The court convicted JIPL and its directors R S Rungta and R C Rungta for the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy under the IPC, observing that they had "fraudulently" and with a dishonest intention "deceived" the government in allocating the North Dhadu coal block in Jharkhand to the firm.
In its 132-page judgement, the court held that the "false representation" by the convicts "continued to hold ground even when the file containing recommendation of Screening Committee went to Minister in Charge, Coal, Government of India for final approval and thus it was primarily the Government which was deceived into making allotment of a coal block in favour of M/s JIPL while believing all such representations to be true, which in fact they were not."
It observed that offence of cheating under section 420 of the IPC was made out against the three convicts as their act resulted in "delivery of a valuable security",that is issuance of allocation letter for allotment of coal block to the firm.
More From This Section
The Rungtas, who were out on bail and were present in the courtroom when the verdict was pronounced, were ordered to be taken into custody and the court has now fixed the matter for March 31 for hearing arguments on quantum of sentence.
The court observed it was clear that JIPL and the Rungtas
knew that their claims about actual land possessed by them or steps taken to acquire any further piece of land besides existing installed capacity of their end-use project and the proposed capacity were "false".
"It is also clear that the accused persons, knowing fully well that the said facts were false, represented them to be true or as existing facts and thus misled Screening Committee and thereby Ministry of Coal to believe in the existence of said facts as true and thereby inducing it to part with the important nationalised natural resources of the country i.E. coal," it said.
Regarding the conspiracy amongst these convicts, the court observed that they had consciously made false representation at different stages of processing of their application for allotment of coal block before the Ministries of Steel and Coal.
"Different roles were played by the accused persons in order to support the claim made by each other before different Government authorities. The existence of a common agreement amongst the accused persons is thus writ large on the face of record," the court said.
"The mens rea (criminal intent) on the part of accused persons in making the said false representations right from the stage of submitting their application to Ministry of Steel seeking allotment of a captive coal block and till the issuance of final allocation letter with respect to allotment of a coal block in favour of company M/s JIPL is writ large on the face of record and that too while having complete knowledge that all such representations were false," it said.
alleged offences under IPC sections 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) saying they were not proved against him.
Similarly, the court acquitted R S Rungta for the alleged offences under sections 468 and 471 of the IPC.
The court dealt with the contentions of the accused that no such members of screening committee, who could have said that on account of misrepresentations they were deceived in parting away with the allocation of coal block in favour of JIPL, were examined during the trial.
"Thereafter, it was on the basis of said recommendation of the Screening Committee that Minister of Coal approved the allocation of North Dhadu coal block in favour of M/s JIPL.
"Thus by non-examination of any other member of Screening Committee, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused persons as minutes of the Screening Committee followed by approval from Minister of Coal and consequent issuance of letter of allocation speak for themselves," it said.
It said that CBI has rested its allegations in the case on misrepresentation by the accused on acquisition of land and installed or projected capacity of its end use project.
The court referred to documents placed before it and said that the accused had consistently changed their stands about the actual land acquired by them.