Businessman Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, an accused in three coal block allocation scam cases and is seeking a joint trial, today told a special court that these matters were the outcome of the same "conspiracy" and cannot be tried separately.
His counsel told Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar that while various witnesses and documents were common in the three matters, the FIRs were "closely knit" and the alleged offences pertained to the same transaction.
The court fixed May 13 for hearing further arguments on the plea seeking joint trial in the three case.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Jayaswal, argued that CBI's allegation against his client in all the three cases was that he had conspired with former Coal Secretary H C Gupta, who is also facing prosecution in these cases.
"How can there be different conspiracies? It's like a wheel and Jayaswal and Gupta are connected through its rim. So there is a single conspiracy, if any," he contended.
He also said his defence in these three cases was the same and if these matters are not tried jointly, then it would prejudice him. "All the cases are based on the same cause of action and are outcome of the similar alleged conspiracy."
Jayaswal is accused in three cases pertaining to alleged irregularities in allocation of coal blocks to AMR Iron and Steel Private Limited, JLD Yavatmal Energy Private Limited and JAS Infrastructure and Power Limited, now known as Jas Infrastructure Capital Private Limited (JICPL).
Barring former Minister of State for Coal Santosh Bagrodia and retired public servant L S Janoti who are accused in one of these three cases, all others facing prosecution have not objected to the plea seeking a joint trial.
Janoti's counsel had earlier opposed the plea saying that number of documents and witnesses would be huge if these three cases are clubbed, while the other accused, including Gupta, have supported Jayaswal's plea.
In the AMR Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd case, Bagrodia, Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda are accused along with others. Dardas are accused with Jayaswal in JLD case.
All the accused in the three cases were earlier granted bail by the court and the matters were fixed for commencement of arguments on framing of charges.
The AMR case pertains to alleged irregularities in allocation of Bander coal block in Maharashtra to the firm, while JLD case relates to allocation of Fatehpur (East) coal block in Chhattisgarh. JAS was allotted Mahuagarhi coal block in Jharkhand.
Around eight different charge sheets have been filed
against Gupta and proceedings are going on individually. The Supreme Court had recently dismissed his plea seeking joint trial in all these cases.
Some of the cases in which Gupta was summoned as accused by the court include those relating to alleged irregularities in allocation of Thesgora-B Rudrapuri coal block to accused firm Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Ltd (KSSPL) and allocation of Moira and Madhujore (North and South) coal blocks in West Bengal's Raniganj area to Vikash Metal and Power Ltd.
He is also accused in a case of alleged irregularities in the allotment of the Amarkonda Murgadangal coal block to two companies of Jindal group and allocation of Brahmapuri coal block in Madhya Pradesh to accused firm Pushp Steels and Mining Pvt Ltd (PSMPL).
The court had on July 31 last year issued summons to the accused after taking cognisance of CBI's final report. The court had earlier refused to accept the probe agency's closure report filed in the case and had directed it to further investigate the matter.
It had noted that it was prima facie clear that officers of the Ministry of Coal or the screening committee had acted in a manner which was "detrimental" to public interest and they had allowed JAS Infrastructure and Power Ltd (JIPL), now known as JICPL, to "misappropriate" nationalised natural resources.
The agency had earlier filed a closure report in the case in which it had lodged an FIR against the firm, Jayaswal and others for alleged irregularities by JIPL in acquiring the coal block.
The FIR was lodged on the allegation that the company had not disclosed to the Ministry of Coal that it was already in possession of a coal block.
