The Supreme Court on Monday directed the CBI to file charges in six cases relating to irregular allotment of coal blocks in which it has completed its probe.
In one of the cases, the Jayaswal brothers — Manoj and Arvind — were named by CBI in its FIR relating to allocation of coal block which allegedly fructified after AMR Iron and Steel concealed and misrepresented facts that its group firms were already allocated coal blocks and that it was financially eligible to get the block.
The bench also asked the agency to wind up its investigations, which it has been monitoring for over a year, by April 30 and gave it a free hand to conduct probe against public sector undertakings in states. The court ordered that the agency need not seek statutory consent of states to investigate PSUs located in their geographical jurisdiction. The CBI had informed the court that as many as nine states had refused consent in this regard.
When the court wanted to know the delay in completion of investigation, senior advocate Amarendra Saran informed the court that the agency was awaiting response from various countries where letters rogatory had been sent. In addition to the six cases where chargesheets are to be filed in three weeks, the CBI is in the process of registering 13 regular cases pursuant to enquiry made against 87 companies.
Saran said out of 169 companies under probe, field inquiry against 149 had been completed. However, in relation to one preliminary enquiry (PE-5) involving the role of 75 state and central PSUs in coal allocation, the CBI claimed that several states had refused to accord sanction to prosecute its officers. Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act requires CBI to take prior sanction of state/Centre to prosecute senior public servants.
As the court is monitoring the case, the bench directed CBI not to await for states’ consent. “So far as Section 6 is concerned, there is no bar, restriction or impediment on the plenary powers of this court,” it said. Nine states had refused consent while nine others had given consent. The SC said, “Since this court is monitoring investigation, formal consent of concerned states is dispensed with.” The bench also issued notice to the CVC to know the manner in which it was supervising CBI investigations. Petitioner NGO CPIL’s counsel Prashant Bhushan had demanded setting up of an SIT alleging that some CBI higher-ups were attempting to tweak probe reports submitted to court, which fixed further hearing on March 10.
In one of the cases, the Jayaswal brothers — Manoj and Arvind — were named by CBI in its FIR relating to allocation of coal block which allegedly fructified after AMR Iron and Steel concealed and misrepresented facts that its group firms were already allocated coal blocks and that it was financially eligible to get the block.
The bench also asked the agency to wind up its investigations, which it has been monitoring for over a year, by April 30 and gave it a free hand to conduct probe against public sector undertakings in states. The court ordered that the agency need not seek statutory consent of states to investigate PSUs located in their geographical jurisdiction. The CBI had informed the court that as many as nine states had refused consent in this regard.
When the court wanted to know the delay in completion of investigation, senior advocate Amarendra Saran informed the court that the agency was awaiting response from various countries where letters rogatory had been sent. In addition to the six cases where chargesheets are to be filed in three weeks, the CBI is in the process of registering 13 regular cases pursuant to enquiry made against 87 companies.
Saran said out of 169 companies under probe, field inquiry against 149 had been completed. However, in relation to one preliminary enquiry (PE-5) involving the role of 75 state and central PSUs in coal allocation, the CBI claimed that several states had refused to accord sanction to prosecute its officers. Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act requires CBI to take prior sanction of state/Centre to prosecute senior public servants.
As the court is monitoring the case, the bench directed CBI not to await for states’ consent. “So far as Section 6 is concerned, there is no bar, restriction or impediment on the plenary powers of this court,” it said. Nine states had refused consent while nine others had given consent. The SC said, “Since this court is monitoring investigation, formal consent of concerned states is dispensed with.” The bench also issued notice to the CVC to know the manner in which it was supervising CBI investigations. Petitioner NGO CPIL’s counsel Prashant Bhushan had demanded setting up of an SIT alleging that some CBI higher-ups were attempting to tweak probe reports submitted to court, which fixed further hearing on March 10.
Next Story
