TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the impugned order and needs no reproduction. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed regarding purported diversion of coal by petitioners. However, impugned order does not direct petitioners to stand trial for the alleged diversion of coal and rightly so, as upon a bare reading of the supplementary charge-sheet, no case for diversion of coal by petitioners is made out. 3. During the course of hearing, the facts adverted to by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners as culled out from the charge-sheet are as under:- I. M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. (PIL) referred to as Accused No. 4 installed a sponge iron plant in the year 1993 with an annual production capacity of 1,50,000 MT per annum with one functioning kiln. (Para-17.3 of the Charge-Sheet at page-146 of Vol. I refers) II. In the year 1996, accused No. 4-PIL added another kiln increasing the annual production capacity to 2,50,000 MT per annum. Therefore, in the year 1996, the production capacity of Accused No. 4-PIL was 4,00,000 MT per annum. III. The third kiln having an annual production capacity of 2,00,000 MT per annum was installed in the year 2009. So, the total capacity of accused No. 4-PI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n meetings of 7th & 8th December, 2008 requested applicants to make individual presentations and on July 3, 2008 met to finalize all recommendations pending with them. The recommendation for allocation of additional 12,00,000 MT P.A. by Ministry of Steel in favour of PIL from Vijay Central Coal Block was cleared. (Para-17.6 at page-147 of Charge Sheet refers). XIII. However, before the final orders of allocation were made, M/s. SKS Ispat Power Ltd (SKS) on July 7, 2008 questioned the capacity of PIL as disclosed and accused PIL of inflated capacity and production figures to Secretary Coal. This representation was forwarded in July 8, 2008 to Ministry of Steel. [Para-17.8 of Charge Sheet on page-148 and D-7(Annexure P-9) at page 250 refers]. XIV. On July 9, 2008 Ministry of Steel sought fresh production figures from PIL for the last 6 months in respect of its sponge iron plant at Champa. (Para 17.9 at page 148 of Charge-Sheet at page 254 refers). XV. That PIL responded by letter dated 10.07.2008 under the alleged signatures of Accused No. 3-A. K. Chaturvedi, petitioner No. 1 herein giving excess production figures of sponge iron. Alongwith this letter ER Forms, Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the allege false representation of capacity by PIL is not substantiated. (at Para 6 page 349 in Vol. II refers). XXII. On further complaints, clarification was sought from Accused No. 1 & 2 on the contents of their spot verification report and they substantially reiterated their position on production capacity of PIL. XXIII. The crux of the prosecution is that the quantities of sponge iron manufactured by PIL as reflected in the attested copies of ER-I Forms and in the report of Basak and Soumen Chatterjee on September 5, 2008 are inconsistent with the data forwarded by PIL along with ER-1 Forms in their letter dated July 23, 2008. In fact, according to the charge-sheet, there are no ER-1 forms in original as copies thereof were submitted to the Ministry of Steel along with the alleged communication of 10th July, 2008. The original ER-1 Forms are in fact submitted to the Ministry of Steel by PIL on 23rd July, 2008. This fact is admitted by the prosecution (Pg 150 of paperbook refers)." The prosecution case on conspiracy angle qua petitioners is based on the following two elements: - ● That the report of accused-G.K. Basak and Soumen Chatterjee submitted on Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Memorandum of 23rd August, 2010 (Annexure P-24) also takes note of the true disclosure of facts by petitioners and the communication of 8th October, 2009 (Annexure P-20) of the Coal Controller to the Under Secretary in Ministry of Coal clinches the issue as in the aforesaid communication (Annexure P-20), it is concluded by the Ministry of Coal that no irregularity has been noticed. Thus, it was contended by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that impugned order is clearly erroneous as it does not take note of the internal departmental communication of 8th October, 2009 (Annexure P-20) in which the unambiguous conclusion reached is that no irregularity by petitioner-M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. was noticed. Thus, quashing of the impugned order is sought. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI has ably assisted this Court in the meticulous examination of the documents relied upon by the prosecution and had pointed out that petitioners' communication of 29th January, 2007 (Annexure P-5) relied upon by petitioners is not part of the charge-sheet and so, it cannot be made the basis to given a clean chit to petitioners. It was contended by learned Special Public....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. defence counsel submitted that in application of A-4 M/s PIL, the facts were already clarified and there was no misrepresentation on the part of A-3 A. K. Chaturvedi and A-4 M/s PIL. In respect of the question of forged ERs it was submitted that letter dated 10.07.2008 does not bear the signature of A-3 A.K. Chaturvedi and there is no material to show as how and who gave this letter to the Ministry of Steel. In view of the above discussion and evidence on record, prima facie the contention of ld. defence counsel appears meritless. As there was confusion about the production capacity and operating kilns, A-1 Goutam Kumar Basak and A-2 Soumen Chatterjee were appointed to give their report whereas A-4 M/s PIL was asked by the Ministry to submit ERs of A-4 M/s PIL. As per report of CFSL, both the letters purportedly written on behalf of A-4 M/s PIL by A-3 A. K. Chaturvedi are on the papers of the same source. Though letter dated 10.07.2008 does not bear the signatures of A-3 A. K. Chaturvedi, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution version is that the said letter has been fabricated by A-3 A. K. Chaturvedi on behalf of A-4 M/s PIL and 2 sets of ERs have been filed show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible." 11. In Rajiv Thappar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, Apex Court has further reiterated as under: - "30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id communication (Annexure P-14) reflects the correct factual position and in the face of aforesaid undisputed document, there remains no justification to put petitioners on trial in this case. 14. It would be worthwhile to note that the correct factual position was disclosed by petitioners, not only in its communication of 23rd July, 2008 (Annexure P-14), but at the earliest opportunity i.e. in petitioners' application of 12th January, 2007 for allotment of captive coal blocks, which is also a document (D-55) forming part of the charge-sheet. On behalf of respondent-CBI, it was much emphasized that petitioners' communication of 29th January, 2007 (Annexure P-5) disclosing the correct factual position is not part of the charge-sheet. This is true, but it appears from bare perusal of petitioners' communication of 29th January, 2007 (Annexure P-5) that it is a reiteration of petitioners' earlier communication of 12th January, 2007 (Annexure P-4) which infact is part of the charge-sheet and therein it is clearly disclosed that the existing capacity of the plant in question is 4 LTPA. No doubt, the sanctioned capacity of the existing plant in question was 8 lac metric tonnes per annum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h January, 2011 (Annexure P-13 colly.), which is part of the charge-sheet, prosecution is unable to show that it connects petitioners with the offence in question. The irresistible conclusion arrived at is that even with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC, petitioners cannot be put on trial with their co-accused who are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of the spot Inspection Report (Annexure P-16). 18. In a criminal trial, accused was discharged by the Sessions Court and the said order was reversed by the High Court and the Apex Court in Rajiv Thapper (supra) restored the order of discharge by observing that on the parameters formulated in the said decision, as noticed hereinabove, ought to be taken into consideration. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Rajiv Thapper (supra) deserve to be noticed and are as under: - "38. We are persuaded to conclude from the facts and circumstances of the case exhaustively discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, that all the steps delineated in paras 30.1 to 30.4, above can be answered in the affirmative, on the basis of the material relied by the accused, more particularly, the post-mortem examination report dated 28- 9-1992 conduc....