Don’t miss the latest developments in business and finance.

Coal scam: Argument on charge against Adhunik Corporation, directors on May 13

The court noted that the process of scrutiny of documents was complete

Representative image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Mar 14 2016 | 2:57 PM IST
A special court on Monday fixed May 13 for hearing arguments on framing of charges against Adhunik Corporation Ltd and its two directors in a coal scam case pertaining to alleged irregularities in allocation of Odisha's Patrapara coal block to the firm.

Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar fixed the date after the counsel appearing for the accused firm and its two directors, Nirmal Kumar Agarwal and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, informed the court that CBI has given them all the copies of the documents filed by it along with the chargesheet.

The court noted that the process of scrutiny of documents was complete and put up the matter for hearing arguments on framing of charges.

Earlier on January 15, the court had granted bail to both the directors of the firm after they appeared before it in pursuance to the summons issued to them.

The CBI had filed its chargesheet against the firm and its two directors for alleged offences under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged documents) of the IPC.

In its charge sheet, the CBI had said the 30th screening committee had recommended M/s Adhunik Corporation Ltd for part allocation of Patrapara coal block in Odisha.

Also Read


"During the course of investigation, it was found that M/s Adhunik Corporation Ltd had misrepresented on various aspects both to Ministry of Steel and thereby to Ministry of Coal with a view to cheat them so as to procure allocation of Patrapara coal block," CBI had said in its chargesheet.

While taking cognisance of the chargesheet, the court had discharged another director of the firm, Ghanshyam Das Agarwal, who was also chargesheeted by CBI in the case, saying there was no sufficient incriminating evidence on record which could lead to his summoning as an accused in the matter.

More From This Section

First Published: Mar 14 2016 | 2:42 PM IST

Next Story