New Delhi, Nov 3 (PTI) A special court here has discharged RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd, former Coal Secretary HC Gupta and three others in the Fatehpur East coal block allocation case in which they were chargesheeted by the CBI, saying there was no evidence to prosecute them.

The two promoters of the company, Andal Arumugam and T M Singaravel, and former Joint Secretary Kuljeet Singh Kropha have also been discharged by Special Judge Dheeraj Mor after hearing arguments from both sides.

Nearly three years after filing the FIR in 2014, the CBI submitted its closure report on September 21, 2017, claiming that allegations in the FIR under Indian Penal Code section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating), besides provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were not substantiated.

Not satisfied with the findings, the special court directed the agency to conduct a further probe. Six years later, the CBI submitted a charge sheet against five accused in 2023 under IPC sections related to criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In its charge sheet, the CBI had alleged that RKM Powergen and its directors misrepresented their project preparedness, submitted forged documents and cheated the government to secure the coal block.

Judge Mor did not find evidence to substantiate CBI's allegation while hearing detailed arguments from both sides with the company being represented by senior advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari.

The special court noted that the recommendation of the 35th Screening Committee in favour of RKM Powergen "cannot be held to be against public interest".

It said the decision to allocate coal blocks stemmed from a policy approved by the Energy Coordination Committee and the Prime Minister's Office to ensure optimum utilisation of coal reserves for power, cement and steel industries.

"Therefore, there is not even an iota of material available on record to suggest that the act of accused public servants was without public interest," the court said while discharging Gupta and Kropha.

The CBI had alleged that the company and its directors secured the coal block by misrepresenting their preparedness to set up a power project and by submitting forged documents, thereby cheating the government.

The court cited a testimony from the CBI witness A Ravishankar (CMPDIL) who had ranked RKM Powergen on top of all the applicants after fulfilling 09 criteria out of total 10 parameters -- underlining that the company was most deserving.

"Thus, it is evident that the accused... company (RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd) was the most deserving company for the allocation of Fatehpur East Coal Block out of all the applicants," the Special Judge noted.

The recommendation of the 35th Screening Committee for allocation of Fatehpur East Coal Block to the most meritorious and deserving company -- RKM Powergen-- is an act in public interest, he said.

The CBI had registered the Coal scam FIR on August 7, 2014, under Indian Penal Code section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating), besides provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

RKMPPL had submitted its application on November 13, 2006, to the Ministry of Coal for allocation of Fatehpur East Coal Block in Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, earmarked for the power sector, for its proposed 1200 MW Thermal Power Plant.

It was alleged that RKMPPL misrepresented its net worth to be Rs 306.14 crore, and the 35th Screening Committee and the officials of the Ministry of Coal deliberately violated the guidelines of the Ministry of Power and the guidelines for allocation of coal block, and shares were sold at a premium after the allocation making windfall gains. PTI ABS RT

Lack of evidence in coal allocation allegations results in discharge after screening committee recommendation upheld. The court found no material to substantiate CBI allegations that RKM Powergen, its promoters or public servants secured the Fatehpur East coal block by misrepresentation or forgery; it relied on evidentiary material including a witness ranking that the company met most criteria and held the Screening Committee recommendation was not against public interest, resulting in discharge for lack of evidence to prosecute.