TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- CBI, ACB, Lucknow, District- Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 4. A coal linkage was granted to M/s Jai Durga Industries, Chandauli in the year 1987. A new coal distribution policy was introduced on 18.10.2007 by the Ministry of Coal, envisaging a new mechanism of coal distribution by way of entering into the Fuel Supply Agreement in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in M/s Ashoka Smokeless Vs. Union of India and in connected matters (2007) 2 SCC 640. As per new policy, the prices were to be fixed by Coal India Limited. Pursuant to the said newly devised system, a Fuel Supply Agreement was entered into between the M/s Jai Durga Industries and the Coal Company. 5. During the course of investigation, it has been found that the coal supplies have been made to M/s. Jai Durga Industries after taking certificate of the operational status from the State Industries Department i.e. District Industries Centre (DIC). After allotment of coal by the concerned coal companies, the coal companies used to write to the units dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been placed on the fact that in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI, no prosecution has been initiated against any of the erring officials of the NCL. The co-accused Ratan Singh, who is the Director of the Company M/s Jai Durga Industries Private Limited, had preferred a Writ Petition bearing No.6314 of 2020 before the High Court of Delhi wherein the High Court directed that his attached property shall be released subject to depositing of Rs. 70,25,716.40/- which was the alleged proceeds of the Agreement. Learned counsel has next submitted that the co-accused Ratan Singh had already deposited the said amount before the Registrar General of Delhi High Court in compliance of the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in O.C. No.1263 of 2020. Learned counsel has next submitted that as the present subject matter pertains to the amount of Rs. 70,25,716.40/- which has already been deposited by the co-accused Ratan Singh, no cause of action remains in the subject matter. It has further been submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicant except the present case. It was directed by the High Court to expedite the trial of the case but the same has proceeded in a snail's pace. It has f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh). In RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., the relevance of text and context was emphasized in the following terms: "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statutemaker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase but he could not dispute the fact that the amount in question has already been deposited by the applicant. 14. Learned counsel on behalf of the applicant has placed much reliance on the order passed by the Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another dated 16.12.2021, wherein it has been clarified by the Apex Court as under:- "We are also putting a caution that merely by categorizing certain offences as economic offences which may be noncognizable, it does not mean that a different meaning is to be given to our order." 15. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 1 SCC 152, it has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him, are the circums....