CBI's closure report in coal scam devoid of reasoning: Court

CBI's move to close the coal blocks allocation scam case against Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Ltd and its directors today came under the scanner of a special court, which observed that the agency's closure report was "devoid of any reasoning or logical step".
Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar said CBI's closure report lacked any logical step through which it had come to the conclusion that there was no "element of criminality" in the acts of "omission or commission" allegedly committed by Coal Ministry officials.
"...Without going into any further length of the matter at this stage, I may state that from a bare perusal of closure report, it is broadly clear that it is devoid of any reasoning or logical step through which the investigating agency came to this conclusion of there being no element of criminality in the impugned acts of omission or commission committed by the officers/officials of the Coal Ministry," the judge said.

The observation came when the court sought clarifications from the investigating officer (IO) about the closure report.
As the IO was unable to answer properly on court's query, the judge posted the matter for further arguments on September 9 saying it would be appropriate to hear special public prosecutor (SPP) R S Cheema on the issue. Cheema was not present in the courtroom during the hearing.
"However, as the SPP is not available today so at this stage, I am refraining myself from making any further observations as it will be appropriate to hear him first," the judge said.

CBI, in March this year, had filed a closure report in the FIR in which Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Ltd, its directors, Pavan Ahluwalia, Kamaljeet Ahluwalia, Prashant Ahluwalia, its senior official Amit Goyal and some unknown public servants were arrayed as accused.

They were named as accused in the FIR for allegedly misrepresenting facts, including inflated net worth, to acquire coal blocks.
However, after the probe, CBI had filed a closure report saying they have not found sufficient evidence against the firm and its directors to proceed with the case.