by me).
414. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the

guidelines issued by MOC were though the guiding factors as per
which the allocation of captive coal blocks was to be made by MOC
but MOC officers certainly deviated from the said guidelines as and
when deemed necessary by them. Thus it was in these
circumstances observed by this Court that applications of the few
selected companies who were finally recommended by the Screening
Committee for allocation of various coal blocks and which
recommendations were approved by Minister of Coal could have
been checked at least before the issuance of allocation letters in
order to ensure that the applications of such companies were
complete or that they were eligible for allocation of a captive coal
block. Thus in my considered opinion the checking of applications
even at the stage of post-approval of recommendation of Screening
Committee by Prime Minister as Minister of Coal for their eligibility
and completeness would have not only ensured a greater degree of
objectivity and transparency in the entire coal block allocation
process but it would have also ensured that the important
Nationalised natural resources of the country i.e. coal does not go
into the hands of any ineligible company or a company whose
application was incomplete in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC
governing allocation of coal blocks.
415. At this stage, I may also mention that by suggesting the

aforesaid course of action which any reasonable and prudent person
who is saddled with responsibility to protect larger public interest in
country would have taken. I am not at all laying down any new
methodology or policy directions which ought to have governed the
allocation of captive coal blocks. It is only that if the MOC officers
found complying with the guidelines issued by MOC governing
allocation of captive coal blocks a difficult preposition at the initial
stage of the process and if they were acting bonafide and in good
faith then keeping in mind the important nature of task being
performed by them the checking of applications for their eligibility and
completeness as was required to be carried out at the initial stage
itself could have been done at least prior to issuance of allocation
letters to the selected companies. Thus this Court is not trying to
introduce any new guidelines in the already issued guidelines of MOC
but the methodology as stated above would have not only facilitated
due compliance with the guidelines issued by MOC but would have
also taken care of various other constraints such as shortage of staff
etc. in complying with the guidelines at the initial stage itself.
Moreover as mentioned above the MOC officers introduced various
other steps in the process of allocation of coal blocks and which steps
were certainly not provided for in the guidelines.
416. Thus once again it can not be stated or believed that due to
inefficiency or incompetence of the accused MOC officers the
applications could not be checked for eligibility and completeness.
The overall facts and circumstances are rather strongly suggestive or
indicative of existence of malafide intention on the part of accused
MOC officers in procuring/obtaining allocation of a captive coal block
in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL by abusing their position and the said act
has also been done by them with complete disregard to public
interest much less without public interest.
(I) Circumstances in which recommendation for allocation of

Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was made in favour of A-1 M/s
KSSPL by 36th Screening Committee.
417. As regard the proceedings of 36th Screening Committee

meeting wherein the recommendations were made for Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL, it will be pertinent
to mention that as per A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
and A-3 Amit Goyal, no presentation was made before the Screening
Committee on 08.12.2007 and also no feedback form was submitted
on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL to the Screening Committee. The
minutes of 36th Screening Committee though mentions that some
companies were not able to present their case due to delay in receipt
of notice. Names of four such companies who so represented to
MOC are M/s Shanno Business, M/s Shanti GD Ispat, M/s Special
Blasts Limited and M/s Eastern Steel and Power Limited. The said
four companies however sent their respective updated information to
MOC. The said information so submitted by the said four companies
was accordingly placed before the Screening Committee for
consideration. The minutes however in para 6 also states that some
of the companies did not appear for presentation despite notices
issued to them through individual letters as well as through MOC
website. However the applications of such companies were also
considered by the Screening Committee as per the information
submitted by them in their application forms. In para 13 and 14 of the
minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) the various factors which were taken into
consideration by the Screening Committee in arriving at its decision
are mentioned as follows:
"13. The Screening Committee, thereafter, 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 Ministry of Steel, Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion, State Governments concerned,
guidelines laid down for allocation of coal blocks, and other
factors as mentioned in paragraphs 8 to 12 above, as regards
inter-se distribution of shares among the joint allocattees, it was
decided by the Committee that capacity of end-use projects
shall be determined as follows:
ii) The capacity indicated in the MoU entered into between
the applicant company and the State Govt. concerned,
wherever applicable;
iii) The realistic capacity addition likely to materialize by the
concerned;
Whichever is the lowest.
the Screening Committee, accordingly decided to recommend
for allocation of coal blocks in the manner as follows:"
S. State Name of Geological Tentative Mine Name of End Use Location Share
No. the Block Reserves Extractable Capacity Company Plant
Reserves Capacity
(in MTPA)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR PIG IRON (Coking coal)
1
2
3...
BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR OTHER END USES NON COKING COAL
1
2
3....
418. Moreover various notings in the files of MOC shows that the
applications of all such companies who did not appear to make
presentation before the Screening Committee were also considered
as it was observed by the senior officers of MOC that making of
presentations and submission of feedback forms was not a
mandatory requirement as per the guidelines issued by MOC
governing allocation of captive coal blocks.
419. Though one may say that since the guidelines issued by
MOC did not provide for any mechanism whereby each applicant
company was to be called upon to make a presentation before the
Screening Committee or to submit any feedback form titled "Latest
Status of End Use Project" but as earlier also mentioned the said
exercise was decided upon by MOC officers in consultation with other
members of Screening Committee so as to have latest update on the
information furnished by the applicant companies in their respective
application forms. Since considerable period had elapsed from the
time the applications were invited by MOC so it was thought just and
appropriate that applicant companies may be permitted to submit
latest status of their end use projects.
420. Thus as earlier also mentioned the intention to adopt such a

practice was to achieve the ultimate goal of screening the
applications in an objective and transparent manner. The final aim
being to ensure that the important Nationalised natural resources of
the country i.e coal are distributed or allocated in an objective and
transparent manner lest the same may go into the hands of any
unscrupulous company.
421. Thus if in the light of aforesaid objectives the proceedings of

36th Screening Committee and especially as were held in its meeting
held on 03.07.2008 which stands reflected from the minutes Ex. PW
13/L (colly) are seen then it is found that for reasons best known to
the MOC officers who finally prepared the minutes in MOC, not only
the ultimate objectives which were to be achieved were lost
somewhere but even the process of reaching those objectives
became hazy and shrouded with grave shadows of doubts. A perusal
of the minutes of the meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16
(colly) clearly shows that one of the concern of MOC officers as well
as representatives of other members of Screening Committee
present was to filter out non-serious applicants. It was mentioned in
the said minutes that if the non-serious applicants are filtered out then
the same would ensure more objective and critical evaluation of the
competent applicants. It is however entirely a different matter that
later on it was decided that instead of filtering out non-serious
applicants at the initial stage by laying down certain bench mark
criteria in conformity with the broad parameters indicated in the
guidelines, it would be advisable that all applicants be called for
personal hearing. The purpose of referring to the aforesaid minutes of
meeting held on 11.05.2007 repeatedly is to emphasise that though
all applicant companies were decided to be called upon for making a
presentation before the Screening Committee in order to avoid any
legal challenge to the process at a later stage by any such applicant
company who may not be called for making presentation before the
Screening Committee but the ultimate objective to filter out non-
serious applicants still remained to be achieved.
422. Thus if in the light of aforesaid objective to be achieved and

the process adopted for achieving the said objective, the minutes of
36th Screening Committee Ex. PW 13/L (colly) are seen then it is
found that applications of all such applicant companies who chose to
appear before the Screening Committee and made presentation
before it while also submitting the feedback form titled "Latest Status
of End Use Project" was considered alongwith applications of all such
other companies who despite service of notice chose not to make any
presentation before the Screening Committee and also did not submit
any feedback form titled "Latest Status of End Use Project". What
could have been a better criteria then this to filter out non-serious
applicants. Even if the process of calling upon the applicant
companies to make a presentation before the Screening Committee
and to submit a feedback form titled "Latest Status of End Use Plant"
is not read into the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of
coal blocks then also a right to give personal hearing to each of the
applicant companies by the Screening Committee has to be read as
inbuilt in the entire process of allocation of captive coal blocks. It
needs to be hammered repeatedly that the matter being dealt with by
MOC and the Screening Committee was allocation of important
Nationalised natural resources of the country i.e. coal which was
crucial for the infrastructural development of the country. It need not
be emphasised that during such process the Screening Committee
keeping in view the principles of natural justice thought it appropriate
to give personal hearing to all the applicant companies even though
the said procedure was alien to the guidelines. The said principles of
natural justice are thus to be necessarily read as inbuilt or inherent in
the guidelines itself. However on the other hand, the proceedings of
36th Screening Committee meeting shows that a company which as
per its own claim did not make any presentation and also did not
submit any feedback form clarifying the latest status of its end use
project was not only considered by the Screening Committee but was
even recommended for allocation of a captive coal block. It is the
claim of A-3 Amit Goyal himself that he had gone to Screening
Committee meeting venue only at the insistence of A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia in order to answer any query, if raised, by the Screening
Committee members regarding the audited balance sheets which he
was carrying with him. It is also his case and not disputed even by A-
2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that due to certain unavoidable
circumstances A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia could not appear before
the Screening Committee and thus A-3 Amit Goyal who was not even
an employee of the company A-1 M/s KSSPL but was only its
Statutory Auditor entered the meeting hall and just informed about the
inability of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in not being able to appear
before the Screening Committee.
423. Strangely enough the accused MOC officers have though

stated that if some representative of A-1 M/s KSSPL had appeared
before the Screening Committee and his attendance has been
marked in the attendance sheets kept at the meeting venue then he
must have made the presentation. However neither the records of
MOC nor the minutes of 36th Screening Committee Ex. PW 13/L
(colly), states as to which of the applicant companies did not appear
to make presentation or to submit feedback form. The minutes are
completely silent as to whether anyone appeared on behalf of A-1
M/s KSSPL or expressed his inability to make any presentation as the
authorised representative of the company could not appear due to
certain unavoidable circumstances.
424. Be that as it may, as no record of any presentation, if made

by A-1 M/s KSSPL or feedback form, if submitted to the Screening
Committee is available and the accused persons themselves are also
claiming that neither any presentation was made nor any feedback
form was submitted on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL to 36th Screening
Committee so I proceed to consider the matter further with the
assumption that no presentation was made on behalf of A-1 M/s
KSSPL and no feedback form was even submitted on behalf of the
company. Thus in these circumstances it becomes important to note
that if such a company can not be classified as a non-serious
applicant company then which other kind of company, the Screening
Committee was looking for to classify them as non-serious applicants.
It is a classic example of an applicant company which neither made
any presentation before the Screening Committee nor it submitted
any feedback form despite notice having been served upon it. It is
also not the case like the four other companies whose names find
mention in para 7 of the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) who had
subsequently sent their representations to MOC and the same were
circulated to all the members of the Screening Committee for their
information by MOC. Thus we have an applicant company like A-1
M/s KSSPL which admittedly as per the claim of accused persons
neither made any presentation before the Screening Committee nor
submitted any feedback form and even subsequent thereto did not try
to send its presentation and feedback form to MOC at a later stage so
that it could be circulated to all the Screening Committee members
but still the application of said company was not only considered by
the Screening Committee but was also recommended for allocation of
a captive coal block.
425. At this stage, it will be important to mention that in para 13 of

the minutes, the Screening Committee in determining the capacity of
end use projects took into consideration the following factors:
(i) The capacity indicated in the application form.

(ii) The capacity indicated in the MoU entered into between the
applicant company and the State Govt. concerned, wherever
applicable;
(iii) The realistic capacity addition likely to materialize by the
concerned.
426. Similarly in para 14, it is stated that the Screening 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,
recommendations of the State Governments and the Administrative
Ministries concerned etc.
427. Thus even if the aforesaid factors were considered by the

Screening Committee then it is found that in the absence of no
presentation having been made by A-1 M/s KSSPL and no feedback
form having been submitted, the realistic capacity addition likely to
materialize by the year 2010 of A-1 M/s KSSPL in the light of capacity
indicated in the application form or claims made in this regard in the
application form could not have been assessed by the Screening
Committee in an objective and transparent manner.
428. As earlier discussed, one of the likely reason for not making
presentation before the Screening Committee and non-submission of
feedback form by A-1 M/s KSSPL was that in its initial application
form Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10), it was claimed that by the year 2007,
the total production capacity of sponge iron of the company shall be
0.3 MTPA. Thus if the company was to make presentation on
08.12.2007 i.e. just 23 days before the end of year 2007 and to also
submit the latest status of its end use project then it would have been
required to explain the delay in attaining the milestones as indicated
in its application. The record as discussed above further shows that
even in the year 2012 the installed capacity of sponge iron of A-1 M/s
KSSPL was not more than 87000 tonnes per annum. Thus if the
company A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia had made
its presentation before the Screening Committee or submitted the
feedback form titled "Latest Status of End Use Project" then it would
have either repeated the misrepresentations made in the application
form regarding net-worth of the company and also as regard
production capacity of sponge iron or in the alternative any correction
if made in the said claims would have affected its chances of seeking
allocation of a captive coal block as status/stage level of progress
made and state of preparedness of the projects coupled with track
record and financial strength of the company were relevant factors for
the Screening Committee to arrive at inter-se priority from amongst
various applicant companies.
429. Moreover the minutes are completely silent as to in what

manner the interse priority of various applicant companies were
assessed or considered by the Screening Committee. Admittedly no
such interse priority chart or interse merit chart was prepared or
supplied to the members of the Screening Committee. The argument
that if all such things would have been mentioned in the minutes then
the minutes would have run into hundreds of pages, in my considered
opinion is not even worth considering especially keeping in view the
importance of matter being dealt with by the Screening Committee.
The minutes as mentioned above are not only silent about the
discussion which took place in the Screening Committee meeting but
they does not even mention the factors on the basis of which any
such interse priority or interse merit of the applicant companies was
arrived at.
430. Thus from the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that there

was no criteria followed by 36th Screening Committee much less a
discernible criteria followed by it in making its recommendation for
allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s
KSSPL. The manner in which A-1 M/s KSSPL has been
recommended for allocation of a coal block despite its application
being incomplete and it having not appeared before the Screening
Committee to make any presentation or to submit feedback form
clearly shows as to how much arbitrary was the functioning of
Screening Committee. I have also clearly discussed at length that the
decision in the Screening Committee qua Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal
block was primarily that of chairman i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta. PW-11 S.K.
Mishra has clearly stated that the final decision was not with his
consent. It has also been shown that the mere signing of final
recommendation sheets was not indicative of any unanimity amongst
the Screening Committee members towards the final
recommendations. The same were merely indicative of the fact that
such decisions were finally taken by the Screening Committee on that
day. Moreover in the overall scheme of things in which the entire
matter of allocation of captive coal blocks was handled by MOC it is
clearly evident that once the Screening Committee meetings were
over than there was nothing left either for the concerned State
Governments or for the Administrative Ministries to express their
resentment or to raise any objections to the final recommendations of
the Screening Committee. In fact the record also shows that the final
minutes of 36th Screening Committee were subsequently prepared
and finalised in MOC. All the three accused MOC officers were
associated in the preparation, finalisation and approval of the said
minutes. It is also not disputed that the said minutes were never sent
to various members of Screening Committee for confirmation before
they were sent to Prime Minister as Minister of Coal for approval. The
recommendation of 36th Screening Committee thus came to be
approved by Prime Minister as Minister of Coal. The said approval
with certain observations of Prime Minister as Minister of Coal qua
some coal blocks [The said observations did not pertain either to
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block or to company M/s KSSPL] were
conveyed to MOC vide PMO note dated 21.07.2008 Ex. P-11.
Thereafter the various notings in the files of MOC i.e Ex. PW 13/D
(colly) (D-6A) clearly shows that MOC proceeded ahead to issue
option/offer letters to joint allocattee companies and allocation letters
to single allocatee companies. The fact however remains that no
attention in the meantime was given to ensure that the final minutes,
if not draft minutes, are sent to various members of Screening
Committee. The option/offer letter was issued to A-1 M/s KSSPL and
M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. on 05.08.2008. The purpose of referring
to the aforesaid proceedings is only to highlight that there was in fact
no occasion for either the State Governments or to the Administrative
Ministries subsequent to the Screening Committee meeting held on
03.07.2008 to raise any objection. They could not have even known
that the views expressed by them or difference of opinion as stated
by them during the Screening Committee meeting will not find
mention in the minutes.
431. Thus if in the light of aforesaid circumstances, coupled with

the actual manner in which Screening Committee functioned as small
Committees concerned with individual coal blocks then it is clearly
apparent that it was primarily the decision of accused MOC officers
led by A-4 H.C. Gupta. PW-11 S.K. Mishra clearly stated that in the
discussion which took place qua Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in
the Screening Committee he and the three MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C.
Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria only participated. He
however claimed inability to recall as to whether representative of
Administrative Ministry participated in the discussion or not. He also
stated that the final decision was not unanimous as it was not with his
consent. It has also been already discussed at length that the
minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) of 36th Screening Committee are also
completely silent as to whether the final recommendations were with
unanimity of all members present or not. It has also been discussed
that while sending the file containing recommendations of Screening
Committee to Prime Minister as Minister of Coal for approval nothing
was mentioned that the guidelines issued by MOC governing
allocation of coal blocks have not been followed even though the said
fact was to the knowledge of accused MOC officers. It has also been
discussed that even subsequent to approval of recommendation of
Screening Committee by Prime Minister as Minister of Coal no effort
was still made by accused MOC officers to ensure that at least the
applications of selected companies which were only 47 in number are
checked for their completeness and eligibility. It has also been
discussed at length that the task of checking the applications of only
selected companies would have been much easier then to check the
applications of about 674 companies which were considered by 36th
432. Thus from the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as
discussed above it stands proved beyond shadows of all reasonable
doubts that the three accused MOC officers acted in pursuance to a
well-designed scheme of things in which they did not ensure that the
applications are checked for eligibility and completeness in terms of
the guidelines so that applications which are not complete or are not
eligible are rejected and are thus not placed before the Screening
Committee. The intention was to keep the field open so that in the
Screening Committee they may exercise the discretion vested in
them in favour of any applicant company they may choose to. Again
during the Screening Committee meeting also it was not disclosed to
the other members of Screening Committee that the applications
have not been checked for eligibility and completeness in MOC. No
efforts were even made during the Screening Committee meeting to
ensure that the guidelines regarding deciding of inter-se priority from
amongst competing applicants are complied with. They also with-held
all these aspects of non-compliance with the guidelines from Prime
Minister as Minister of Coal knowing fully well that he as Minister of
Coal and thereby incharge Ministry of Coal will proceed to approve
allocation of various coal blocks on the basis of recommendation of
Screening Committee only.
433. At this stage it will be apt to refer to Halsbury's Laws of

England, (Fourth Edition) 11 (1) Criminal Law, Evidence and
Procedure which talks about omission as under:
Undoubtedly the criminal law imposes no obligation on person

to act so as to prevent the occurrence of harm or wrongdoing.
Save in exceptional circumstances omission to act in a
particular way will give rise to criminal liability only where a duty
so to act arises at common law or is imposed by statute. Where
a person, with the requisite mens rea, by his conduct brings
about the actus reus of a crime, he commits that crime, and
conduct in this sense includes acts of omission as well as
commission. It is unnecessary to characterise the act
immediately causing harm as one of commission or omission if
that act forms part of a course of conduct undertaken by a
person. If the course of conduct is such that other persons, or
possibly the property of other persons, are harmed by its
performance, the accused will be criminally liable in respect of
his acts, whether they are of commission or omission.
434. Thus the various acts of omission and commission as

committed by the accused MOC officers clearly shows that they were
acting in cahoot with A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia in order to procure allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal
block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL. They clearly used their position as
public servant in a manner in which it was not intended to be used.
As earlier also mentioned no direct evidence is usually available to
prove meeting of minds or existence of any agreement amongst the
accused persons so as to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy but
the same has to be ascertained from the attending circumstances
which stands proved on record. From the broad principles governing
the law of conspiracy as summarized by Hon'ble Screening
Committee in the Nalini Case (Supra) as reproduced above, it is
clear that the MOC officers clearly acted in order to favour A-1 M/s
KSSPL so as to obtain allocation of captive coal block in its favour. It
is on account of these factors only that in the earlier part of my
judgment I had observed that the applications were so submitted by
A-1 M/s KSSPL under the signatures of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia
that submission of application was a mere formality as they were sure
to obtain allocation of a captive coal block. Similarly accused MOC
officers left no stone unturned in helping A-1 M/s KSSPL in procuring
allocation of a captive coal block from MOC, Government of India. In
order to assist the private parties so involved the accused MOC
officers clearly helped them at every stage of the entire coal block
allocation process in procuring allocation of a captive coal block.
Thus the offence of criminal conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B IPC is clearly
made out against the three accused MOC persons alongwith as
against A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.
435. At this stage I would also like to deal with one other
submission of Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Mohit Mathur for A-4 H.C.
Gupta that the guidelines issued by Ministry of Coal under the title
Processing of Application merely provided for checking of
applications for their completeness and eligibility but this Court has
rather called upon the accused MOC Officers to explain as to why
scrutiny of the applications was not undertaken in Ministry of Coal so
as to check whether the applications were complete and whether the
applicant companies were eligible for allocation of a captive coal
block or not. It was submitted by Ld. senior Advocate that the word
scrutiny connotes a much broader sphere then mere checking of
applications.
436. At the outset, I may however state that certainly the

guidelines issued by Ministry of Coal governing allocation of captive
coal blocks mentions about checking of applications for their eligibility
and completeness only before copies thereof were sent to
Administrative Ministry/State Government or to CMPDIL. However
not only during the course of trial the words "checking" and "scrutiny"
have been interchangeably used by the Court but even the accused
persons themselves also while cross-examining the prosecution
witnesses or while leading their defence evidence so used the words.
The important question which however arises is whether while using
the words "checking" and "scrutiny" interchangeably, the role of MOC
officers or their area of work or their role and responsibility have not
been sought to be increased from what was required to be done for
checking of applications to what may be required for scrutiny of
applications as claimed by Ld. senior Advocate. Accused persons
have also all through faced the trial after understanding that they
have been charged for not ensuring compliance with guidelines i.e.
as to why applications were not checked for their completeness and
eligibility in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC governing
allocation of coal blocks. Also nothing has been asserted at all as to
in what manner the accused persons have been prejudiced during
the course of trial by use of words scrutiny and checking of
applications interchangeably.
CONCLUSION
437. Thus moving ahead it is in the light of aforesaid

circumstances it needs to be examined as to ingredients of which of
the offences for which charges have been framed against all the
accused persons stands proved.
Section 420 IPC and Section 120-B IPC as against A-1 M/s
KSSPL, A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and A-3 Amit Goyal.
438. It has already been discussed at length and concluded that

ingredients of the offence of cheating i.e. u/s 420 IPC stands proved
beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts against A-1 M/s KSSPL
and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. It has also been already discussed
and concluded that both A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat MOC, Government
of India, so as to induce it to allot a captive coal block in favour of A-1
M/s KSSPL. Charge for the offences u/s 120-B IPC, 420 IPC and
for the offence u/s 120-B/420 IPC thus clearly stands proved
against A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia beyond
shadows of all reasonable doubts. Both the accused persons
accordingly stand convicted for the said offences.
439. However as against A-3 Amit Goyal also it has been already
mentioned that even though his conduct does not appears to be
beyond doubt but in my considered opinion the circumstances so
proved on record by the prosecution are not so conclusive as may
point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused only. In other words
it can not be stated that the circumstances proved against him are not
explainable on a hypothesis which may be consistent with the
innocence of the accused. A-3 Amit Goyal is accordingly acquitted
of the offence u/s 420 IPC as well as of the offence u/s 120-B IPC
and also for all other charges framed against him.
Section 409 IPC and Section 13 (1) (c) P.C. Act, 1988 as against
A-4 H.C. Gupta
440. As regard A-4 H.C. Gupta, who was Secretary Coal as well
as Chairman Screening Committee, I may state that though in his
dual capacity as above he was controlling the affairs of both MOC as
well as Screening Committee but it can not be stated that he was
exercising any dominion over the coal blocks to be allocated by MOC.
Undoubtedly in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC governing
allocation of coal blocks A-4 H.C. Gupta and other MOC officers were
well aware that based on the recommendations of the Screening
Committee, the MOC will allocate coal blocks and as discussed
above while forwarding the recommendations of Screening
Committee to Prime Minister as Minister of Coal, it was no where
disclosed by the accused MOC officers that the guidelines either qua
checking of applications for their eligibility and completeness in MOC
or qua ascertaining interse priority of applicant companies in
Screening Committee have not been followed. They thus certainly
exploited this situation by abusing their offices as already discussed
above at length in order to procure allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL by also
withholding all material information regarding non-compliance with
the guidelines from Prime Minister as Minister of Coal.
However the prosecution has been unable to prove that

A-4 H.C. Gupta was exercising any dominion/control over the said
coal blocks or that the said nationalised natural resources of the
country were entrusted to him in any manner. Certainly A-4 H.C.
Gupta alongwith A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were playing
major roles in the coal block allocation process and by their acts of
omission and commission they did assist A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia in procuring allocation of Thesgora-
B/Rudrapuri coal block from MOC, Government of India on the basis
of false claims/misrepresentations and submitting incomplete
application which was liable to be rejected at the initial stage itself.
However as the basic essential ingredient of the offence of criminal
breach of trust by a public servant i.e. of section 409 IPC or that of
the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant u/s 13 (1) (c)
P.C. Act, 1988, that the public servant concerned must have been
either entrusted with the property in question or he must be having
dominion/control over the property in question does not stand proved
as regard A-4 H.C. Gupta vis-a-vis the coal blocks to be allocated by
MOC, Government of India so the issue whether the other ingredients
of the two offences stand proved or not need not be gone through.
Accordingly charge for the offence u/s 409 IPC and offence u/s 13 (1)
(c) P.C. Act, 1988 does not stand proved against A-4 H.C. Gupta.
Accordingly A-4 H.C. Gupta is acquitted of the offence
u/s 409 IPC and of the offence u/s 13 (1) (c) P.C. Act, 1988.
Section 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988
441. Before proceeding to analyse the charge for the offence u/s
13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988 as framed against the three accused MOC
officers, it will be pertinent to first have a glance over the said section.
Section 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act 1988 read as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-- (1) A public

servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a)......
(b)......
(c)......
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(iii) While holding office as a public servant,
obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
or
(e)......."
442. Apparently offence u/s 13 (1) (d) (i) P.C. Act, 1988, shall stand
attracted only if it is proved by the prosecution that the public servant
involved committed the offence of criminal misconduct by using any
illegal or corrupt means. However neither there is any allegation of
prosecution nor any such evidence available on record which may
show that any of the three MOC officers obtained allocation of
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL by any
corrupt or illegal means as have been contemplated in section 13 (1)
(d) (i) P.C. Act, 1988. There could have been number of reasons to
accused MOC officers for so acting in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL but
the same must be exclusively to the knowledge of accused persons
only and this Court in the absence of any evidence led on record in
this regard can not draw any presumption much less on conjectures
and surmises.
443. However as regard 13 (1) (d) (ii) P.C. Act, 1988, prosecution
is required to prove only that in order to obtain either for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the
public servant abused his position. Thus as is evident from my
aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the three accused MOC officers
clearly abused their position as public servant in order to obtain for A-
1 M/s KSSPL allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block. The
circumstances of the case as discussed above clearly shows the
existence of malafide intention on the part of accused MOC officers in
not ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by MOC
governing allocation of coal blocks. It also stands conclusively proved
that the accused MOC officers deliberately ignored compliance with
the guidelines so that none of the applications stand rejected either
on account of being incomplete or on account of the fact that the
applicant company was not eligible. The aforesaid non-compliance
with the guidelines clearly paved the way for them to exercise their
discretion in the Screening Committee in favour of any company
which they may choose to. Again during the Screening Committee
meeting also it has been conclusively proved that the final
recommendation in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL qua allocation of
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was not unanimous in nature. It is
thus clear that the accused MOC officers used their position as
officers of MOC in a manner in which it was not intended to.
444. Thus from the overall facts and circumstances as
discussed above it is crystal clear that the accused MOC officers
i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria abused
their position as public servants in order to obtain allocation of
Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL.
They are thus clearly guilty of committing the offence u/s 13 (1)
(d) (ii) as punishable u/s 13 (2) P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly
stands convicted thereunder.
445. As regard offence u/s 13 (1) (d) (iii) P.C. Act 1988 not much
discussion is required as it is clear that the accused MOC officers
acted with complete disregard to public interest in obtaining allocation
of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL much
less without any public interest. As a mark of caution, I may mention
over here that while considering as to whether the offence u/s 13 (1)
(d) (iii) P.C. Act 1988 is made out or not against the three accused
MOC officers the issue of there being requirement of any mens rea or
guilty intention on the part of accused public servants ceases to have
any significance as the guilty intention of the accused MOC officers in
the entire matter stands well proved beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts.
446. Certainly neither it has been argued nor it can be said that in
the process of allocation of captive coal blocks no public interest was
involved. Thus on account of manifest disregard to the guidelines
governing allocation of captive coal blocks and that too with malafide
intention by abusing their position as a public servant the accused
MOC officers completely acted without public interest so involved.
Thus offence u/s 13 (1) (d) (iii) P.C. Act 1988 r/w Section 13 (2)
P.C. Act, 1988 is also clearly made out against the three accused
MOC officers beside offence u/s 13 (1) (d) (ii) P.C. Act, 1988 as
already mentioned. The three accused MOC officers thus stands
convicted for.
Section 120-B IPC r/w sections 420/409 IPC and Section 13(1)
(c)/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
447. In view of my aforesaid discussion, when A-4 H.C. Gupta has

already been acquitted of the substantive offence u/s 409 IPC and
section 13(1) (c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so the charge
for the offence u/s 120B IPC r/w section 409 IPC and 13(1) (c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also does not hold ground
against all the accused persons.
448. At the same time, as A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and
A-6 K.C. Samaria have been held guilty of the offences u/s 13 (1) (d)
(ii) and 13(1) (d) (iii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accused
company A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia have
been held guilty of the offence u/s 420 IPC so all the accused
persons i.e. A-1 M/s KSSPL, A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, A-4
H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria also stands
convicted for the offences u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420 IPC and
section 13 (1) (d) (ii)/ 13 (1) (d) (iii) Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC.
449. Before parting away with the present judgment, I may also
mention that Ld. Counsel for the accused MOC Officers had
vehemently argued that since all the acts as have been attributed to
the accused MOC Officers in the entire coal block allocation process
were done in the discharge of their official duties so cognizance of the
offences u/s 409 IPC and section 120-B IPC against them was clearly
bad in law.
450. However, before proceeding to discuss the aforesaid issue, I

may mention that I had consciously not dealt with the present issue at
an earlier stage of the judgment as I first intended to examine as to
which offence(s) under IPC the prosecution may succeed in proving
against the accused persons. However as now charge for the offence
u/s 409 IPC does not stands proved against A-4 H.C. Gupta so the
issue of grant of sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC qua the said offence need
not be gone into. We are thus left only with the offence of criminal
conspiracy i.e. u/s 120-B IPC as against the three Ministry of Coal
Officers for whom it has been argued that sanction for prosecution u/s
197 Cr. PC is a sine qua non for taking cognizance. In this regard I
may mention that the present issue can be viewed from two different
stand points. Firstly, as discussed above the various acts of omission
and commission as were committed by the accused public servants
cannot be stated to have been committed by them while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. In fact it was
their position as public servant which provided them an occasion to
enter into a criminal conspiracy with the private parties involved but it
cannot be stated that they so acted either in the discharge of their
official duties or in the purported discharge of their official duties.
Moreover, 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 Honble 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 Cr. PC 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.
451. There is, however, yet another aspect of the present matter.
Since the role attributed to the accused public servants in the entire
criminal conspiracy is clearly traceable to the offences u/s 13 (1) (d)
(ii)/13 (1) (d) (iii) P.C. Act, 1988 so for any conspiracy to commit any
such offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no sanction
u/s 197 Cr. PC can be held to be required. Certainly, for a substantive
offence thereof under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sanction
u/s 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required. Admittedly, the
said sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is available
on record as against A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samaria. The said
sanction order also states that the competent sanctioning authority
has accorded the sanction for prosecution of the two accused public
servants for the offence u/s 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and for any other offences punishable under other provisions of
law in respect of the said acts. Further as A-4 H.C. Gupta has since
retired from Government service so no sanction u/s 19 PC Act, 1988
was required for taking cognizance of the offences under Prevention
of Corruption Act,1988 against him. Consequently no sanction u/s
197 Cr. PC is even required for the offence of criminal conspiracy to
commit any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 qua
him or the other accused MOC officers.
452. Ld. Counsels for the public servants while relying upon the
case N. K. Ganguly Vs. CBI (2015) SCC On-line SC 1205 however
strongly argued that for the acts allegedly committed by the accused
public servants no cognizance of the offences under IPC can be
taken without a prior sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC. However, I may
observe that in the N. K. Ganguly case (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has primarily reiterated the basic principle of law that for an act
which is alleged to have been committed in discharge of official duty
by accused the previous sanction u/s 197 Cr PC is a pre-requisite
condition. However with utmost respect I may state that the said
principle is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case in as much as the various acts of omission and
commission committed by the public servants and as discussed in the
present judgement can not be said to have been committed by the
accused MOC officers in the discharge of their official duties. As
already discussed above the facts of the present case clearly show
that A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria entered
into a criminal conspiracy with company A-1 M/s KSSPL and its
director A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia so as to procure allotment of a
coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL. Thus the said acts of entering
into a criminal conspiracy to commit offence of criminal misconduct
as defined under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be
deemed to have been done in discharge of their official duty by the
accused MOC officers. It is altogether a different matter that the
position of the accused persons either as Secretary, Coal and as
Chairman, Screening Committee or as Joint Secretary MOC and
Member Convener Screening Committee or as Dy. Secretary/Director
CA-I Section, Ministry of Coal provided them an opportunity to so
enter into a criminal conspiracy with the private persons. However, I
may again reiterate that the acts as stands proved against the
accused public servants i.e. A-4 H. C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and
A-6 K.C. Samria are such that if questioned they cannot claim that
they were acting in the discharge of their official duties.
453. Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there

is no requirement of sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC in the present matter.
454. The final conclusion as drawn by me herein above qua

various charges as framed against different accused persons may be
now summarized as follows:
CHARGES FRAMED
S. Name of (I) (II)

Final Decision
No accused Charges Common to all Charges
separately
framed
1 M/s Kamal (i) 120-B IPC 420 IPC Convicted for the
Sponge Steel offence u/s 120-B
& Power Ltd., (ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. IPC; 420 IPC; 120-
(through AR 409/420 IPC and Section B IPC r/w 420 IPC
Ankit Gandhi) 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) P.C. and section 13(1)
Act, 1988 (d)(ii)/13(1)(d)(iii)
P.C. Act, 1988.
Acquitted for the

offence u/s 120-B
IPC r/w S. 409 IPC
and Section 13 (1)
(c) P.C. Act, 1988
2 Pawan Kumar (i) 120-B IPC 420 IPC Convicted for the
Ahluwalia. offence u/s
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 120-B IPC; 420
409/420 IPC and Section IPC; 120B r/w 420
13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) P.C. IPC and section
Act, 1988 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(1)(d)
(iii) P.C. Act, 1988.
Acquitted for the

offence u/s 120-B
IPC r/w S. 409 IPC
and Section 13 (1)
(c) P.C. Act, 1988
3 Amit Goyal. (i)120-B IPC 420 IPC Acquitted for all

offences
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec.
409/420 IPC and Section
13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) P.C.
Act, 1988
4 H.C. Gupta. (i) 120-B IPC (i) Sec. 409 Convicted for the
IPC offence u/s 120-B
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. IPC; section 13(1)
409/420 IPC and Section (ii) 13 (1) (d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)
13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) P.C. (c) / 13 (iii) P.C. Act, 1988;
Act, 1988 (1) (d) P.C. 120B r/w 420 IPC
Act, 1988 and section 13(1)
(d)(ii)/13(1)(d)(iii)
P.C. Act, 1988.
Acquitted for the

offences u/s 409
IPC and section
13(1)(c) P.C. Act,
1988.
5 Kuljit Singh (i) 120-B IPC 13 (1) (d) Convicted for the
Kropha. P.C. Act, offence u/s 120B
(ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 1988 IPC; section 13(1)
409/420 IPC and Section (d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)
13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) P.C. (iii) P.C. Act, 1988;
Act, 1988 120-B r/w 420 IPC
and section 13(1)
(d)(ii)/13(1)(d)(iii)
P.C. Act, 1988.
Acquitted for the

offences u/s 409
IPC and section
13(1)(c) P.C. Act,
1988.
6 Kailash (i) 120-B IPC 13 (1) (d) Convicted for the

Chand P.C. Act, offence u/s 120-B
Samaria. (ii) u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 1988 IPC; section 13(1)
409/420 IPC and Section (d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)
13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) P.C. (iii) P.C. Act,
Act, 1988 1988;120B r/w 420
IPC and section
13(1)(d)(ii)/13(1)(d)
(iii) P.C. Act, 1988.
Acquitted for the

offences u/s 409
IPC and section
13(1)(c) P.C. Act,
1988.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (BHARAT PARASHAR)

TODAY ON 19.05.2017 SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT)
CBI-07, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CC No. 04/14
RC No. 219 2012 E 0016, Branch : CBI/EO-I/New Delhi
CBI vs M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd.
U/s 120-B, r/w Sec. 409/420 IPC,
& S. 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988.
19/05/2017.
Present: Ld. DLA Sh. V.K. Sharma, Ld. Senior PP Sh. A.P.
Singh, Ld. Senior PP Sh. Sanjay Kumar and
Advocate Ms. Tarannum Cheema for CBI alongwith
IO Dy. SP Sanjay Dubey.
Sh. Ankit Gandhi, AR of accused no. 1 company
M/s KSSPL is present in person.
Accused P.K. Ahluwalia (A-2), Amit Goyal (A-3),
H.C. Gupta (A-4), K.S. Kropha (A-5) and K.C.
Samria (A-6) are present in person.
Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. Counsel for A-1 and A-2.
Sh. Sushil Bajaj, Ld. Counsel for A-3.
Sh. B.S. Mathur, Ld. Counsel for A-4 and A-5.
Sh. Vikram Singh, Ld. Counsel for A-6.
Vide my separate judgment of todays date, accused

company M/s KSSPL (A-1), Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia (A-2), H.C.
Gupta (A-4), K.S. Kropha (A-5) and K.C. Samria (A-6) have been
convicted for the offence u/s 120B IPC.
Accused company M/s KSSPL (A-1) and Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia (A-2) have also been convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC.
Accused H.C. Gupta (A-4) has also been convicted for the
offences u/s 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. However, he has been acquitted for the offences u/s 409
IPC and section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused K.S. Kropha (A-5) and K.C. Samria (A-6) have
also been convicted for the offences u/s 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)(iii) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
All the five accused persons i.e. accused company M/s
KSSPL (A-1), Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia (A-2), H.C. Gupta (A-4), K.S.
Kropha (A-5) and K.C. Samria (A-6) also stands convicted for the
offences u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420 IPC and section 13(1)(d)
(ii)/13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused Amit Goyal (A-3) is, however, acquitted of all
charges. He has been directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount u/s 437A Cr. PC
and he has been directed to appear before the higher Court as and
when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition
filed against the judgment of this Court.
Bail bond u/s 437A Cr. PC has been furnished and
accepted.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Mathur for convict
H.C. Gupta and convict K.S. Kropha and Ld. Counsel Sh. Pawan
Narang for convict company M/s KSSPL and convict Pawan Kumar
Ahluwalia and Ld. Counsel Sh. Vikram Singh for convict K.C. Samria
have submitted that they intend to address arguments on the point of
sentence today itself. It was, however, told to them that if they wish to
argue on the point of sentence on some other day then the matter
can be adjourned but Ld. Counsels stated that they wish to argue
today itself. Accordingly, arguments on the point of sentence have
been heard as were addressed by Ld. Counsels for all the convict
persons and by Ld. DLA for prosecution.
Put up for orders on the point of sentence on 22/05/2017
at 02.15 pm.
(Bharat Parashar)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-07,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
19/05/2017.

HC Gupta Coal Block Conviction Order 29052017

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HC Gupta Coal Block Conviction Order 29052017

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IN THE COURT OF SH.

BHARAT PARASHAR, SPECIAL JUDGE

Case ID No. 02403R0053472014

C.C. No. 04/14

Date of order on cognizance : 13.10.2014

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

(1) M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd.

(2) Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia S/o

(4) Harish Chandra Gupta

(5) K.S. Kropha

(6) K.C. Samria

Present : Ld. Senior Advocate, Sh. R.S. Cheema, Special P.P.,

1. The present case pertains to allocation of Thesgora-B/

2. Briefly stated the necessary facts of the prosecution case are

In November 2006, Ministry of Coal (MOC), Government of

4. As regard coal blocks reserved for companies engaged in

5. As per the procedure provided in the guidelines for

6. On 08.12.2007 one Amit Goyal (Accused No.3) who was the

7. However, after some time a lot of hues and cry came to be

8. On the basis of said reference a preliminary enquiry was

9. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to mention that during the

13. As regard the role of public servants involved i.e. officers of

14. It was in these circumstances concluded by IO DSP Sanjay

15. However vide a detailed order dated 13.10.14, this Court

All the accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the

17. Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 18

19. Thus in the aforesaid factual matrix before adverting further it

PROSECUTION WITNESSES (PWs)

PW No. Name and designation Deposition/Role of the witness in the

PW-2 S. Ramanathan, Public independent witness in whose

PW-3 Prashant Ahluwalia He was one of the Directors of A-1 M/s

PW-6 Ved Prakash Sharma, He was also working as Section Officer

PW-9 Sewa Ram, Retired He deposed about the manner in which

PW-10 Rajneesh Mohan Singh, He proved the sanction for prosecution of

PW-11 S. K. Mishra, Principal He attended the 36th Screening

PW-13 V.S. Rana, Deputy He was posted as Under Secretary,

PW-15 R. Muralidhar, Retired He was posted as Under Secretary, DIPP,

PW-17 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, He had issued two certificates to company

DEFENCE WITNESSES (DWs)

DW No. Name and designation Deposition/Role of the witness in the

DW-3 Arunendra Prasad He was an employee of A-1 M/s KSSPL.

DW-5 Manzoor Ali Ansari, He was the then Dy. Commissioner,

DW-7 P.S.S. Reddy, He was posted as Director, MOC from

DW-8 S.K. Shivani, Under He was posted in Mineral Resources

DW-9 S.K. Shahi, Deputy He was posted as Director MOC from

DW-10 K.C. Samria, A- 6 K.C. Samria examined himself as a

DW-11 K.S. Kropha, A-5 K.S. Kropha examined himself as a

DW-13 Shiv Raj Singh, He was an IAS officer of Chattisgarh

After having briefly mentioned the deposition of various

S.No. Case Title Citation

26. The prosecution was thus stated to have been successful in

Arguments on behalf of A-1 M/s KSSPL.

27. As regard A-1 Ms/ KSSPL it was strongly argued by

30. It was also submitted that the complete chain of

37. It was thus submitted that prosecution has miserably failed in

38. The prosecution was thus stated to have miserably failed in

Arguments on behalf of A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia.

39. As regard A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia the arguments

40. It was also submitted that as per the advertisement issued by

43. As regard various replies given by A-2 Pawn Kumar

46. As regard the existing production capacity of the company it

47. It was also submitted that even subsequent to allocation of

48. In the aforesaid circumstances it was thus submitted that