Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Manoj Kumar Jayaswal on 9 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI, COAL BLOCK CASES-01,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT11-000324-2020
Case No. CBI/41/2020
RC No. 221 2016 E 0002
Branch: CBI/EO-III/New Delhi
U/s 120-B IPC r/w 420 and 471 IPC
In the matter of:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Through: Sh. R.S. Cheema, Ld. Senior Advocate/Ld.
Special PP along with Sh. Narender Pratap
Srivastava, Ld. DLA, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld.
ALA, Sh. A.P. Singh, Ld. DLA, Sh. V.K.
Pathak, Ld. Sr. PP, Ms. Tarannum Cheema
and Sh. Akshay Nagarajan Ld. Counsels for
CBI and IO SP T.P. Singh.
Vs.
(1) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal
S/o Sh. Basant Lall Shaw,
R/o 8th Floor, JP Heights, Byramji Town,
Nagpur, Maharashtra-440013. ... Accused No.1
(2) Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal
S/o Sh. Basant Lall Shaw,
R/o H.No. 246, Usha Sadan,
Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Marg,
Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Accused No.2
(3) M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.
(Presently M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd.)
79/4, Prashant Nagar,
Ajni, Nagpur-440012
Regd. Office: The Knowledge Hub,
5th Floor, Plot No. DN-23, Sector-5,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091 ... Accused No.3
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 1 of 210
Through: Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Sh. Nagesh Behl, Sh.
Vishal Gourav, Sh. Sourabh Nagar, Ld.
Counsels for Accused No. 1 & 3.
Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, Ld. Senior
Advocate with Sh. Faraz Maqbool, Sh.
Rahul Pandey, Sh. Chandan Kumar, Ms.
Vismita Diwan and Ms. Sana Juneja, Ld.
Counsels for Accused No. 2.
Reserved On : 21.11.2024
Delivered On : 09.12.2024
S.No. Description Page No.
1 Chargesheet. 5-25
2 Charges. 25-35
3 Points for Determination. 35-36
4 1st Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 37-40
23.07.2004 sent by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry
of Steel is a forged letter?
5 2nd Point for Determination: Whether the four 40-41
Agreements to Sell dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004,
02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004 which were submitted by
Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its
letter dated 23.07.2004 are forged agreements to sell?
6 3rd Point for Determination: Whether three letters dated 41-43
15.04.2004 purportedly addressed to the Land
Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh which were submitted
by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its
letter dated 23.07.2007 are forged letters?
7 4th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 43-46
13.05.2004, purportedly written by UCO Bank, Industry
House, Mumbai to the Managing Director, M/s. Abhijeet
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused
No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated
23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
8 5th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 47
21.05.2004, purportedly written by Jammu and Kashmir
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 2 of 210
Bank Ltd to M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which
was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of
Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
9 6th Point for Determination: Whether purported Purchase 47-53
Order dated 12.05.2004 placed on M/s. Beekay
Engineering Corporation which was submitted by
Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its
letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged purchase order?
10 7th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 47-53
23.05.2004 purportedly addressed by M/s. Abhijeet
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to M/s. Beekay Engineering
Corporation, enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs.
80,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty lakhs only) in favour of M/s
Beekay Engineering Corporation towards 5% advance
payment for manufacture and supply of 2 numbers of 350
TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting
equipment which was submitted by Accused No. 3
company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated
23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
11 8th Point for Determination: Whether Money Receipt 47-53
dated 01.06.2004 purportedly issued by M/s. Beekay
Engineering Corporation for receipt of Rs. 80,00,000/-
from M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was
submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of
Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged Receipt?
12 9th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 53
16.09.2004 sent to the Ministry of Steel under the
signatures of the Authorized Signatory of M/s Abhijeet
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd is a forged letter?
13 10th Point for Determination: Whether the three Sale 54-60
Deeds dated 17.07.2004, 08.08.2004 and 28.08.2004
which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to
Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 16.09.2004 are
forged Sale Deeds?
14 11th Point for Determination: Whether the three letters 60-61
dated 03.09.2004 addressed to the Secretary (Revenue
and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi purportedly
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 3 of 210
signed by K.B. Singh, Advisor, General Administration,
M/s AIPL for sending the Agreement to be completed
and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition
Act towards necessary administrative approval for
acquisition process for acquiring 272.42 acres land with
its letter dated 16.09.2004 are forged letters?
15 12th Point for Determination: Whether Abhijeet Group 61-131
headed by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was
carved out of Neco group of Industries in the year 2002?
Evidence of PW-9 B.K. Agrawal 70
Evidence of PW-35 S.K. Moitra 70-73
Civil Suit 73-78
Draft Red Herring Prospectus 78-79
Letter of DW-5 Abhishek Jayaswal during preliminary 79-82
enquiry
Evidence of PW-12 Chandrasekhar Barde 82
Evidence of PW-27 K.B. Singh 82
Evidence of DW-1 Sohan Chaturvedi 82-88
Evidence of DW-2 Ashok Patro 88-90
Evidence of DW-3 Ashok Prasad 90-93
Evidence of DW-5 Abhishek Jayaswal 93-98
Evidence of DW-6 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal 98-114
Analysis 114-131
16 13th Point for Determination: Whether Manoj Kumar 131-143
Jayaswal was looking after affairs of M/s Abhijeet
Infrastructure Private Ltd (including allocation of Coal
blocks) during the year 2004 when false and forged
documents were submitted by M/s. Abhijeet
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel?
17 14th Point for Determination: Who submitted forged 143-148
letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 enclosing
therewith forged documents on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel?
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 4 of 210
18 15h Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has 148-164
proved the charge under Section 471 IPC framed against
Accused No. 1 and 3?
19 16th Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution 164-206
has proved the charge under Section 420 IPC framed
against all the three accused persons?
20 17th Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution 207-210
has proved the charge framed against all the three
accused persons under Section 120-B, 120-B read with
420 IPC and 471 IPC?
21 Conclusion. 210
Note - PDF in this judgment refers to page numbers from the soft copy of
the Chargesheet provided by CBI.
JUDGEMENT
1. Chargesheet: Accused No. 3 company M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Limited (M/s AIPL) was incorporated in the year 1984. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is arraigned as Accused No. 1 being the then Managing Director of M/s AIPL and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is arraigned as Accused No. 2 being the then Director of M/s AIPL.
2. Allegations against the accused are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Ministry of Steel (MoS), Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal (MoC), Government of India (GoI) for seeking allocation of Coal blocks (Brinda, Sisai and Meral) in the State of Jharkhand in favour of Accused No. 3 company by misrepresentations and by knowingly using forged documents as genuine.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 5 of 2103. Allocations of Coal blocks used to be made by the Ministry of Coal, GoI on the recommendations of Screening Committee, which was headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Coal.
4. The Screening Committee, in turn, used to call for the comments of the State Governments where the Coal blocks were situated or where the End Use Plants (EUPs) were proposed by the applicant companies.
5. The Screening Committee also used to call for the comments of the Administrative Ministries i.e., Power, Steel or Cement, as the case may be, before taking the decision for allocating Coal blocks in favour of applicant companies.
6. It was mandatory to have the views/recommendations of the Administrative Ministry before the Screening Committee entertained applications of applicant companies for allocation of Coal blocks.
7. Favourable views/recommendations of the Administrative Ministry were therefore prerequisite for seeking recommendations for allocations of Coal blocks from Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal, Government of India.
8. The Administrative Ministries used to consider detailed Techno-
Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR), financial status of the applicant companies to set up the End Use Plant and availability of land, water and financial closure etc. for giving their views/recommendations to the Screening Committee.
9. Therefore, the first step for a company desirous of seeking allocation of a Coal block in its favour was to have favourable views/recommendations of the Administrative Ministry.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 6 of 21010. Since the End Use Plant proposed by the Accused No.3 company was a Steel plant, the Administrative Ministry in the case of Accused No. 3 company was the Ministry of Steel.
11. Accused No. 3 company was striving to get a Coal Block allocated in its favour from Ministry of Coal since the year 2000 but without any success.
12. Chargesheet refers to the correspondence exchanged between the Accused No. 3 company and the Ministry of Coal/Ministry of Steel since the year 2000.
13. Phase-I of the correspondence: - Phase I of the correspondence is given in this judgment only for the sake of bringing complete facts on record. Otherwise, the allegations of forged letters and forged documents would be covered in Phase II of the correspondence.
1. Application dated 30.06.2000 given to MoC by M/s AIPL under signatures of N.M. Sarkar, Director for allocation of Lohari and Durgabati Khathautua blocks in Deltangunj Coal Fields, D-8, PDF 1089 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-144/PW-25).
2. Letter dated 30.06.2000 given to MoS by M/s AIPL under signatures of N.M. Sarkar, Director D-6, PDF 596 (during trial exhibited as Exhibit P-203/PW-29).
3. MoC vide letter dated 28.07.2000 called for further details including economic viability of the project from M/s AIPL, D-8, Page 16, PDF 110 (during trial exhibited as Exhibit P-146/PW-
25).
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 7 of 2104. M/s AIPL vide letter dated 30.07.2000 under signatures of N.M. Sarkar, Director requested MoS to recommend MoC allocation of Coal blocks in its favour, D-6, Page 33, PDF 628 (during trial exhibited as Exhibit P-205/PW-29).
5. MoS, vide letter dated 22.08.2000 addressed to Ministry of Mines and Minerals, Department of Coal recommended allocation of Lohari and Durgabati/Kathautua Coal block in Daltangunj Coal field in favour of Accused No. 3 company, D- 6, Page 39, PDF 634 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P- 206/29).
6. Letter dated 18/20.09.2000 was addressed by MoC to M/s AIPL requesting it to send requisite information through MoS, D-8, Page 22, PDF 1106 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-149/PW-25).
7. M/s AIPL vide its letter dt. 23.09.2000 under signatures of N.M. Sarkar, Director replied to the letter of MoC dated 28.07.2000, D-8, Page 24, PDF 1111 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P- 150/PW 25).
8. Letter dated 26.10.2000 was also sent by N.M. Sarkar, Director of A-3 Company to MoC requesting for allocation of Meral Coal Block in addition to Lohari and Durgabati Coal Blocks, D- 8, Page 31, PDF 1118 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-152/PW-25). A copy of this letter was also sent to MoS, who examined the same and vide OM dated 04.12.2000 recommended for consideration by Department of Coal, D-6, CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 8 of 210 Page 59, PDF 654 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-210/PW-
29).
9. Thereafter, the matter was considered by 16th Screening Committee meeting held on 31.05.2001 and decided that MoS should re-examine the proposal and send their recommendations.
10. MoS vide its letter dated 27/30.07.2001 requested Accused No. 3 Company to furnish justification for its request for allocation of three Coal blocks viz a viz its Coal requirement, D-6, Page 61, PDF 655 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-212/PW-29).
11. Accused No. 3 Company responded to this letter vide their letter dated 08.08.2001 under the signature of their authorized signatory, D-6, Page 62, PDF 656 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-213/PW-29).
12. MoS, vide its letter dated 31.08.2001 requested Accused No. 3 Company to submit revised updated Techno Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR), D-6, Page 74, PDF 668 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-214/PW-29).
13. On 03.12.2002, the Accused No. 3 company sent a letter under signatures of Ashok Prasad, Director (who denied his signatures on this letter during trial) stating therein that the report is under formulation and will be submitted shortly, D-6, Page 75, PDF 669 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-215/PW-29). The CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 9 of 210 change of name of AIPPL to AIPL was also informed.
14. Accused No. 3 Company through its Director Ashok Prasad (who denied his signatures on this letter during trial) vide letter dated 01.12.2002 also informed Secretary (Coal) about change of the name of Accused No. 3 Company from M/s AIPPL to M/s AIPL, D-8, Page 50, PDF 1137 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-156/PW-25).
15. MoC, vide its letter dated 28.01.2003, D-8, Page 53, Exhibit P-
158/PW-25, PDF 1140 advised the company to route its request for change in its name through Ministry of Steel. M/s AIPL never objected that it has not sent letter dated 01.12.2002 to MoC.
16. Accused No. 3 Company, vide its letter dated 14.12.2002, under the signatures of Ashok Prasad, Director, submitted Project Report prepared by M.N. Dastur and Company Limited to MoS, D-6, Page 78, PDF 672 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P- 216/PW-29). In this letter, reference was made to letter dated 31.08.2001 from MoS and to earlier letter of the company dated 03.12.2002 by Ashok Prasad, which is not possible without Ashok Prasad knowing about earlier letter dated 03.12.2002 on which he denied his signatures.
17. MoS took a decision on 11.03.2003 that the case of the unit is on the agenda of 18th Screening Committee and would communicate its views during the said meeting, D-6, Page 19, CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 10 of 210 PDF 574 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-202/PW-29).
18. M/s AIPL, vide letter dated 22.05.2003 signed by its authorized signatory requested the Screening Committee to withhold allotment of Kathautia/Durgabati block till receipt of recommendations of MoS regarding its sponge iron plant, D-6, Page 242, PDF 836 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-221/PW-28). In the file of MoC, the same is available at D-8, Page 61, PDF 1148. Ashok Prasad, during trial denied his signatures on this letter.
19. Letter dated 24.05.2003 was also written to MoS by authorised signatory of Accused No.3 Company requesting that Lohari and Kathautia/Durgabati blocks be not allotted to M/s. Usha Beltron without giving them an opportunity to represent their case, D-6, Page 252, PDF 846 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-222/PW-29). Ashok Prasad, during trial stated that this letter is not signed by him.
20. The Adviser (Coal Mining), D.Y. Moghe sent letter dated 26.05.2003 to MoS to send its recommendation to MoC for the next the Screening Committee meeting slated for 11.06.2003, D-6, Page 255, PDF 849 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P- 223/PW-29).
21. MoS, vide letter dated 05.06.2003, sent its recommendation in favour of Accused No. 3 company M/s. AIPL to MoC, D-6, Page 257, PDF 851 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 11 of 210 P-224/PW-29).
22. MoC, vide its letter dated 30.06.2003 communicated the minutes of the 18th Screening Committee meeting held on 05.05.2003 to Accused No.3 company, where it was decided that due to absence of recommendation of MoS, the case of the company was closed and the company was free to approach Screening Committee after recommendation of Ministry of Steel is received in its favour, D-8, Page 73, PDF 1160 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-160/PW-25).
14. Phase-II of the Correspondence: - Revised application dated 15.07.2003 signed by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, being the authorised signatory of Accused No.3 company, was given to MoC with copy to MoS and others. Due to change in the captive Coal blocks and suitability of location of the sponge iron plant in Jharkhand itself, the location of the plant was now decided to be near Chandwa, District Latehar from Sonbhadra in U.P., D-8, Page 76, PDF 1163 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-161/PW25) and D-6, Page 261, PDF 856 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-225/PW 29).
15. The subsequent exchange of letters is as under:-
1. In the 21st meeting of the Screening Committee held on 19.08.2003, views of CIL/CMPDIL were sought and the company was asked to submit the information/documents, including certificate of incorporation, memorandum and CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 12 of 210 articles of Association, last three years audited annual report etc.
2. Required information was provided by Accused No. 3 company vide its letter dated 30.10.2003 signed by D.Y. Moghe, authorised signatory of Accused No.3 company, D-8, Page 103, PDF 1190 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-165/PW-25).
3. Accused No. 3 company, vide its letter dated 04.11.2003 addressed to the Chairman Screening Committee mentioned that as per their understanding CIL/CMPDIL are recommending only Brinda and Sisai Coal blocks to the company, which will be insufficient for their requirement, D-8, Page 192/222, PDF 1339 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-
166/PW-25).
4. The 22nd meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 04.11.2003 in which the matter of the company was deferred and the company requested MoC to ask CMPDIL to review its comments.
5. In view of this, MoC wrote a letter to MoS enclosing therewith the letters of the Accused No. 3 company dated 30.10.2003 signed by DY Moghe, authorised signatory of Accused No.3 company, D-8, Page 103, PDF 1190 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-165/PW 25), 04.11.2003 and 10.11.2003 signed by DY Moghe, authorised signatory of Accused No.3 company, D-
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 13 of 2108, Page 224, PDF 1341 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P- 167/PW 23) to seek its views and comments.
6. Admittedly, the 18th Screening Committee meeting held on 05.05.2003, 21st Screening Committee meeting held on 19.08.2003 and 22nd Screening Committee meeting held on 04.11.2003 were attended by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal on behalf of AIPL as its Director.
7. Accused No.3 company wrote a letter dated 24.11.2003 under signatures of DY Moghe, authorised signatory, to MoS requesting it to support its case for allotment of Coal block in next the Screening Committee meeting, D-6, Page 280, PDF 875 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-227/PW 29).
8. In response, MoS vide its letter dated 26.02.2004 asked the Accused No.3 company to furnish details of effective steps taken by it for implementation of the revised projects and detailed TEFR, D-6, Page 321, PDF 931 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-228/PW-29).
9. DY Moghe, authorised signatory of the Accused No. 3 company vide letter dated 21.04.2004, provided a copy of Memorandum of Understanding signed by AIPL with Jharkhand State Government on 26.02.2004 for investment in the state, D-6, Page 322, Exhibit P-229/PW-29 (colly).
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 14 of 21016. An important letter of Ministry of Steel, which is relevant for the decision of this case, is letter dated 03.06.2004, D-6, Page 332, PDF 942 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-230/PW-29).
17. In this letter, Ministry of Steel requested Accused No. 3 Company to furnish details of effective steps taken for implementation of the revised project and to submit the detailed Techno-Economic Feasibility Report for the complete project with financial analysis.
18. The necessity to write this letter had arisen because according to the note sheet of Ministry of Steel dated 28.05.2004, D-6, Note Sheet Page 31, PDF 585, (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-202/PW-29), the letter dated 21.04.2004 D-6, Page 322, PDF 932 Ex. P-229/PW-29, written by Accused No. 3 company to the Ministry of Steel for recommending its name to the Ministry of Coal for allocation of Coal block was found to be "Sketchy".
19. According to CBI, in response to this letter of MoS, misrepresentations were made and forged and false documents were knowingly used as genuine, on behalf of Accused No. 3 company, AIPL.
20. The Accused No. 3 company responded to the letter of Ministry of Steel vide its letter dated 23.07.2004, D-6, Page 333, (Not Available in softcopy) (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-231/PW-29) and submitted revised and updated TEFR with financial analysis.
21. According to CBI, this letter was purportedly signed by Authorized Signatory of AIPL. The name of Authorized Signatory was not mentioned in the letter but the signatures were imitation of signatures CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 15 of 210 of one D.Y. Moghe who was the authorized signatory of Accused No. 3 Company M/s AIPL. D.Y. Moghe is no more alive.
22. According to the report of CFSL, D-48, PDF 7180 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-231/PW-29) the disputed signatures on this letter disagree with the specimen signatures (should be admitted signatures) of D.Y. Moghe.
23. Along with this letter "A Brief Write-Up on Effective Steps Taken for Implementation of AIPL's Sponge Iron Project" was also enclosed. This write-up at page 2 mentioned that:
"... Application for acquiring 272.42 acres of land was already submitted vide our three, village wise applications on 15-4-04, to the district authorities, copies enclosed. Out of the above-required land, for immediate start of the Project activity, 42.14 Acres available non-tribal land has been directly purchased. Copies of four agreements for above are enclosed. ... As the rest is Tribal land, there is no alternative to 'acquisition' route through State Govt. The land required for the project is however expected to be in Company's possession by the end of this year. Scrutiny of the land covered in the application has already taken place, and the matter is now with the Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh who will shortly forward it to the State Government authorities at Ranchi for prior approval. The Demand Note for 80% of the payment for land compensation is expected to be received shortly and provision for it has been made by AIPL in its current budget."
24. So far as Detailed design, engineering & Machinery for Plant is concerned, it was mentioned in the Note that:
"Detailed design, engineering & Machinery for Plant: The detailed design and engineering has long been made ready. Order has already been made for the P & M for two sets of 350 TPD kiln-WO copy enclosed as also copies of letter showing advance payment against the kiln order and receipts from the supplier are enclosed."
25. With regard to financial aspect, it was mentioned in the Note that:
"Finance aspect: The company has already taken up due steps to lineup this important aspect and accordingly AIPL has already made much progress with the UCO Bank and Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Letters are enclosed to CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 16 of 210 illustrate the above. It is expected that full Financial Closure will be achieved by end of August, 2004 but it may however be subject to the allotment of Coal Blocks. We would like to apprise your high office that allotment of Coal block particularly is linked by financial institutions as critical for the sponge iron plant, since factually also it cannot survive without captive source of Coal in this competitive world."
26. In the conclusion, the letter mentioned as under:
"Conclusion: Land is available for start of project activity. The other aspects like water, power and raw materials are lined up. Financial closure is taking place very shortly. Order for P&M for the 1 st phase has already been placed. Thus, all the project activities are progressing fast."
27. It is to be noted that the above information in bold letters and underlining is not by this Court but was provided by Accused No. 3 Company M/s AIPL itself to lay emphasis thereon.
28. Therefore, the allegation of CBI in the chargesheet is that following forged documents were submitted to MoS on behalf of Accused No. 3 company: -
(i) Letter dated 23.07.2004 purportedly signed by Authorized Signatory of the company, is itself a forged letter in as much as it bears the forged signatures of D.Y. Moghe who was the Authorized Signatory of the Accused no. 3 Company, D-6, Page 333, PDF Not Available in softcopy (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-231/PW-29).
(ii) Along with this letter, four forged agreements to sell dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004, 02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004 were submitted to show that for the immediate start of the project activity, 42.14 acres available non-
tribal land has been directly purchased by the company, D-6 Page 342, 345, 349 and 352, PDF 951, 957, 965 and 971 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P- 115-118/PW-20).
(iii) Forged letter of UCO Bank dated 13.05.2004 showing agreement in principle to fund proposed activity of the company to the extent of 50% of the total debt requirement and 50% of the working capital requirement, D-6, Page 361, PDF 984 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-235/PW-29).
(iv) Forged letter of Jammu and Kashmir Bank dated 21.05.2004 to show that there is agreement of the bank in principal (sic) to part fund debt and working capital requirements of the company to the extent of Rs. 55 crores as Term Debt and Rs.10 crores as Working Capital Loan, D-6, Page 362, PDF 985(during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-236/PW-29).
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 17 of 210(v) Forged Purchase order dated 12.05.2004 placed upon M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation ordering for manufacture and supply of 2 numbers of 350 TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting equipment for sponge iron plant at Hazaribagh worth Rs. 1600.00 lakhs, D-6, Page 357, PDF 980 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-232/PW-29).
(vi) Forged Letter dated 23.05.2004 addressed to M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation enclosing therewith cheque for Rs. 80,00,000 towards 5% advance payment, D-6, Page 359, PDF 982 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-233/PW-29).
(vii) Forged Receipt dated 01.06.2004 for Rs. 80,00,000 purportedly given by M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation for having received this amount as 5% advance from AIPL, D-6, Page 360, PDF 983 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-234/PW-29).
(viii) Three forged letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly written by AIPL to Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand enclosing therewith an application for land acquisition in the prescribed format in triplicate for acquisition of total 275 acres of land in Hazaribagh District for sponge iron plant as well as future planned expansion, D-6, Page 339-341, PDF 948-950 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-190/PW-27).
29. When this letter was dealt with in Ministry of Steel, in the note sheet dated 23.08.2004, D-6, Page 33, PDF 587 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-202/PW-29) it was recorded that:
"The company has not submitted the sale deed of land acquired for the purpose. Only photocopy of agreement have been furnished by the company..."
30. In view of this, the Ministry of Steel, vide letter dated 14.09.2004 D-6, Page 363 PDF 986 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-237/PW-29), probed deeper and requested the Company to furnish the documentary evidences in respect of land, power, water and pollution clearance.
31. Before this letter was issued by MoS, MoC had received letter dated 31.08.2004 from DY Moghe, authorised signatory of Accused No. 3 Company D-3, Page 87, Ex. P-173/PW-25, PDF 404. No witness has spoken about the signatory of this letter which appears to be DY CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 18 of 210 Moghe. In this letter, it was reiterated that 42.14 acres of non-triable land has been purchased by the company for facilitating immediate start of projects activities. It was also stated that order for supply of two numbers of sponge iron kilns have already been placed. It was also stated that term loan has already been lined up with the UCO Bank and J&K Bank.
32. The company responded to the letter of MoS dated 14.09.2004 vide its yet another forged letter dated 16.09.2004, D-6, Page 364, PDF 987 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-241/PW-29).
33. The name of Authorized Signatory is not mentioned on the letter but the signatures are imitation of signatures of D.Y. Moghe who was the authorized signatory of AIPL.
34. According to report of CFSL, D-48, PDF 7180, the disputed signatures on this letter disagree with the specimen signatures (should be admitted signatures) of D.Y. Moghe.
35. In this letter, it was mentioned that out of 42.144 acres of land for which copies of the agreements for sale had already been submitted, 22.06 acres of land is now purchased by AIPL and copies of land sale deeds are enclosed. The three forged sale deeds furnished by the applicant company are D-6, Page 372, PDF 995, D-6, Page 379, PDF 1008 and D-6, Page 386, PDF 1021 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-238/PW-29 to Exhibit P-240/PW-29).
36. Accused No. 3 had also enclosed with their letter dt. 16.09.2004, the three forged letters dated 03.09.2004 addressed to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi purportedly CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 19 of 210 signed by K.B. Singh, Advisor, General Administration, M/s AIPL for sending the Agreement to be completed and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act towards necessary administrative approval for acquisition process for acquiring 272.42 acres land D-6, Page 367, PDF 990, Page 369, PDF 992 and Page 371, PDF 994 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-191/PW-27 to Exhibit P-193/PW-
27).
37. Ministry of Steel believed these misrepresentations and believed that the forged documents submitted are genuine documents and vide letter dated 17.11.2004, forwarded the request of the applicant company to the Ministry of Coal for consideration of allocation of a suitable non- coking Coal block/sub-block commensurate with their washed/prime- coking Coal requirement, D-6, Page 406, PDF 1050) (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-242/PW-29).
38. This tantamount to recommending the name of M/s AIPL to MoC by the Ministry of Steel for allocation of a Coal block in its favour.
39. In the recommendation letter of MoS, weightage was given to the fact that the company has applied for acquiring 272.42 acres of land and has directly purchased 42.14 acres non-tribal land; the company has placed orders for 2 sets of 350 TPD kilns to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation and has paid Rs. 80 lakhs as advance money; UCO Bank, Bombay has agreed in principle to finance 50% of total debt requirement and 50% of the working capital requirement and the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd has agreed in principle to part fund their debt and working capital to the extent of Rs. 55 crores and Rs. 10 crores respectively.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 20 of 21040. As per the attendance sheet of the representatives of applicant companies, 24th Screening Committee meeting held on 09.12.2004 was attended by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal as Director (who had ceased to be the Director of Accused No. 3 company after 31.12.2001) and by A.K. Srivastava and Dr. V.S. Garg on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, D-72, Page 58-59, PDF 8341 (during trial exhibited as Exhibit P-67/PW-14).
41. The charge sheet alleged that Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after the work of allocation of Coal blocks and he, through his person/associates/relatives was pursuing the matter is with Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Coal and the State Government of Jharkhand. After division of group companies in year 2002, M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was taken over formally by Abhijeet group of Manoj Jayaswal. The chargesheet mentions that Manoj Jayaswal as Authorised Signatory of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd signed the letter dated 17.09.2004 addressed to Deputy Director (Industries) mentioning in the letter that the company was desirous of setting up 0.70 LTPA sponge iron plant in Chandwa in Latehar District of Jharkhand State. The chargesheet mentions that this letter connects Manoj Jayaswal with the issue of land acquisition by the company and is of the same period when the company submitted forged the land documents to the Ministry of Steel (the date of the letter is wrongly mentioned as 17.09.2004 in the chargesheet, whereas the date is 17.09.2003), D-15, Page 36-37, PDF 2578-2579 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-29/PW-6).
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 21 of 21042. Allegation of CBI is that Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had decided who would attend the meeting of the Screening Committee on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself had also attended the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee on the same day but for representing M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd though he had ceased to be Director in that company.
43. Screening Committee was also deceived to believe the misrepresentations made on behalf of Accused No. 3 company during that meeting. As per the minutes of 24 th Screening Committee meeting, D-71, Page 22-23, PDF 8259, (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-297/PW-38), the case of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was dealt with as under:
"The applicant stated that their application was more than 4 years old and gave a brief background of their case. They stated that they have a sound financial basis (Rs. 140 crores net worth) and have been in the business of iron and Steel for a long period. They have an MOU with Government of Jharkhand. They have acquired part of the land (that belonging to private parties) and the rest is under acquisition; financial closure has been achieved (for phase 1), consultant has been appointed and they have taken steps to construct a dam for water. Jharkhand State Electricity Board has approved the power requirement. The State Government have recommended allocation of iron ore mines, first kiln will be commissioned in December 2005; Government of Jharkhand supports the project and have written to the Ministry of Coal. Ministry of Steel have found their project viable and have recommended it. CMPDIL had also recommended their case for the blocks of Brinda, Sisai and Dumri. Their project has been delayed on account of earlier sought block having been given to another applicant leading to a change in location of the end use project near the Coal blocks being sought now. Being at an advanced stage of project implementation, they requested for early allocation of the 3 blocks. When asked by the Chairman to prioritize the 5 blocks asked for, the applicant stated that they would prefer the 3 blocks of Brinda, Sisai and Dumri being in the same Coalfield and contiguous to each other. The other two blocks, namely, Lohari and Meral were in another Coalfield, namely, Daltonganj and they should be allotted these 3 blocks as recommended by CMPDIL. Ministry of Steel recommended allocation of suitable block to the applicant.CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 22 of 210
Secretary (Mines), Government of Jharkhand stated that the land has not been acquired by the party yet and is likely to take time. Dumri, Brinda and Sisai blocks are in forest area and nearly 50% of these blocks are under forest. Although the status of these forest areas as to whether there are forest sanctuaries etc is not immediately known. The applicant stated that since mining is going to be largely underground in Sisai and partly in Brinda also, the problem of forest area is not likely to be a major issue. They further stated that they do not have any Coal linkage for this project. They stated that all the middlings generated as a result of beneficiation of this Coal would be used in their captive power plant/power plant or dealt with as directed by the Government of India.
The Screening Committee, after detailed deliberations decided that among applicants competing for Brinda, Sisai and Dumri, this applicant had applied way ahead of others, his requirement was large and he has a good track record, Ministry of Steel had strongly recommended his case. The other applicants, vis M/s. Bajrang Ispat Private Ltd and M/s.Pawanjay Steel and Power Ltd were later applicants. M/s.Bajrang's requirement was small and some blocking is not desirable, while M/s. Pawanjay had yet not given the required details to Ministry of Steel, who were consequently in no position to comment on the project. Therefore, as per M/s. Abhijeet's preference, Brinda and Sisai be allocated to them to meet their part requirement. They being the only applicant for Meral, they were given Meral block for the remaining projected requirement. It was decided to allocate Brinda, Sisai and Meral to M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for their proposed project. (emphasis supplied)."
44. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 24th Screening Committee meeting, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India was also cheated and vide letter dated 26.05.2005, allocation letter was issued allocating Brinda, Sisai and Meral blocks in the state of Jharkhand for captive mining of Coal by M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, D-3, Correspondence Page 61, PDF 1054 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-50).
45. Chargesheet relies on Civil Suit No. 603/2008 dated 02.05.2008 filed by Manoj Jayaswal against Neco Leasing Finance Private Ltd, Sh. BL Shaw (his father), Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal (his brothers) in the court of Civil Judge, Nagpur to allege that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal along with his sons, had decided to separate his ways CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 23 of 210 from the Jayaswal family business and accordingly in or around 2002, the Jayaswal family under the guidance of BL Shaw decided to allow Manoj Jayaswal to disassociate himself.
46. Chargesheet alleges that it was mentioned in that suit that the family decision was documented in the form of MOU according to which Abhijeet group was to consist primarily of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd, etc. None of the companies in either group was to use the name or the logo of any company falling under the management of the other group. It was also agreed that members of either groups would in due course withdraw their shareholdings in the companies falling under the management of the other group so as to disentangle mutual holdings.
47. In para 7 of the said Suit, it was mentioned that separation was absolutely complete in as much as it was decided that the constituents of one group would not participate in the decision-making or day-to- day affairs of the other group, D-74, PDF 8580 (during trial, exhibited as Exhibit P-52).
48. The chargesheet alleges that Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal and Accused No. 2 Ramesh Jayaswal were responsible for misrepresentation about land acquisition and for securing recommendation of Ministry of Steel on the basis of forged documents and also for securing recommendation of 24th Screening Committee dated 09.12.2004 for allocation of Brinda, Sisai and Meral Coal blocks and consequently allocation of those Coal blocks by Ministry of Coal.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 24 of 21049. Chargesheet alleges that Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal was present in most of the meetings of the Screening Committee when the matter of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was discussed though he himself showed his presence on behalf of M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd., para 16.61.
50. Chargesheet alleges that Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and Accused No. 3 M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd conspired with each other to get recommendation of Ministry of Steel based on fabricated and bogus documents and subsequently recommendation of the 24 th Screening Committee for allocation of Brinda, Sisai and Meral captive Coal block, and consequently got allocation of those Coal blocks, fraudulently and dishonestly from the Ministry of Coal.
51. Chargesheet alleges that Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and Accused No. 3 company M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 and 471 IPC and substantive offences thereof.
52. On 03.06.2022, following charges were framed against the accused persons:
CHARGE I, Arun Bhardwaj, Spl. Judge (PC Act) (CBI) Coal Block Cases-01, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, do hereby charge you (i) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (A-1) (ii) Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal (A-2) and (iii) M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - M/s AIPL) (A-3) represented through AR Sh. Jitender Singh Negi, as under:-CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 25 of 210
That during the period between 2000 to 2008 at Jharkhand, New Delhi and other places, all of you, the above named accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy whose common object was to cheat Ministry of Steel, Screening Committee and consequently Ministry of Coal (MoC), Government of India for the purpose of procuring allocation of applied captive Coal block (i.e., Brinda, Sisai and Meral Coal blocks in the State of Jharkhand) by adopting various illegal means viz by getting submitted bogus/forged letter dated 23.07.2004 along with various forged documents i.e. 04 forged Agreements-to-Sell with respect to purported purchase of 42.14 acres of land dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004, 02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004, bogus letters dated 15.04.2004 addressed to Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, bogus correspondence/letters to M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, Bhilai for purported purchase of machines i.e., forged purchase order dated 12.05.2004, forged letter dated 23.05.2004 purportedly enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs.80,00,000/- in favour of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation towards 5% advance payment and forged Money Receipt for Rs.80,00,000/-
dated 01.06.2004 from M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, false/bogus letter dated 13.05.2004 and 21.05.2004 of UCO Bank, Mumbai and J&K Bank, Delhi respectively for purported in-principle agreement for loan facility and forged letter dated 16.09.2004 along with 03 forged Sale Deeds and forged letters dated 03.09.2004 and thereby inducing Ministry of Steel to recommend allocation of applied Coal blocks in favour of AIPL. Further, false claims were made before the 24th Screening Committee meeting about availability of part land, rest of the land under acquisition and having achieved financial closure and thereby inducing Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal (MoC) to recommend allocation of Brinda, Sisai and Meral captive Coal blocks in favour of AIPL and on the basis of said recommendation of the Screening Committee, the MoC, Government of India was also cheated and allocated Brinda, Sisai, Meral Coal blocks in the State of Jharkhand vide allocation letter dt. 26.05.2005 in favour of AIPL and thus by way of such acts of omission and commission amounting to cheating and fraudulently/dishonestly and knowingly/having reasons to believe to be forged, using forged documents as genuine, you all committed the offence of criminal conspiracy being punishable u/s 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the aforesaid period and in furtherance of common object of conspiracy as described above you all did various acts of cheating and fraudulently/dishonestly and knowingly/having reasons to believe to be forged, used forged documents as genuine as have been described in the charges framed for the substantive offences against you separately and you all thereby committed offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 IPC and 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
And, I hereby direct that you all be tried by this court for the said offence.
*** CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 26 of 210 Charge:
I, Arun Bhardwaj, Spl. Judge (PC Act) (CBI) Coal Block Cases-01 Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, do hereby charge you (i) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (A-1) (ii) Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal (A-2) and (iii) M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - M/s AIPL) (A-3) through AR Sh. Jitender Singh Negi, as under: -
That you Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (A-1), Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal (A-2) and M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - M/s AIPL) (A-3) during the period between 2000-2008 at Jharkhand, New Delhi and other places in furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you all (described in detail in the separate Charge framed) cheated Ministry of Steel, 24 th Screening Committee meeting and consequently Ministry of Coal (MoC), Government of India as you Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (A-1) fraudulently/dishonestly and knowingly/having reasons to believe to be forged, used forged documents as genuine viz bogus/forged letter dated 23.07.2004 along with various forged documents i.e. 04 forged Agreements-to-Sell with respect to purported purchase of 42.14 acres of land dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004, 02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004, bogus letters dated 15.04.2004 addressed to Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, bogus correspondence/letters to M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, Bhilai for purported purchase of machines i.e., forged purchase order dated 12.05.2004, forged letter dated 23.05.2004 purportedly enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs.80,00,000/- in favour of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation towards 5% advance payment and forged Money Receipt for Rs.80,00,000/- dated 01.06.2004 from M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, false/bogus letter dated 13.05.2004 and 21.05.2004 of UCO Bank, Mumbai and J&K Bank, Delhi respectively for purported in-
principle agreement for loan facility and forged letter dated 16.09.2004 along with 03 forged Sale Deeds and forged letters dated 03.09.2004 and thereby induced Ministry of Steel to recommend allocation of applied Coal blocks in favour of AIPL and you Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal (A-2) gave a brief background of the case and also apprised the 24th Screening Committee about the acquisition of part of land belonging to private parties by AIPL and rest of the land being under acquisition and also apprised the Committee that financial closure has been achieved and the 24th Screening Committee was thereby induced to believe the misrepresentations made and induced by the recommendations of Ministry of Steel, recommended allocation of Brinda, Sisai and Meral Coal blocks in favour of M/s AIPL and on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the Ministry of Coal, Government of India was also cheated and allocated Brinda, Sisai and Meral Coal blocks in favour of AIPL vide allocation letter dated 26.05.2005. By doing so you, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited (earlier known as M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 27 of 210 Pvt. Ltd. - M/s AIPL) committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you all be tried by this court for the said offence.
*** Charge:
I, Arun Bhardwaj, Spl. Judge (PC Act) (CBI) Coal Block Cases-01 Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, do hereby charge you (i) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (A-1) and (ii) M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - M/s AIPL) (A-3) through AR Sh. Jitender Singh Negi, as under:-
That you Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and AIPL during the period between 2000- 2008 at Jharkhand, New Delhi and other places in furtherance of common object of criminal conspiracy (described in detail in the separate charge framed) hatched by both of you along with your co-accused Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and in response to letter of Ministry of Steel dated 03.06.2004 got submitted forged letter dated 23.07.2004 enclosing therewith forged Agreements to Sell dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004, 02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004, forged letter of UCO Bank dated 13.05.2004, forged letter of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Delhi dated 21.05.2004, forged Purchase order dated 12.05.2004 placed upon M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, forged letter dated 23.05.2004 addressed to M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation enclosing therewith cheque for Rs. 80,00,000 towards 5% advance payment, forged receipt dated 01.06.2004 for Rs. 80,00,000 given by M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation received as advance from AIPL and in response to letter of Ministry of Steel dated 14.09.2004, you got submitted forged letter dated 16.09.2004 along with forged Sale Deeds dated 17.07.2004, 08.08.2004, 28.08.2004, three forged letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly written by AIPL to land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand purportedly enclosing therewith an application for acquisition of land in the prescribed format in triplicate for acquisition of total 275 acres of land in Hazaribagh District for sponge iron plant as well as future planned expansion and three forged letters dated 03.09.2004 purportedly addressed to the Secretary (Revenue & Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi by AIPL enclosing therewith draft of Agreement to be completed and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, towards necessary administrative approval for the acquisition process and thereby fraudulently/dishonestly and knowingly/having reasons to believe to be forged, used forged documents as genuine and committed offence punishable u/s 471 of IPC and within my cognizance.
And, I hereby direct that both of you be tried by this court for the said offence.
*** CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 28 of 210
53. Allocations of Coal blocks including allocation made in favour of Accused No. 3 AIPL were cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.09.2014 in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary and others, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.(s) 120 of 2012.
54. CBI has examined 38 witnesses to prove the charges framed against the accused persons.
55. PW 2 and PW 3 are the Mukhiyas of the concerned village panchayats who were examined to prove that the sellers in the Agreements to Sell and Sale Deeds provided by Accused No.3 company are non-existent persons.
56. PW 11, PW 18, PW 19, PW 21 and PW 23 are witnesses from Coal department.
57. PW 26, PW 28, PW 32 and PW 33 are CBI officers who have deposed about the records of the Malkhana, evidence of hand writing expert and about investigation conducted in this case by them.
58. PW 7 is witness from J&K Bank to prove that the letter of the said bank submitted by Accused No. 3 company is a forged letter.
59. PW 34 and PW 36 are the witnesses from UCO Bank to prove that the letter of UCO Bank relied on by Accused No. 3 company is a forged letter.
60. PW 25, PW 31 and PW 38 are witnesses from Ministry of Coal to prove various documents of the Ministry of Coal.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 29 of 21061. PW 6, PW 9, PW 12, PW 14, PW 20, PW 27 and PW 35 are witnesses who have deposed about affairs of Accused No. 3 M/s AIPL.
62. PW 16 and PW 29 are from MoS, who have deposed about various letters and documents of Ministry of Steel.
63. PW 1, PW 3, PW 5, PW 10, PW 13, PW 17, PW 22, PW 24 and PW 30 are in the category of miscellaneous witnesses examined by CBI to prove forged Agreements to Sell, forged Sale Deeds, forged documents pertaining to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation and to depose about signatures of DY Moghe, the Authorised Signatory of Accused No.3 company.
64. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and written statement was also filed by Accused No.2 under Section 313 (5).
65. On behalf of Accused No.1, six defence witnesses were examined including Accused No.1 as DW-6.
66. Accused No. 1 had also taken steps to examine his father BL Shaw through commission but the application was not pressed considering the physical and mental condition of his father.
67. On behalf of CBI, arguments were addressed by Shri N.P. Shrivastava, Ld. DLA who relied on following judgments in support of the prosecution case:
Sr. No. Citation/judgment
1. Chandrasekhar Sureshchandra Bhatt & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 10 SCC 582
2. Nakul Kohli vs. State CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 30 of 210 Order dated 17.09.2010 Crl. MC No. 1917/2010
3. Nakul Kohli vs. State Crl. MC No. 2029/2010 Order dated 09.07.2010
4. Shivnarayan Kabra vs. The State of Madras 1967 AIR Supreme Court 986 Judgment dated 23.08.1966
5. Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishan Singla AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3084 Judgement dated 17.02.2004
6. Jayaseelan vs. State of Tamil Nadu Judgment dated 11.02.2009 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1901
7. Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. Judgment dated 21.05.2012 AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1979
8. Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. Ste of U.P. Judgment dated 04.02.2022 Crl. Appeal Nos. 339-340 of 2014
9. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors.
Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 200510. State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini and 25 Ors.
Date of Judgment 11.05.1999
11. Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Dated 07.10.2013 Crl. Appeal No. 1316 of 2012
12. Sarwan Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab dated 11.08.1976 AIR 1976 SC 2304
13. Sonu @ Amar vs State of Haryana dated 18.07.2017 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3441
14. Shyam Narayan Ram vs State of UP dated 21.10.2024 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 16282-16284 of 2023
15. Shamsher Singh Verma vs State of Haryana dated 24.11.2015 (2016) 1 UC 543.
68. Shri Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel addressed arguments on behalf of Accused No. 1 and 3 and filed (i) Written submissions (220 pages), CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 31 of 210
(ii) comparative table comparing the evidence on record to show that prosecution has not proved the existence of separate Abhijeet group in the year 2002, (iii) comparative table analyzing the evidence of PW 20 Harshad Pophali in reference to the evidence of the defence witnesses, (iv) written submissions to show that Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was not the Managing Director of Accused No.3 company AIPL , (v) judgment in the case of Santosh Kumar Jain V. Mehtab Singh Jain, 2018 SCC Online Del 8365, (vi) 127 paged Rejoinder Arguments, (vii) crucial aspects of the case on which no suggestion to the contrary was given on behalf of Accused No. 2, (viii) evidence in a tabular form to rebut the allegation that during 24 th Screening Committee meeting, queries were answered by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumay Jayaswal, (ix) 30 paged concluding remarks (x) details of the Screening Committee meetings attended by Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumay Jayaswal for representing Accused No. 3 company M/s AIPL and (xi) judgment in the case of Hanumant Versus State of Maharashtra, (1952) 2 SCC 71.
69. Following judgments are relied on by Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 in their defence:
1) Neeraj Verma Vs. State, CRL. M.C. No.3770/2005 2) State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Ors. 3) Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. 4) V.N. Deosthali v. State CBI, 2010 (1) JCC 466. 5) Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of MP, (1999) 8 SCC 649. 6) Surinder Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2008 decided on 16.10.2014. 7) Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189. 8) Ved Parkash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, 2013 (198) DLT 555. CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 32 of 210 9) Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406. 10) Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1256. 11) Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50. 12) Nanhar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 11 SCC 423. 13) Mangu Singh v. Dharmendra, 2016 (2) JCC 821. 14) Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725. 15) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra). 16) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. 17) Balaka Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511. 18) State of NCT of Delhi vs Rakesh, 2012 [2] JCC 1334. 19) Ashok Chawla vs. Ram Chander Garvan, Inspector CBI, (High Court
of Delhi), W.P. (Crl) 1429/2010, Decided on: 28-02-2011.
20) Paramjit Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 1694.
21) Mukesh Vs. State, 2010 (2) JCC 1563. 22) Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178. 23) Pawan Kumar vs. State & Anr, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10452. 24) Baljit Singh and Anr vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 4 SCC 590. 25) Standard Chartered Bank Vs Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. and Ors, (2006) 6 SCC 94. 26) Shyam Bir vs State (Delhi), 2009 (3) JCC 2121. 27) Ram Jas v. State of UP, (1970) 2 SCC 740. 28) Amar Nath Bhattacharjee v. Prasenjit Kumar Bose, 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 178. 29) A.M. Mohan vs. The State Represented by SHO and Another, 2024 INSC 233. 30) Vipin Sahni and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation dated
08.04.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2024 INSC 284.
31) State of M.P. v. Mir Basit Ali Khan, (1971) 2 SCC 96.
32) Ravi Somani v. State of Goa, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1710.
33) Stemcor India Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 2320.
34) Dr Sharma's Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn., (1998) 8 SCC 745.
35) Shrinivas v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 23. CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 33 of 210 36) State of Maharashtra Vs. Hansraj Depar Parle Oil Centre and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 216. 37) State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Baldeo Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 293. 38) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. 39) Jethsur Surangbhai v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Supp SCC 207. 40) Sudhdeo Jha Utpal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1957 SC 466. 41) Chatt Ram v. State of Haryana, (1980) 1 SCC 460. 42) Sudhdeo Jha Utpal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1957 SC 466: 1957 Cri LJ 583. 43) Dasrathlal Chandulal Joshi v. State of Gujarat, (1979) 4 SCC 338. 44) Soundara Pandian v. Viswanathan, 1984 SCC OnLine Mad 237. 45) Kachrulal v. P.H. Mawle, 1951 SCC OnLine Hyd 69. 46) Manilal v. State of Kerala, 1998 SCC OnLine Ker 265. 47) Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State, (1980) 3 SCC 110. 48) Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581. 49) Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 6 SCC 499. 50) Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of UP, (1981) 2 SCC 166. 51) Jumni v. State of Haryana, (2014) 11 SCC 355. 52) State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh And Browne Vs Dunn, dt 28.11.1983 (1998) 3 SCC 561. 53) SA v. AA, MANU/DE/0727/2016. 54) Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293. 55) Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289. 56) Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811. 57) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022 SCC OnLine SC 966). 58) SK. Maqsood v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 583. 59) King-Emperor v. Alimuddi Naskar, 1924 SCC OnLine Cal 136. 60) Machander v. State of Hyderabad, (1955) 2 SCR 524. 61) Sukhdev Shankar Nikumbe Vs. State of Maharashtra, IV (2000) CCR 242 (SC) MANU/SC/3556/2000. CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 34 of 210
70. On behalf of Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, arguments were addressed by Shri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior advocate, who filed two sets of convenience compilation and relied on CBI versus Srinivas D. Sridhar, 2024 SCC Online SC 2875, Abdul Fazal Siddiqui versus Fatehchand Hirawat and Another, (1996) 6 SCC 32 and Sudhdeo Jha Utpal versus State of Bihar, 1956 SCC Online SC 89.
71. Points for Determination: - On the basis of allegations in the chargesheet, charges framed against accused persons, evidence on record and arguments addressed, there are following points for determination in this case:
i. Whether letter dated 23.07.2004 sent by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel is a forged letter?
ii. Whether the four Agreements to Sell dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004, 02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004 which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 are forged agreements to sell?
iii. Whether three letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2007 are forged letters?
iv. Whether letter dated 13.05.2004, purportedly written by UCO Bank, Industry House, Mumbai to the Managing Director, M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter? v. Whether letter dated 21.05.2004, purportedly written by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd to M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
vi. Whether purported Purchase Order dated 12.05.2004 placed on M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged purchase order?
vii. Whether letter dated 23.05.2004 purportedly addressed by M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty lakhs only) in CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 35 of 210 favour of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation towards 5% advance payment for manufacture and supply of 2 numbers of 350 TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting equipment which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
viii. Whether Money Receipt dated 01.06.2004 purportedly issued by M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation for receipt of Rs.80,00,000/- from M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged Receipt?
ix. Whether letter dated 16.09.2004 sent to the Ministry of Steel under the signatures of the Authorized Signatory of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd is a forged letter?
x. Whether the three Sale Deeds dated 17.07.2004, 08.08.2004 and 28.08.2004 which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 16.09.2004 are forged Sale Deeds? xi. Whether the three letters dated 03.09.2004 addressed to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi purportedly signed by K.B. Singh, Advisor, General Administration, M/s AIPL for sending the Agreement to be completed and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act towards necessary administrative approval for acquisition process for acquiring 272.42 acres land with its letter dated 16.09.2004 are forged letters?
xii. Whether Abhijeet Group headed by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was carved out of Neco group of Industries in the year 2002? xiii. Whether Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after affairs of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Ltd (including allocation of Coal blocks) during the year 2004 when false and forged documents were submitted by M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel? xiv. Who submitted forged letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 enclosing therewith forged documents on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel?
xv. Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 471 IPC framed against both Accused No. 1 & 3?
xvi. Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 420 IPC framed against all the three accused persons?
xvii. Whether the prosecution has proved the charge framed against all the three accused persons under Section 120-B, 120-B read with 420 IPC and 471 IPC?
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 36 of 21072. 1st Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 23.07.2004 sent by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel is a forged letter?
73. Harshad Pophali PW 20 who had joined Jayaswal Neco Limited as Assistant Manager in the year 2003 has stated that he was working under DY Moghe who was the Advisor (Coal) in Jayaswal Neco Ltd during that time. DY Moghe as well as Accused No. 2 Ramesh Jayaswal were the authorized signatories of Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Limited. The authority letter dt. 30.10.2003 in their favour was exhibited as Ex. P-51 (A-2) (admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C. by Accused No. 2 Ramesh Jayaswal).
74. DW 3 Ashok Prasad, who was one of the Directors of Accused No.3 company also proved this Authority Letter during defence evidence and identified his signatures on this Authority Letter at both the places.
75. PW 30 Atul Moghe is the son of DY Moghe and proved that his father had died on 01.08.2017. He identified signatures of DY Moghe on letter dated 26.05.2003, D-6, Page 255-256, PDF 849 which was exhibited as Exhibit P-245/PW-30. He also identified signatures of his father, on letter dated 04.11.2003, D-6, Page 282-23, PDF 878 which was exhibited as Exhibit P-246/PW-30. He also identified signatures of his father, on letter dated 10.11.2003 which was exhibited as Exhibit P-247/PW-30, D-6, Page 284, PDF 879. He also identified signatures of his father on letter dated 21.04.2004, D-6, Page 322-326 which was exhibited as Exhibit P-248/ PW-30. He also identified signatures of his father, on letter dated 30.10.2003, D-8, Page 178, PDF 1296 which was exhibited as Exhibit P-249/PW-30. He also identified signatures of his father, on Authority Letter dated CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 37 of 210 30.10.2003 which was already exhibited as Exhibit P-51/A-2, D-6, Page 315, PDF 925. He also identified his father's signatures on letter dated 06.01.2004 which is already exhibited as Exhibit P-170/PW-25, D-8, Page 229-230, PDF 146. However, when he was shown Exhibit P-231/PW-29, which is letter dated 23.07.2004, D-6, Page 333 he stated that this letter does not bear the signatures of his father.
76. PW-33 Dr. Rita Rani Gupta, Assistant Director (Document), CFSL also gave her opinion in her report dated 04.09.2018, D-48, Ex. P- 267/PW-33, PDF 7180, that the authorship of the questioned signatures marked Q-399 could not be connected with the writer of the admitted signatures marked A-3 [Ex. P-51 (A-2), D-6, Page 315, PDF 925 as well as D-8, Page 178, PDF 1296] A-6 to A-8 attributed to Diwakar Y. Moghe. Some of the points of differences observed between signatures marked Q-399 and admitted signatures of the writer marked A-3, A-6 to A-8 are given by the expert as under: -
"i) Manner of execution of signature comprising the letters with the nature of its start, curved initial body, movement of stroke while making lower body of letter D, nature of slanted stroke and its nature of connection with the letter following, next letter with the nature of its body stroke, curvature in its lower body and its nature of connection to the letter following appears to read as o; letter o with the nature of its body oval as well as its simplified nature, movement of stroke while connecting to the letter following appears to read as g; letter g with simplified shape of its upper body, movement of stroke while making the lower body with loop, nature and movement of stroke towards upward direction connecting to the next letter appears to read as h and its nature of connection to the terminal letter appears to read as e alongwith direction of finish of terminal stroke, simplification of letters g, h, e and its nature of execution in as observed in the admitted signatures is not similarly observed in the questioned signatures.
The aforesaid points of differences are fundamental in nature and are beyond the range of natural variations. Cumulative consideration of the aforesaid points of differences observed between the questioned and the specimen signatures constitute the basis for the aforesaid opinion."
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 38 of 21077. This Court has also carefully compared the signatures of DY Moghe available on Exhibit P-51 with questioned signature at letter dated 23.07.2004 and have also arrived at a conclusion that the signatures on letter dated 23.07.2004 are not the signatures of DY Moghe.
78. So far as the accused are concerned, the submission on behalf of Accused No.2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is that there was a division in the year 2002 as per which the company Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd had gone to the share of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. After 2002, Abhijeet group was carved out of Jayaswal Neco group and all the control over Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. So, he has taken the stand that he has nothing to do with the submitting of letter dated 23.07.2004 by Accused No.3 company with Ministry of Steel.
79. The submission of Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that the separation of the two groups had taken place in the year 2008 and before that the control over this company was of his father BL Shaw, who only could have deposed about this letter, but because of his poor health he could not be examined.
80. Therefore, neither Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal nor Accused No.2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal has owned this letter.
81. Whether Abhijeet group was carved out of the Jayaswal Neco group in the year 2002 or 2008 and whether B.L. Shaw was controlling the affairs of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd when this letter was sent to Ministry of Steel will be examined in subsequent points for determination.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 39 of 21082. However, in the light of evidence on record, this point for determination is answered holding that letter dated 23.07.2004 sent on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel is a forged letter as it is not signed by DY Moghe, the authorised signatory of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.
83. 2nd Point for Determination: Whether the four Agreements to Sell dated 18.04.2004, 23.04.2004, 02.05.2004 and 13.05.2004 which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 are forged agreements to sell?
84. The vendors in Agreement to Sell dated 18.04.2004 are Khirodhar Sundi, Bhade Sundi. The vendors in Agreement to Sell dated 23.04.2004 are Karamchand Dusadh, Dhanu Dusadh, Hardayal Dusadh, Kishun Dusadh, Dayal Dusadh. However, PW-2 Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat Kud has stated that no person by such names ever stayed in the villages mentioned against their names in the Agreements to Sell.
85. The vendors in Agreement to Sell dated 02.05.2004 are Jagmohan Mishra, Ramsahay Mishra. The vendors in Agreement to Sell dated 13.05.2004 are Abdul Rashid, Abdul Hamid, Amanat Bano, Sultana Bano. However, PW-4 Mohd. Khursid, Dy. Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat Dhengura has stated that no person by such names ever stayed in the villages mentioned against their names in the Agreements to Sell.
86. Therefore, the vendors mentioned in all the four Agreements to Sell are non-existent persons.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 40 of 21087. All these four Agreements to Sell are signed by two persons for purchaser. They are K.B. Singh (PW-27) and Harshad Pophali (PW-
20). PW-27 K.B. Singh has stated that none of the Agreements to Sell is signed by him.
88. PW-20 Harshad Pophali has admitted his signatures on all the four Agreements to Sell. He has stated that he had signed on these Agreements at Ranchi/Hazaribagh as he was under instructions from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign on the documents to be produced before him by local persons who were arranging land for setting up of plant by the company. He has also stated that he was not knowing the sellers mentioned in these Agreements. He had made no effort to find out ownership of the land subject matter of these Agreements as he was under directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign all such documents as may be produced before him by local persons of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal for the purposes of acquisition of land.
89. The vendors of all these four agreements to sell are non-existent entities. One of the signatories for purchaser, Shri K. B. Singh has denied his signatures on these agreements to sell. This Court has also compared admitted signatures of Sh. K.B. Singh with his disputed signatures on these agreements to sell and is of the opinion that these agreements to sell contain forged signatures of Sh. K.B. Singh. Therefore, this point for determination is answered holding that all these agreements to sell are forged agreements.
90. 3rd Point for Determination: Whether three letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2007 are forged letters?
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 41 of 21091. It has come in the evidence of PW 29 Shri D. Kashiva that along with letter dated 23.07.2004, Exhibit P-231/PW-29 (Colly), D-6, Page 333 he had received several annexures. Along with this letter, in support of submissions that AIPL has applied for land acquisition in Hazaribagh District, three letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly signed by K.B. Singh, Adviser-General Administration, AIPL were enclosed.
92. K.B.Singh was examined by CBI as PW 27. He deposed that he has worked as Liasioning Officer with Jayaswal Neco group of companies from 1985 till 2008. After his superannuation in the year 2006, he was appointed as Advisor (General Administration) in M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd and was reporting to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The witness was shown, D-6, Page 339-341, PDF 948-950 which are letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly written by him and addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh District, Jharkhand, which are part of Exhibit P-231/PW-29 (Colly) and he stated that all these three letters were not signed by him. These three letters were exhibited as Exhibit P-190/PW-27.
93. The witness was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for Accused No.1 & 3. However, during lengthy cross examination no question was put to the witness regarding these three letters.
94. This court has also compared purported signatures of Shri K.B. Singh on these letters with his admitted signatures and is of the opinion that the signatures of Shri K.B. Singh have been forged on these letters. In a given case where a photocopy is used as the primary offending article, the same would be the primary evidence for the purpose of trial of the said case, Nakul Kohli v. State, (2010) 173 DLT 197.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 42 of 21095. Accused No. 3 company, which had submitted these three letters to the Ministry of Steel along with their letter dated 23.07.2004, made no effort to save these documents from being declared forged letters. The purported signatory of these three letters Sh. K.B. Singh has also denied having signed these letters. Therefore, this point for determination is answered holding that the three letters dated 15.04.2004 submitted by M/s. AIPL with their forged letter dated 23.07.2004 are also forged letters.
96. 4th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 13.05.2004, purportedly written by UCO Bank, Industry House, Mumbai to the Managing Director, M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
97. M/s. AIPL had submitted along with their letter dated 23.07.2004, a copy of letter from UCO Bank, Industry House, 159, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai conveying the agreement of the said bank in principal (sic) to fund proposed activity of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to the extent of 50% of the total debt requirement and 50% of the working capital requirement. This letter was proved as Exhibit P- 235/PW-29, PDF 984 by the Industrial Adviser of Ministry of Steel who had received letter dated 23.07.2004, enclosing this letter of UCO Bank from M/s. AIPL.
98. CBI has examined as PW 34 Shri Goutam Banerjee, who had retired as General Manager in Flagship Corporate Centre, UCO Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai in the year 2018. He stated that vide letter dated July, 2016, he had received from the IO of this case, a photo copy of letter dated 13.05.2004 purportedly issued by the DGM UCO CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 43 of 210 Bank, Industry House, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai. The Investigating Officer had addressed this letter to the Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Industry House, 159, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai. This witness had replied to the letter of the IO vide his letter dated 03.08.2016, D-64, Page 3, PDF 8014. He stated that the signatures of Deputy General Manager, on letter dated 13.05.2004, appear to be forged as it did not match with the specimen signature of the then Branch Head. He also stated that the Serial No. of the letter is different from the Serial No. used by the Churchgate Reclamation Branch, Mumbai during 2004 as the said branch letters were not having Serial No. prefixed by UCO/Adv/mum and apart from Churchgate Reclamation Branch, Mumbai, there was no such branch called Industrial Finance Branch at Mumbai during 2004. He stated that during May 2004, there was no Deputy General Manager post in that branch. He stated that as per the practice of UCO Bank, no blanket commitment for funding any project without any rider is given up front. He, therefore, stated that letter dated 13.05.2004, is a forged letter.
99. CBI has examined PW 36 Sh. Rajiv Vasantrao Vaidya, who had retired as DGM from Head Office, Kolkata, from the post of Secretary to the Chairman and Board of UCO Bank on 01.07.2012 on attaining superannuation. He had remained posted as AGM in the Churchgate Reclamation Branch, Mumbai since last week of April, 2004 till September, 2007. He stated that when he took over charge at Churchgate Reclamation Branch, the credit proposal of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was earlier submitted to Head Office for CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 44 of 210 approval/sanction. He stated that the branch at Churchgate Reclamation was headed by Assistant General Manager (AGM). He stated that he had initialed on letter dated 29.05.2004, Exhibit P-271/PW 34 (Colly) D-64, Page 4, PDF 8015. By way of this letter which was addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Credit Department, Head Office, Kolkata, he had arranged to forward photostat copies of all relevant papers as he was advised by the General Manager(O), R.O. Mumbai that the new proposal of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for Term loan of Rs. 20.56 crores and working capital limit of Rs. 4.10 Crores forwarded under cover of their letter dated 15.04.2004 was not received by the Head Office. He deposed that he had written letter dated 03.08.2004 to M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, D-64, Page 14, PDF 8025, part of Exhibit P- 271/PW-31 (Colly) advising the said company about the sanction for Term Loan and Working Capital by the competent authority. He stated that the proposal was falling under the discretionary power of the Head Office and not by the branch concerned.
100. When he was shown D-6, Page 361, PDF 984, Exhibit P-235/PW-29, he stated that as on 13.05.2004, the Churchgate Reclamation Branch was not headed by Deputy General Manager and was headed by Assistant General Manager, i.e., by himself. He stated that this letter was not signed by him. He also deposed that during that time, the reference numbers on the letters were written by the Churchgate Reclamation Branch prefixed by CHG and not UCO which is another reason to say that this letter was never issued by any official/officer of Churchgate Reclamation Branch of UCO Bank. He further stated that CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 45 of 210 the contents of this letter were not within the discretionary power of the branch to confirm/commit sanction of any credit proposal which was within the discretionary power of the Head Office. He stated that for this reason, the contents of this letter are in violation of the policy of the bank.
101. The response of Accused No.3 company is that letter dated 23.07.2004 and its annexures were not seized from the office of the company. The company's knowledge w.r.t. its contents or annexures cannot be presumed. The company had a change of control in the year 2008, whereupon a limited number of documents (3 trunks; as evidenced from D-74, Page 39, PDF 8618) were supplied to the persons who assumed control. However, this letter did not form part of the documents which were handed over to them. It is also the stand of Accused No.2 that Shri Sushanta Kumar Moitra was dealing with the banking activities of the entire BLS family companies, not any particular set of companies. He was appointed by Shri BL Shaw in/around the year 2000, because the flagship company M/s. JNIL had financially defaulted. Therefore, Shri Moitra had the responsibility of getting M/s.JNIL. For the sake of financial convenience loans were being acquired through M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd by projecting it as a distinct entity. This explanation offered by Accused No. 3 will be discussed while deciding other points for determination in this case.
102. In view of the evidence of PW 34, and PW 36 noted above, the fourth point for determination in this case is answered holding that letter dated 13.05.2004 enclosed by M/s. AIPL with its forged letter dated 23.07.2004 to Ministry of Steel is also a forged letter.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 46 of 210103. 5th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 21.05.2004, purportedly written by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd to M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
104. M/s. AIPL had also submitted photo copy of letter dated 21.05.2004 purportedly written by General Manager (Advances) of J & K Bank, Corporate Branch, Ansal Plaza, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi conveying their agreeability in principal (sic) to part fund their debt and working capital requirement to the extent of Rs. 55 crores as Term Debt and Rs. 10 crores as Working Capital Loan. The allegation of CBI is that this is a forged letter.
105. CBI has examined PW 7 Sh. Harshad Singh, who was the Branch Manager in J and K Bank, Ansal Plaza Branch, Hudco Place Khel Gaon, New Delhi during May, 2017 till August, 2018. The witness stated that after examining his bank records, it was confirmed that letter dated 21.05.2004 was not issued by their bank branch. He stated that in the said branch, there was no post of General Manager, Advances and the Branch was headed by Branch Manager. He stated that that letter dated 21.05.2004 is not a genuine letter and is a forged letter.
106. In the light of the evidence of PW 7 recorded above, this point for determination is also answered holding that the purported letter dated 21.05.2004 from J and K Bank enclosed by M/s. AIPL with its forged letter dated 23.07.2004 is also a forged letter.
107. 6th Point for Determination: Whether purported Purchase Order dated 12.05.2004 placed on M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation which CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 47 of 210 was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged purchase order?
7th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 23.05.2004 purportedly addressed by M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty lakhs only) in favour of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation towards 5% advance payment for manufacture and supply of 2 numbers of 350 TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting equipment which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged letter?
8th Point for Determination: Whether Money Receipt dated 01.06.2004 purportedly issued by M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation for receipt of Rs. 80,00,000/- from M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd which was submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 23.07.2004 is a forged Receipt?
108. As recorded earlier, Ministry of Steel, vide its letter dated 03.06.2004, Exhibit P-230/PW-29, PDF 942 had requested M/s. AIPL to furnish details of effective steps taken by the said company for implementing the revised project and detailed TEFR for the complete project and financial analysis.
109. On behalf of M/s AIPL, this letter was responded vide their forged letter dated 23.07.2004.
110. Along with this letter, the company had enclosed purported Purchase Order dated 12.05.2004 placed on M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, ordering for manufacture and supply of 2 numbers of 350 TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting equipment for sponge iron plant at Hazaribagh, Exhibit P-232/PW-29, D-6, Page- 357, PDF-980. Reliance was also placed on purported letter dated CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 48 of 210 23.05.2004 written by M/s AIPL to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, purportedly enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs. 80,00,000.00 (Rs. Eighty lakhs only) in favour of M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation towards 5% advance payment for manufacture and supply of 2 numbers of 350 TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting equipment, Exhibit P-233/PW-29 D-6, Page-359, PDF-982. M/s. AIPL had also relied on Money Receipt dated 01.06.2004 for Rs. 80 lakhs purportedly issued by M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation to M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Exhibit P-234/PW-29, PDF 983 after receiving Rs. 80 lakhs from M/s AIPL.
111. The question is whether the purported Work Order placed on M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, purported letter of M/s AIPL and Money Receipt purportedly issued by M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation are forged documents?
112. CBI has examined PW-5, Shri S.G. Mani to prove that the aforesaid Work Order, letter and Money Receipt are forged documents.
113. This witness was working as Deputy General Manager (Finance) in the year 2004 in M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation at Bhilai. He was looking after accounting and finance of the company. He stated that the practice being followed in the company M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation was that a prospective customer had to send a written enquiry to the company for procurement of their intended equipments. Once written enquiry was received by the company, an Estimation No. used to be allotted to that enquiry and the process used to start. If the company was capable of manufacturing such equipment, CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 49 of 210 then an estimation was made by the company and commercial offer was sent to the prospective customer. If the commercial offer was acceptable to the prospective customer, they used to place Work Order/Purchase Order on M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation. If the Work Order/Purchase Order was in line with the offer submitted by the company, then the Work Order/Purchase Order was accepted by the company and specific Work Order number was allotted against that Work Order/Purchase Order. He stated that no letter dated 12.05.2004 was ever received by M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation from M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. He further stated that no letter dated 23.05.2004 was ever received by M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation from M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. He also stated that M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation had received no cheque for Rs. 80,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank bearing No. 389561 dated 22.05.2004 towards 5% Advance Payment against order for the work of manufacture and supply of 02 numbers of 350 TPD sponge iron kilns, coolers and its supporting equipment. He also stated that no Money Receipt dated 01.06.2004 was ever issued by any AR of M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation to M/s. AIPL. He stated that the signatures appearing on this receipt are not the signatures of any person working in Finance Department or any other person of M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation. He stated that the Money Receipt of the customers was used to be issued by the Finance Department and the same was issued by him and in his absence by any other authorised signatory. He stated that both the letters and Money Receipt are forged as no such letters were ever received in M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation in favour of M/s. AIPL.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 50 of 210114. The case of Accused No.1, in his written submissions is:
"3.1.29 No investigation as to what is the nature of entity namely M/s Beekay Eng. Corp:
2. Que: M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, as per your investigation, was proprietorship, partnership or an incorporated company?
Ans. I have not investigated this aspect of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation being a proprietorship, partnership or an incorporated company. Vol. I had requisitioned the information/ document from M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation and the official concerned of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation had responded and provided the requisite information and I had recorded his statement.
3.1.30 IO did not even bother to visit the office of M/s Beekey Eng. Corp. and asked the information from the post.
4. Que: which of these four offices of M/s Beekay Engineeering Corporation did you visit, during investigation? Ans. None, I had called for information by post.
3.1.31 There was no investigation at all by the IO as to how accounts were maintained, how the Work Orders were maintained, who is owner, etc, yet believed on the letters of the firm:
5. I did not investigate the period from which various respective offices of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation started functioning. I can not tell at which of the four offices of M/s beekay Engineering Corporation was the Tally Accounting System and Unix Accounting System and relevant record was maintained. I did not make any investigation as to who in M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation was maintaining the record of Work's Orders placed by the customers. Neither did I check nor did I take help of any person having such knowledge to access and check the Tally Accounting System and Unix Accounting System of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation to see whether the questioned Money Receipt or any other evidence in respect of the same was existing in the Accounting System or not. Vol. I was not required to seel the Tally Accounting System and Unix Accounting System. I had issued notice to the said entity and information was provided by its General Manager Finance, who hd specifically stated that being Dy. General Manager (Finance) heading the department, normally he would issue such receipts under his signatures and even if under any circumstances somebody else would have issued the receipt, the signatures of authorized signatory on the said Money Receipt is not of anybody from the Finance Department. As head of the finance department, he would know all such dealings especially the payments with any company/entity.
6. I believed the version of Mr. S.G Mani and did not cross- verify by visiting the office of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation, where such record was maintained. Vol. Since I had no reason to disbelieve what he stated."CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 51 of 210
115. In the opinion of this court, these submissions of the accused do not help the accused in any manner in receiving a finding of this court that the Work Order placed upon M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, letter addressed to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation and Money Receipt for Rs. 80 lakhs are not forged documents and are genuine documents. The Investigating Officer had called for requisite information from M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation which was provided to him during investigation. The IO had recorded the statement of PW 5 S.G. Mani, who was the Deputy General Manager (Finance) in the year 2004 and was looking after Accounting and Finance of M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation. In case, any Work Order was placed upon M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation by M/s.
AIPL and in case the former had received a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs from the latter, it would have been in the knowledge of this witness. Moreover, the investigating officer need not visit the premises of all the witnesses during investigation and where the investigation pertains to documentary records, the same can also be by way of directions to the witnesses to provide the same.
116. It is worth noticing that in the purported letter dated 23.05.2004 and in purported Money Receipt dated 01.06.2004, the Branch of IDBI Bank is not mentioned by M/s AIPL, therefore, the Investigating Officer could not have verified from the IDBI Bank about such transaction in the absence of information of the drawee Branch of the Bank. If such a huge amount was ever given by M/s. AIPL to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation, it would have been very easy for M/s. AIPL to summon the statement of account from so-called IDBI Bank to CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 52 of 210 show to the court that payment of Rs. 80 lakhs to M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation were indeed made and it was a genuine transaction. The Branch of IDBI Bank on which the cheque was drawn in favour of M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation would have been especially within the knowledge of M/s. AIPL and therefore the burden of proving the said payment was upon M/s AIPL. Though the Accused No. 1 & 3 lead lengthy defence evidence and examined as many as six witnesses in their defence, they did not deem it appropriate to summon a witness from the so called IDBI Bank on which the cheque was drawn to prove the payment of Rs. 80 lakhs in favour of M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation.
117. Therefore, the 6th, 7th and 8th points for determination are answered holding that the Purchase Order dated 12.05.2004 placed on M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation by M/s AIPL, letter of M/s AIPL dated 23.05.2004 and Money Receipt dated 01.06.2004 which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel are forged documents.
118. 9th Point for Determination: Whether letter dated 16.09.2004 sent to the Ministry of Steel under the signatures of the Authorized Signatory of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd is a forged letter?
119. Relying on the evidence of PW 30 and PW 34 as well as reasoning of the Court while deciding the first point for determination, this point for determination is also answered holding that letter dated 16.09.2004 sent to the Ministry of Steel under the signatures of the Authorized Signatory of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to the Ministry of Steel is a forged letter.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 53 of 210120. 10th Point for Determination: Whether the three Sale Deeds dated 17.07.2004, 08.08.2004 and 28.08.2004 which were submitted by Accused No. 3 company to Ministry of Steel with its letter dated 16.09.2004 are forged Sale Deeds?
121. PW 1 Subhash Kumar Dutta was the Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh from 2015 to 2019.
122. From this witness, vide letters dated 11.04.2016, Ex. P-4/PW-1 (URD-
32) and 25.04.2016, Ex. P-5/PW-1, CBI had called for certified copies of:
Sr. Sale Deed No. Date Book Vol. Page Buyer
No. No. No.
1. 13817, D-6, PDF 17.07.2004 1 267 268-285 Abhijeet
995, Ex. P-1/PW-1 Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd.
2. 13292, D-6, PDF 03.08.2008 1 267 135-152 (Rectified to -Do-
1008, Ex. P-2/PW-1 268-285 vide letter
dated 25.04.2016)
3. 13505, D-6, PDF 28.08.2004 1 267 300-317 -Do-
1021, Ex. P-3/PW-1
123. The photocopies of the sale deeds enclosed with the letter of CBI were marked as Exhibit P-1/PW-1 to Exhibit P-3/PW-1 respectively. Copies of all these sale deeds were enclosed by Accused No. 3 company with its letter dated 16.09.2004 addressed to the MoS.
124. According to this witness, as per their records, these sale deeds were not registered in their office.
125. According to him, there was no sale deed bearing no. 13817 dated 17.07.2004 and sale deed No. 13817 was actually executed between Patia Devi and Gurudyal Ganju on 28.08.2004. Certified copy of this sale deed was exhibited as Exhibit P-7/PW-1, D-41, Page 3-7, PDF 7105. In this sale deed, the names of seller and buyer are different than CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 54 of 210 the seller and buyers mentioned in Ex. P-1/PW-1. The Book No., Volume No. and pages at which this sale deed was registered were different from the Book No., Volume No. and pages mentioned in the photocopy of sale deed sent by CBI, Ex. P-1/PW-1.
126. According to this witness, there was no sale deed dated 03.08.2004 with Registration No. 13292 and the sale deed No. 13292 was registered on 13.08.2004 and was executed between Amrendra Nath Trigunait, Balram Trigunait, Namita Devi, Sawaran Lata Devi and Jhamman Prasad. Certified copy of this sale deed was exhibited as Exhibit P-8/PW-1, D-41, Page 8-13, PDF 7115. The Book No., Volume No. and pages at which this sale deed was registered were different from the Book No., Volume No. and pages mentioned in the photocopy of sale deed sent by CBI, Ex. P-2/PW-1. In this sale deed, the names of seller and buyer are different when compared with the names of seller and buyers mentioned in Ex. P-2/PW-1.
127. According to him, sale deed No. 13505 dated 28.08.2004 was executed between Pradeep Kumar and Rajesh Kumar in favour of Kiswanti. Certified copy of this sale deed was exhibited as Exhibit P- 9/PW-1, D-41, Page 14-19, PDF 7127. In this sale deed also, the names of seller and buyer are different when compared with the names of seller and buyers mentioned in Ex. P-3/PW-1. The Book No., Volume No. and pages at which this sale deed was registered were different from the Book No., Volume No. and pages mentioned in the photocopy of sale deed sent by CBI, Ex. P-3/PW-1.
128. He also clarified that in the year 2004, the registration of the sale deeds was done in the name/designation of District Sub-Registrar CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 55 of 210 (Zila Avar Nibhandak) and not in the name of Sub-Registrar Office. He stated that the genuine sale deed should have seal impression of "Zila Avar Nibhandak".
129. He further stated that the stamps used for registration of sale deeds during 2004 and even today were/are in Hindi and not in English.
130. The witness also stated that genuine sale deeds should have a presentation seal containing the details of presentation of documents submitted for registration on the overleaf of the first page and should also have admission seal containing the details of admission of documents for registration on the first page.
131. The witness was cross-examined by learned counsel for accused No. 1 and 3 but nothing worth noticing came on record. No cross examination of this witness was conducted by Accused No. 2.
132. PW 2 Dheeraj Kumar was the Mukhia of Village Panchayat of Kud from 2015 to 2022 and before 2015, he was the Panchayat Secretary.
133. He stated that the village panchayat of Kud has three revenue villages under it namely Village Kud, Village Kud II and Village Rewali. Being the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhia of village panchayat of Kud, he was familiar with all the residents of these villages. He stated that no person by the name of Khirodhar Sundi, Bhade Sundi, Karamchand Dusadh and Dhanuy Dusadh, Hardyal Dusadh, Kishan Dusadh and Dayal Dusadh ever stayed in these villages. These are the persons who had purportedly signed sale deed No. 13817 dated 17.07.2004 and sale deed No. 13505 dated 28.08.2004.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 56 of 210134. PW-3 Raj Kumar Sinha was the Stamp Clerk, Treasury Office, Hazaribagh from 2001 to 2019.
135. Since in the year 2004 he was the Stamp Clerk, the stamp papers used for execution of Sale Deeds executed during 2004 should have had his signatures on the stamp papers. However, when he was shown D-6, Page 372, 379 and 386, PDF 995, 1008 and 1021, Exhibit P-1/PW-1 to Exhibit P-3/PW-1, he denied his signatures on these stamp papers. He also stated that during that time, the Treasury Officer was one Sh. Subhash Kumar, and he also stated that the purported signatures of the Treasury Officer on these stamp papers are not the signatures of the said Sh. Subhash Kumar.
136. He also proved Single Lock/Stamp Issue Register, D-43, Page 2 and 3, PDF 7152-7153 as Ex. P-12/PW-3 and P-13/PW-3 and stated that neither on 16.07.2004 nor on 03.08.2004 nor on 28.08.2004 any stamp paper was sold to M/s AIPL.
137. He also stated that in the Stamp Numbering Register, D-43, Page 5 and 6, PDF 7155-7156, Ex. P-14/PW-3 and Ex. P-15/PW-3, there is no entry bearing no. 00004382, 4381, 4380, 4370, 16115 which is reflected on purported sale deed Ex. P-1/PW-1. Similarly, he also stated that on the Stamp Numbering Register, there is no entry bearing no. 00004455, 4456, 4458, 4459, 4461, 17200 which is reflected on purported sale deed Ex. P-2/PW-1. He also stated that the stamp papers for Ex. P-1/PW-1 to Ex. P-3/PW-1 were never issued from the Treasury Office of Hazaribagh and the seal and signatures thereon of the Stamp Clerk and Treasury Officer are fake.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 57 of 210138. The witness was cross-examined by learned counsel for accused No. 1 and 3 but nothing worth noticing came on record.
139. PW-4 Mohd. Khurshid, Deputy Mukhiya of Village Panchayat Dhengura.
140. This witness stated that the Village Panchayat Dhengura has four revenue villages under it namely Village Dhengura, Damudih, Sirsi and Parheri. He stated that no person by the name of Jagmohan Mishra, Ram Sahay Mishra, Abdul Rashid, Abdul Hamid, Amanat Bano and Sultana Bano ever stayed in these four villages. These persons are purportedly shown as sellers in forged Sale Deed No. 13292 dated 03.08.2004, D-6, Page 379, PDF 1008, Ex. P-2/PW-1.
141. The response of Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal u/s 313 CrPC is that PW 27 K.P. Singh has deposed in his cross-examination that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was not at all involved in purchase/identification/ exploration of land and he never came to visit land sites at Hazaribagh and never recommended any local person/consultant for land matters at Hazaribagh and the entire transaction of land deal was done by PW 20 Harshad Pophali. It is also his submission that the sale deeds are not proved as per law.
142. The response of Accused No.2 Ramesh Jayaswal is that the evidence of this witness does not pertain to him and has submitted that written statement filed by him under Section 313(5) CrPC be referred to. The submissions of this accused in the written statement are that in and around October 2002, Jayaswal Neco group of companies was divided into two groups i.e., Abhijeet group and the BLS/Neco group. As part CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 58 of 210 of the above separation of businesses, the Abhijeet group, which included the accused company went to the share of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and his associates who were handling and were responsible for its day-to-day affairs. All decision-making and managerial affairs of the accused company from inception were looked after by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal along with his associates to the exclusion of the members of the family, which constituted the Neco group. As part of the family settlement, it was decided that separation of businesses would be affected in due course whereby, a gradual dilution of cross shareholding to take place to ensure that no adverse impact is caused to the business of either group. It was agreed that both groups will not interfere in the business's affairs of each other. Ramesh Jayaswal has submitted that he had no role in the functioning and/or the day-to-day affairs of the accused company. He stated that due to the said separation of businesses, he had nothing to gain from Coal block allocation in favour of the accused company.
143. The response of Accused No.3 company to the evidence of this witness under Section 313 CrPC is that he has no personal knowledge.
144. The copies of these forged sale deeds were provided by Accused No.3 company to MoS vide its letter dated 16.09.2004 and its bald response to the evidence of this witness is therefore noteworthy.
145. The defence of the accused persons will be taken into consideration while deciding who is responsible for having provided these forged sale deeds to the Ministry of Steel. So far as the present point for determination is concerned, in the light of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded above, it is held that the three sale CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 59 of 210 deeds provided by M/s. AIPL to Ministry of Steel were forged sale deeds.
146. 11th Point for Determination: Whether the three letters dated 03.09.2004 addressed to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi purportedly signed by K.B. Singh, Advisor, General Administration, M/s AIPL for sending the Agreement to be completed and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act towards necessary administrative approval for acquisition process for acquiring 272.42 acres land with its letter dated 16.09.2004 are forged letters?
147. It has come in the evidence of PW 29 Shri D. Kashiva, Industrial Adviser, Ministry of Steel that he had received letter dated 16.09.2004 along with annexures which was exhibited as Exhibit P-241/PW-29 (Colly). He had dealt with this letter and under his signatures had marked it to the Section Officer/ID.
148. Along with this letter, in support of submissions that AIPL has applied for land acquisition in Hazaribagh District, three letters dated 03.09.2004 purportedly signed by K.B. Singh, Adviser-General Administration, AIPL were enclosed.
149. K.B. Singh was examined by CBI as PW 27. The witness was shown D-6, Page 367, 369 and 371 which are letters dated 03.09.2004 purportedly written by him and addressed to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi, which are part of Exhibit P-241/PW-29 (Colly) and he stated that all these three letters were not signed by him. These three letters were exhibited as Exhibit P-191/PW-27 to Ex. P-193/PW-27.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 60 of 210150. The witness was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for Accused No.1 & 3. However, during lengthy cross examination, no question was put to the witness regarding these three letters.
151. This court has also compared purported signatures of Shri K.B. Singh on these letters with his admitted signatures and is of the opinion that the signatures of Shri K.B. Singh have been forged on these letters.
152. Since the company, which had submitted these three letters to the Ministry of Steel along with their letter dated 16.09.2004, made no effort to save these documents from being proved forged letters and considering that the purported signatory of these three letters has also denied having signed these letters, this point for determination is answered holding that the three letters dated 03.09.2004 submitted by M/s. AIPL with their letter dated 16.09.2004 are forged letters.
153. 12th Point for Determination: Whether Abhijeet Group headed by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was carved out of Neco group of Industries in the year 2002?
154. The most important witness in this regard examined by prosecution is PW 9 Sh. Brij Kishore Agrawal, a practicing Chartered Accountant. He had been the Auditor of M/s Abhijeet Iron & Processor Private Limited (later on named as M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Limited and then M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited) for several years. He stated that in the Abhijeet Group, the main person for running the affairs was Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal, its Director/chairman of the Group (However, the case of Accused No1 is that this is improvement from the statement of the witness recorded during investigation). He had provided balance sheets of M/s Abhijeet CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 61 of 210 Infrastructure Limited since 01.04.2000 till 31.03.2013 (Exhibit P-43, admitted under Section 294 CrPC) (except for the period of 31.03.2009 when M/s H.D. Pathak and Associates were the Auditors) which were exhibited as Ex. P-38/PW-9, D-62, Page 8, PDF 7596 (as on 31.03.2013); Ex. P-39/PW-9, D-62, Page 39, PDF 7626 (as on 31.03.2012); Ex. P-40/PW-9, D-62, Page 75, PDF 7662 (as on 31.03.2011); Ex. P-41/PW-9, D-62, Page 119, PDF 7706 (as on 31.03.2010); Ex. P-42/PW-9, D-62, Page 163, PDF 7750 (as on 31.03.2008); Ex. P-43/PW-9, D-62, Page 207, PDF 7794 (as on 31.03.2007); Ex. P-44/PW-9, D-62, Page 249, PDF 7836 (as on 31.03.2006); Ex. P-45/PW-9, D-62, Page 288, PDF 7876 (as on 31.03.2005); Ex. P-46/PW-9, D-62, Page 320, PDF 7907 (as on 31.03.2004); Ex. P-47/PW-9, D-62, Page 349, PDF 7936 (as on 31.03.2003) and Ex. P-48/PW-9, D-62, Page 398, PDF 7985 (as on 31.03.2001).
155. All the balance sheets/financial statements w.e.f. 01.04.2003 onwards are signed by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and his son Abhijeet Jayaswal as Directors of the company.
156. During cross-examination of this witness conducted by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself, it came on record that the witness was an independent Director in Jayswal Neco and associated with BLS Family since 1980. He is a witness to the Indenture of Family Settlement (IFS) executed by all the family members of BL Shaw in the year 2008, D-70, PDF 8187, Ex. P-49/PW-9. It also came on record that one Sh. Sohan Chaturvedi had started giving consultancy later on particularly to Accused No. 1 Sh. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. As CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 62 of 210 per Family Settlement, the entire business and business companies as well as personal assets were decided to be distributed in four parts, i.e., Sh. B.L. Shaw, Sh. Arbind Jayaswal and Sh. Ramesh Jayaswal had decided to continue together and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had decided to separate from the BLS family as well as business. He stated that the distribution was such that everybody got practically equal share.
157. The witness was shown Clause (E) of the Indenture of Family Settlement, which is as under:
"BLS, being the head of the family, commenced his business with the incorporation of the "Nagpur Engineering Company (P) Ltd" and later on, with the growth of business, it became "Nagpur Engineering Company Ltd".
Another company-"Jayaswals Neco Ltd" came into existence, followed by "Nagpur Alloys Castings Ltd". All these are Iron foundries which were subsequently merged with "Nagpur Engineering Company Ltd" and the Company was renamed as "Jayaswals Neco Ltd", which was subsequently merged with two other companies, which is now known as "Jayaswal Neco industries Ltd", (hereinafter known as JNIL) and is now the flagship company of the BLS family. Under the leadership of BLS, the BLS Family has set up a No. of manufacturing units, factories and foundries under the name of different companies/entities, the management and control where of rests with the members of BLS family. The BLS family Is Engaged in the Business of Iron, Steel and Aluminium Foundries, Iron Scrap Processing, Road Construction and Tolling, and manufacture of Ferro alloys, Auto Components, Steel Valves, and Steel. The businesses of BLS family is spread over throughout India with major activities being carried on from Nagpur in Maharashtra, Bhilai, Anjora and Siltara (Raipur) in Chhattisgarh, Durgapur in West Bengal, Ranchi in Jharkhand, Bangalore in Karnataka and Chennai in Tamil Nadu. In addition to AKJ, MKG and RKJ, their sons have also joined the business of the BLS family and are in charge of various businesses as a member of BLS family."
158. On the basis of this clause of Indenture of Family Settlement, the witness was put a question that till the family settlement was arrived at, the head of the family was Sh. B.L. Shaw. The witness, in response to this question, had stated that "Before the family settlement, there CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 63 of 210 were already two groups namely Neco Group and Abhijeet Group though there were cross shareholding between the groups and Abhijeet Group was controlled and headed by Manoj Jayaswal and Neco Group was controlled and managed by BL Shaw, Ramesh Jayaswal and Arbind Jayaswal".
159. The attention of the witness was drawn to Clause (F) of the Indenture of Family Settlement, which is as under: -
"The parties hereto as members of one family, unanimously admit that, even on the date of this Indenture, the Business Companies, other Family Companies and the Properties including Shareholdings/Equities, whether standing in their personal names, or in the names of their respective family members, or in the name of the entities in which some or all the parties hereto have interest whether directly or indirectly/jointly or severally, belong to the BLS family and the Business acquired till date also belong to the family until and unless there is clear cut partition in the family for anyone or for all the four parties."
160. On the basis of Clause 'F', the witness was asked a question that a reading of this clause showed that all the assets belonged to the family equally till family settlement. The witness had responded that "By the time family settlement was executed, separate businesses were conducted by MKG Group and BLS Group but the assets as per my understanding in the family were distributed by way of family settlement. The businesses being looked after by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal Group (Abhijeet Group) were given to MKG group (Abhijeet Group) and businesses being looked after by BLS Group (Neco Group) were given to BLS Group".
161. The attention of the witness was drawn to Clause 'G' of the Family Settlement which is as under:
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 64 of 210BLS started with the business of manufacturing castings and later on set up a Steel project at Siltara, Raipur in the year 1996 through JNIL. The Siltara Plant of JNIL went into production. Subsequently JNIL faced financial constraints and had become a CDR Company. In order to continue further with the growth of business, it was decided by the BLS Family that MKJ along with Anand - son of AKJ, Abhishek - son of MKJ and Avneesh - son of RKJ together shall form a separate group which should be named as Abhijeet Group to be headed by MKJ consisting of Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited (CIAL), Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited (AIL), JAS Toll Road Co. Ltd., (JAS) and Jayaswal Ashoka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (JAIPL) being the major companies of Abhijeet Group and it was clearly understood that the Abhijeet Group is created out of BLS Family businesses and it was under the overall control of BLS Family.
162. On the basis of this clause, the witness was asked that the business had remained under overall control of BLS family and not separate under Abhijeet Group or Neco Group before Family Settlement.
163. The response of the witness was that the Abhijeet Group was headed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and was not under overall control of BLS family.
164. Accused No. 1 relied on Clause 'H' of the Family Settlement, which is as under:
"To record and to give effect of the above understanding, on 28th of March, 2005, the Parties hereto unanimously devised a family declaration/business strategy known as "Vyawastha Patrak" (hereinafter referred as "Vyawastha Patrak"), duly executed by and between BLS as head of the family, his three sons and their wives and grand-children and daughter-in-laws mentioning therein the present status of the family and business and in order to achieve further growth, ways and means to be adopted, in the interest of the family and Businesses, whereby it was unanimously decided by the Parties hereto that, Shri MKJ should be in charge of certain companies of the BLS family, to the exclusion of other members of the family, including BLS. In pursuance of the said family declaration/business strategy, the Businesses were divided into two groups, namely, BLS Group (led by BLS alongwith AKJ and RKJ) - also known as Neco Group; and MKJ Group (led by MKJ along with Abhishek (son of MKJ), Anand (son of AKJ) and Avneesh (son of RKJ), also known as Abhijeet Group. The above arrangement was made for commercial convenience and there was no formal partition in the family. This "Vyawastha CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 65 of 210 Patrak" was duly executed by and between BLS as head of the family, his three sons and their wives and grand-children and daughter-in-law, without any protest and demur on their free will and accord."
165. On the basis of this clause, the witness was suggested that the arrangement was only for commercial convenience and there was no formal partition in the family. However, the response of the witness was that "... the family partition had taken place in 2008, but before that there was partition of business into two groups i.e., BLS Group headed by BL Shaw and controlled by BL Shaw, AKJ and RKJ and another group, i.e., MKJ Group headed and completely controlled by MKJ (Manoj Kumar Jayaswal)".
166. The witness was put a question that Abhijeet Group also had son of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal namely Shri Avneesh Jayaswal and Anand Jayaswal son of Arbind Jayaswal as one of the Directors which showed that there was no separation of businesses before execution of final settlement in the year 2008. The response of the witness was "There was a separation of business in the family and Abhijeet Group was looked after and controlled by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The presence of son of Shri Ramesh Jayaswal namely Sh. Avneesh Jayaswal and presence of Anand Jayaswal son of Arbind Jayaswal was only as per Vyawastha Patrak to show that the assets belong to the family members equally till there was partition of assets in the family".
167. The witness was given a suggestion that before finally executing Family Settlement in the year 2008, Abhijeet Group and Neco Group were under BL Shaw control and these groups were created only for business convenience. However, the response of the witness was "The CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 66 of 210 business was actually divided earlier into two groups Neco group and Abhijeet group and Abhijeet group was managed and controlled by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and BLS group was managed and controlled by BL Shaw, Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal.
168. During cross examination of this witness by the learned counsel for accused No.3 (after the witness was cross-examined by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself), it came on record that after formation of Abhijeet Group Manoj Kumar Jayaswal resigned from the Directorship of the company presently known as M/s. Jayaswal Neco industries Ltd.
169. It came on record that the witness was not associated in any manner with the companies managed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and was associated with companies managed by Arbind Jayaswal as he was independent Director in Jayaswal Neco and Advisor in other companies. The witness knew about arbitration proceedings pending between Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Arbind Jayaswal. He was also aware about a winding up petition filed by one of the companies belonging to Abhijeet Group against Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, which was withdrawn a year back. He was also aware of a civil suit filed by Jayaswal Neco against one of the group companies of Abhijeet group.
170. The case put up by Accused No.1 is that since this witness is associated with companies managed by Arbind Jayaswal and was having no association with companies managed by Manoj Jayaswal and considering that the relations between Manoj Jayaswal and Arbind CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 67 of 210 Jayaswal were sour, he has tried to shift the blame on Manoj Jayaswal to benefit Arbind Jayaswal.
171. However, it is to be noted here that Arbind Jayaswal is not one of the accused before this court in this case.
172. During cross examination on behalf of Accused No.2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, the witness reiterated that "The process of separation of businesses into Abhijeet Group and Neco Group had commenced in the year 2002". The witness was given a suggestion that upon the separation of businesses, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal did not participate in the day-to-day decision-making/affairs of the Abhijeet group and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal did not participate in the day-to-day decision- making/affairs of the Neco Group, but the response of the witness was that he was not aware who was participating in day-to-day decision making/affairs of the two groups of the company.
173. In respect of Abhijeet Group, the witness reiterated that this group was being managed and controlled by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He stated that being an auditor, he knew that the businesses have separated, but their offices were common and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal continued to use the office for some time, even after execution of family settlement. Till then, the businesses were conducted from the common place.
174. The stand of Accused No.1 in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that PW 27 KB Singh has stated that complete charge of business of Abhijeet and other companies was with BL Shaw including Coal block allocation matters and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had no role in any of the above aspects. He has relied on statement of KB Singh that CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 68 of 210 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was not given the responsibility to run any factory or any other major responsibility. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has also stated that he had signed the balance sheets on the instructions of his father BL Shaw, who was taking all the decisions for the company. To show enmity between Braj Kishore Agrawal and himself, i.e., Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, he has stated that:
"The overall control of Sh. BL Shaw over M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. was constantly maintained through a number of companies controlled by Sh. BK Aggarwal, who was a chartered accountant, which companies owned a disproportionately large proportion of shares of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. (i.e. till the execution of the Indenture of Family Settlement in the year 2008). Since the company M/s Abhijeet infrastructure Ltd. was believed to have a good fortune, Sh. BK Agarwal also believed that he would obtain good fortune out of these companies. However, when the company came to my share after execution of IFS, he became cross with me because he had to give up all his shares as per the agreement reached in the year 2008. Sh. BK Agarwal was appointed by my father along with Sh. Sohan Chaturvedi to oversee the process of separation of the family, but he tried to side in favor of the other party and did not act as an impartial arbitrator which led to many disputes and since then he has enmity towards me. The companies of Sh. BK Aggarwal were Ankur Estates Pvt Ltd, Anurag Sales & Services Pvt Ltd, Blossom Constructions Pvt Ltd, Surya Sandhya Merchants Pvt Ltd, Greengold marketing Pvt Ltd, Sanket Commodities Pvt Ltd, Ramdeobaba Impex Pvt Ltd, Hardik Steels Pvt Ltd, Essar India Limited, Sharda Commercial Co. Ltd, Eastern Hsg Udyog Finance Co. Ltd, Orbit Multimedia Ltd, Odyssey Corporation, Nageshwar Investment Ltd, Infrrastructure Asahi Projects Ltd, Ghanshyam Vyapaar Pvt ltd, Aman Tradecom Pvt Ltd, Grace Tie-Up Pvt Ltd, Nabojagran Trading Pvt Ltd, Ramprakash Sales & Services Pvt Ltd, Samadhan Traders Pvt Ltd and other companies. I had given information in respect of the shareholding of the Company to the IO but he never investigated the same and instead pushed my representation into the list of unrelied documents and chose to build a case against me on the basis of the statements of interested witnesses who were inimical towards me."
175. He also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that:
"There was no "Abhijeet Group" in existence till the execution of the IFS in the year 2008 upto which point all the Companies were under the BLS Family and controlled and managed by Sh. BL Shaw who was the Karta of the Family (as also stated in the Indenture of Family Settlement executed in the year 2008). Abhijeet Group was shown to exist on paper as per the directions CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 69 of 210 of Sh. B L Shaw in the year 2002 itself for the purpose of commercial convenience as the Companies of the NECO Group were unable to secure loans from the market (as also stated in the Indenture of Family Settlement executed in the year 2008) and banking purposes only. However, the control of all the companies has always been with Sh. B.L. Shaw and there was no actual separation. However, the actual separation took place in the year 2008 vide the Indenture of Family Settlement executed on 31.07.2008."
176. In response to the statement of Braj Kishore Agrawal that after formation of Abhijeet group, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal resigned from the Directorship of the company presently known as M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, the Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal responded in his statement that he had resigned for the sake of commercial convenience as per directions of BL Shaw.
177. To explain why Abhijeet group was named as 'Abhijeet', he stated that Abhijeet is his second son. His father BL Shaw was suggested this name by an astrologer and believed that it would bring good luck and fortune. So, a number of companies were named Abhijeet and his son was also named Abhijeet.
178. The next prosecution witness who has deposed about affairs of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is PW 35 Susanta Kumar Moitra. He had joined Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, one of the group companies of Neco Group in the year 2000 and was looking after the work related to group companies such as Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd, Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd etc.
179. Letter dated 19.06.2004, D-64, Page 21, PDF 8032 part of Exhibit P-
35/PW-8, was written by him as General Manager (Finance) for Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to UCO Bank for Debt funding of proposed 120000 MT DR Plant and MW Power Plant-Based on Waste CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 70 of 210 Heat Recovery Process. In this letter, it was written by him that Manoj Jayaswal is neither a Director nor holds any key post in the affairs of Neco group of companies after 2002. He has ventured out of the Neco group and formed his separate group called Abhijeet group, which comprises of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd, JAS Toll Road Company Ltd and Jayaswals Ashoka Infrastructure Private Ltd. He had mentioned that the bifurcation had taken place during the end of 2002 or in early 2003. He mentioned that after the bifurcation none of the Directors are common among both the groups. All companies of Abhijeet group are professionally managed companies and are being controlled by Manoj Jayaswal as Chairman and Managing Director. He stated that he had given this information to UCO Bank on the basis of directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and also on the basis of records of the company. He stated that after 2002, the affairs pertaining to Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd were being looked after by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in the capacity of Chairman and Managing Director. (During cross examination, he stated that during the year 2002, while representing to the bank, a detail of board of Directors was provided to him which was submitted to the bank and as all directions during those periods for Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. were given by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal so he inferred that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal would be the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Ltd).
180. During cross examination, it came on record that presently the witness was Associate Director of M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. He stated that M/s Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd is one of the companies of CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 71 of 210 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and the said company has filed winding up petition against M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. He informed that Abhijeet is the name of second son of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He stated that as per the Board Resolution provided to him by Manoj Jayaswal which was given to the bank by M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, he was representing the said company before the banks in the capacity of General Manager of the said company. He was given a suggestion that the contents of letter dated 19.06.2004 were incorporated by him on his own and not on the asking of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal which he denied.
181. Accused No.1 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that it was projected to the world that the companies were under his control to portray the image that the companies have separated, even though they were being micromanaged by BL Shaw.
182. While dealing with the correspondence with UCO Bank, it is relevant to record at this stage that as per letter dated 15.04.2004 written by UCO Bank Churchgate Reclamation Mumbai Branch to its head office in respect of proposal of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for sanction of Term Loan of Rs. 20.56 crores and working capital limit of Rs. 4.10 crores, D-64, Page 8, Exhibit P-36/PW-8, PDF 8019, it was mentioned that Manoj Jayaswal is one of the promoter Directors of AIPL and is involved in day-to-day management of the company. It was also mentioned that personal guarantee shall be given by Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal for the security, estimated value of Rs. 614.64 (in lakhs). In the Observation Sheet on Memorandum submitted by GM OP/RO dated 21.07.2004, Page 18, PDF 8029 it was mentioned CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 72 of 210 that Main Management Personnel/promoter of AIPL is Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. It was also mentioned that Manoj Jayaswal has resigned from the company M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd in the year 2002 itself and has started Abhijeet Group.
183. Prosecution has also relied on documentary evidence in the nature of Regular Civil Suit No. 603/2008 filed by Manoj Jayaswal against M/s. Neco Leasing and Finance Private Ltd, BL Shaw, Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur which was admitted by Accused No.1 and 2 as Exhibit P-52, D 74, PDF, 8580. In this suit, it was pleaded that:
"Plaintiff, along with his young and energetic sons, decided to separate the ways from the Jayaswal family business, and accordingly, in or around October 2002, the Jayaswal family under the guidance of the patriarch Defendant No. 2 herein decided to allow the Plaintiff to dis-associate himself. The Jayaswal family, then headed by Defendant No.2, took a conscious decision to let the plaintiff along with his two sons disassociate himself from the family -controlled businesses in a phased manner and pursue his ventures independently. This family decision was documented in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), duly executed between the Jayaswal family members. As a result, two factions emerged out of the Jayaswal family, one headed by Defendant No. 2 and included Defendant No. 3 and 4 who are the two sons of Defendant No.2 namely Shri Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal, and the other comprised of the Plaintiff and his two sons, namely, Mr Abhishek Jayaswal and Abhijeet Jayaswal. Faction headed by plaintiff came to be known as the Abhijeet Group, being named after the youngest son of the Plaintiff and the other faction headed by Defendant No. 2 was to be known as Jayaswal Neco group (JN group). According to the said Memorandum of Understanding, Abhijeet group was to consist primarily of the following companies, viz., Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd JAS Toll Road Company Ltd, JAS Infrastructure Capital Private Ltd, Abhijeet Infrastructure Capital Private Ltd, Jayaswals Ashoka Infrastructure Private Ltd amongst others. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 became a company belonging to the JN group, effective from the date of execution of the said MOU. The JN group was to consist of principally Jayaswals Neco Ltd (presently known as Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd), Neco Schubert and salzer Ltd (presently known as NSSL Limited), Neco Castings Ltd, Neco Ceramics Ltd amongst others including the Defendant No. 1 company.CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 73 of 210
5. Further, in terms of the said MOU, none of the companies in either group was to use the name or the logo of any company falling under the management of the other group and/or interfere in the business affairs of the other group. It was also agreed that the members of either group would, in due course, will draw their shareholdings in the companies falling under the management of the other group so as to disentangle mutual Holdings.
7. The separation was absolutely complete in as much as it was also decided that the constituents of one group would not participate in the decision- making or day-to-day affairs of the other group. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 resigned from the Board of Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd, a flagship company of Abhijeet group and the plaintiff resigned from the board of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, a flagship company of JN group. Further, the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, also resigned from the board of all the Abhijeet group companies that had come into being.
8. It was, however, decided that until the withdrawal/rearrangement of shareholdings in each group is complete, a limited No. of Directors simpliciter representing of each group would remain on the Board of Directors of the other group. None of these Directors simpliciter were to exercise any managerial powers or to cause any interference in the day-to-day management of the companies belonging the two groups that had emerged.
9. Thus, the position that emerged pursuant to the MOU of October 2002, was that the separation of management of the two groups was completed; however, the mutual cross holdings of the two groups were to be separated in a phased manner. Since the carving out of Abhijeet group from the JN group in terms of the understanding, referred to above, Defendant No. 1 company has remained in absolute and exclusive control and management of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and their family.
10. Though the separation of management was complete in pursuance of the 2002, MOU referred to above, since the separation of shareholding had not been completed, the family entered into an understanding sometime in 2004, to record the intent that while the Abhijeet group and JN group had formally been separated both the groups would separate their shareholding in each other companies based on valuation. However, it was always the understanding of the two factions at the Abhijeet group would continue to be run independently and separate from the rest of the Jayaswal family under the guidance and management control of the Plaintiff and the JN group under the stewardship of the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. However, the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 never acted on the 2004 MOU and the members of Jayaswal family decided to scrap the same, which is evident from the fact that the son of Defendant No. 3, while signing the Draft Red Herring Prospectus of JAS Toll Road Company Ltd, a company under the Abhijeet group and managed by the Plaintiff, acknowledged the effect of 2002, MOU and not that of the 2004 MOU. Though the terminal date for stepping of shareholding within the two groups was not evidenced in writing but the understanding was clear that the same shall happen immediately on Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 74 of 210 (the flagship company belonging to JN group) coming out of CDR Cell of its financial institutions/banks.
11. The Plaintiff, essentially having taken all pains to establish the single largest conglomerate of the JN group viz: Jayswal Neco Industries Ltd, prior to 2002, having secured all its loan liabilities, which are being run by the father and brothers of the plaintiff and the Defendants no 2 to 4, once again was distressed due to the repeated losses of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd and the same being in the ambit of the CDR Cell of Banks and Financial Institutions and decided to set upstream and downstream facilities, to integrate the operations of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. The facilities were set up by the Plaintiff through Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd, Inertia Iron and Steel Industries Private Ltd and Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd, all Abhijeet group Companies by way of setting up Sponge Iron Unit, Power Plants, Sinter Plants, Steel Melt Shop, Rolling Mills etc. Not only the same was set up, the Sponge Iron Unit, the Sinter Plants, the Steel Melt Shop and Rolling Mills was further pleased to Jayaswal Neco Industries at a pittance. The Units are set up to help the JN Group and the same are located adjacent to the existing manufacturing Units of JN Group so that the cost of logistics can be reduced and the JN Group is able to generate substantial profits to tide over its financial difficulties.
12... At a juncture when these companies of the JN Group have come out of their financial woes, the JN Group started to interfere in the management of the Abhijeet Group Companies with an intention to illegally utilise the un- transferred the shareholding in Abhijeet Group Companies, and further started declining to give the legitimate share of the Plaintiff in JN Group.
13... The startling performance of the Abhijeet Group stirred the enemies of the one-time affiliate, and the JN Group started repudiating the family separation recorded in the 2002 MOU referred to above... The separation of Abhijeet group after the 2002 MOU was absolute and complete and has been acknowledged and acted upon time and again by both the groups:
...
In the Draft Red Herring Prospectus filed with Securities and Exchange Board of India on 21st June 2006 by Jas Toll Road Company Ltd, one of the Abhijeet Group Companies, a separate paragraph was devoted to highlight the separation of the groups. The said DRHP comprehensively records the history of separation of Shri Manoj Jayaswal from the family and formation of Abhijeet Group. It is imperative to note that Shri Anand Jayaswal, son of Defendant No.3 herein, and constituent of the JN Group also signed the said document in his capacity as a Director of the said company. The Plaintiff hereby further submits that the above-mentioned DRHP was submitted after the same was legally certified by the Legal Counsel and Book Running Lead Managers to the issue, to be a correct and factual document. Subsequently the same was accepted by SEBI and cleared for public issue of equity shares.CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 75 of 210
In returns to the Stock Exchange under the Takeover Regulations by Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, the flagship company belonging to the JN Group, none of the Abhijeet group companies nor the plaintiff or his family members have been shown as Promoters.
Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, a listed company of the JN Group also further declared to SEBI of the non-promoter status of plaintiff during the same period.
The State Bank of India in its appraisal Report dated 16thDecember 2004 for renewal of limits availed by the company also noted the formation of Abhijeet group headed by Manoj Jayaswal. It is pertinent to note that the Bank also noted that the Proposal is being sanctioned. Despite the fact that the name of Mr Manoj Jayaswal, the plaintiff herein was in the defaulters' list of RBI because of his earlier association with the JN group, which the Bank could only do since it recognises the separation of Manoj Jayaswal faction of family from the JN group.
There are several other appraisals, wherein the fact of separation of Abhijeet group is duly recorded.
14. Constant efforts were made by the plaintiff to complete the redistribution of shareholdings and put a final stop to the interference of defendants no. 2 to 4 in the affairs of Abhijeet Group. Finally, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 24th November 2007, wherein the family decided to take steps towards distribution/division of common family assets. Though the understanding records distribution of business in four equal parts for the purpose of evaluation only, the parties agreed that the ventures independently undertaken by the group, headed by Shri. Manoj Jayaswal namely the Abhijeet Group, pursuant to the earlier MOU of the 2002, shall continue to remain with Manoj Jayaswal and the ventures which have been traditionally managed by the JN Group shall remain with them. Two gentlemen Shri Sohan Chaturvedi and Shri B.K. Agarwal, professionally qualified Chartered Accountants and later being a member of the Board of Jayaswals Neco Industries Ltd were entrusted with the responsibilities of looking after the matters relating to Company Law.
16... The plaintiff reiterates that the discussions always affirmed, and acknowledged separation of businesses without touching the Abhijeet group, being an independent entity born out of October 2002 MOU. At several places in the said minutes, reference has been made to Abhijeet Group thereby confirming its independent and separate entity.
21... The Plaintiff further submits that the design of the Defendants No. 2 to 4 through Defendant No. 1 clearly shows that the notices were issued to threaten the Plaintiff and induct themselves on the Board of Directors of Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd, which is an Abhijeet Group Company and managed by the Plaintiff and his son...
22... The Plaintiff submits that a host of companies and persons affiliated to Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are using their Directorships and shareholding in CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 76 of 210 different companies to usurp control of Abhijeet Group Companies, which ownership has already been settled by the MOU dated October, 2002.
24... The design is to destabilise the Abhijeet Group of companies managed by the Plaintiff and browbeat the Plaintiff to accept and unfair settlement of the family dispute... The aim is to settle a family dispute through the use of controlling interest in different companies.
29... It is worthwhile to state that Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd, a company which is proposed to be proceeded with before the Company Law Board is essentially part of the Abhijeet Group of Companies headed by the plaintiff and the real intention behind calling for the Board Meeting with the agenda of filing some petition against the said company of the plaintiff, was to twist the arms of the plaintiff with a view to get an unreasonable settlement by taking complete a lead advantage of the majority of defendant no. 2 to 4 in the defendant no. 1 company...
The Prayer made in the suit was:
(a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring therein that the notice dated 29.03.2008 given by the defendants for calling the meeting of Board of Directors of the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 on 05.05.2008 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter is absolutely illegal, improper and cannot be acted upon;
(b) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from acting upon the said notice of Board of Directors of defendant No. 1 Company dated 29.04.2008, and consequently the proposed meeting dated 05.05.2008 based on such a legal notice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;
(c) ...
(d) ...
The plaint was duly supported by solemn affirmation by Manoj Jayaswal that the instant suit has been drafted by his counsel, as per the instructions given by him and the same was read over and explain to him.
184. The response of Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to this Suit in question put to him being Question No. 545 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that:
"The documents collected are a matter of record. However, the documents at D-74 have been submitted to the Court vide letter which is hit by S.162 Cr.P.C., therefore, the same cannot be read against me. The Civil suit had come to be withdrawn and specific clauses with regard to withdraw of CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 77 of 210 pending litigation and of all the companies being under common control were incorporated in the Indenture of Family Settlement. The evidence of IO is only an opinion/hearsay and cannot be read against me".
185. Though the defence of Accused No.1 & 3 that the Abhijeet group was carved out in the year 2008 shall be discussed in the following paragraphs, but it is worthwhile to note at this stage itself, the defence of Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal when he entered the witness box as DW 6.
186. The defence put up by him is that the purpose of the suit was to pressurize his father by stating that Abhijeet Group had separated in the year 2002 and he was the stakeholder and the group was under his control. Finally, after signing of IFS, the case was withdrawn. It was only filed to pressurize his father for settlement.
187. When Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal appeared as DW-1, he was asked a question by learned counsel for Accused No.2:
"Que. Is it to your say that your statements in the plaint filed before the Court at Nagpur were false and only as Pressure Tactics as reflected in your examination in chief dated 08.08.2024 pg 8 (part of para 12) and cross examination dated 14.08.2024 (Page 2, para 6). What do you have to say?"
188. The response of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was:
"Ans. Yes, I had falsely stated in that Suit that the family settlement had taken place in the year 2002".
189. The extracts from Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) pertaining to JAS Toll Road Company Limited dated 12.06.2006, D-74, Page 40, PDF 8619, part of Exhibit P-48 (admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by Accused No. 1 and 2) referred in the suit by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal are as under:
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 78 of 210"Disassociation of Promoters In October 2002, Abhijeet group emerged as a separate group from Jayaswals Neco group (JN group). The emergence of Abhijeet group, distinct and separate from JN group was triggered by the dissociation of Mr. Manoj Jayaswal from JN group. Since October 2002, Mr. Manoj Jayaswal or other constituents of Abhijeet group have not participated in the decision making or day-to-day affairs of the JN group. Although due to inadvertence in certain corporate filings of JNL, a listed company of the JN group, under Clause 35 of the listing agreement and SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 were made which Mr. Manoj Jayaswal as the promoters of JNL. The same has been rectified in April 2006. A Memorandum of Understanding entered between the members of the Jayaswal family evidences the separation of JN group from AG group. One of the key terms of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) declares the constituents of the name or the logo of any company falling under the management of the other group and none of the groups shall interfere in the business affairs of the other group. The members of each group have agreed and undertaken in this MOU, to withdraw their shareholdings in the companies falling under the management of the other group in a phased manner or mutually acceptable terms."
190. When the Draft Red Herring Prospectus mentioned above was put to Accused No. 1 in Question No. 542 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had replied that "I have no personal knowledge in this regard. Further, that it is not evidence against me. The evidence of IO is only an opinion/hearsay and cannot be read against me".
191. Lastly, during cross examination of DW 5 Abhishek Jayaswal, letter dated 12.08.2012 written by him to the Enquiry Officer during the preliminary enquiry concerning JAS Infrastructure and Power Ltd was put to him by Ld. Counsel for Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal. In this letter, the witness had mentioned as under:
"4. Family Split Details .
...
In October 2002, Abhijeet group emerged as a separate group from Jayaswal Neco Group (JN group). The emergence of Abhijeet group distinct and CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 79 of 210 separate from JN group was triggered by the dissociation of Mr Manoj Jayaswal from the JN group. Since October 2002, Mr Manoj Jayaswal and other constituents of Abhijeet group have not participated in the decision making or day-to-day affairs of the JN group. A Memorandum of Understanding entered between the members of the Jayaswal will family evidences the separation of JN group from AG group. One of the key terms of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) declares the constituents of the Abhijeet group.
The cross shareholding was also decided to be removed in a gradual manner by withdrawing their shareholdings in the companies falling under the management of the other group in a phased manner on mutually acceptable terms. The fact that Abhijeet group and Neco group emerged as separate group published in public domain through Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed with Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in June, 2006 by one of the Abhijeet group companies, i.e. Jas Toll Road Company Limited.
After the year 2000 to the process of family separation and reorganisation commenced with Mr Manoj Jayaswal and his family members beginning to resign from the Directorship of Jayaswal Neco Group. At the same time, Arbind Jayaswal (Jayaswal Neco Group) started resigning from Abhijeet Group Companies.
5. How family split affected the share arrangement. As decided in aforesaid MOU the cross shareholding in two groups were to be dismantled in a phased manner in accordance with mutual settlements, over a period of time. Pursuant to this in JICPL Shri Anand Jayaswal transferred 5000 equity shares held by him in JICPL favour of Shri Manoj Jayaswal on 02-07-2008.
7. Details of Formation of Abhijeet Group and Inertia. Shri Manoj Jayaswal son of Shri Basant Lal Shaw, had decided to move out of the family fold and create his separate entity in 2002. Hence, he resigned from JINL to form the 'Abhijeet Group'. Formal shape was given in 2006 at the time of separation within the BLS family as detailed herein above. It may be noted that all financial institutions having dealings with the two group companies were informed of this separation. Furthermore, this was also put into the public domain through the DRHP filed for Jas Toll Road Company Ltd in June 2006.
192. DW 5 Shri Abhishek Jayaswal explained the signing of this letter by submitting that:
"When the investigation into Coal block allocation had started, there was a meeting of family members (including my uncles) headed by my grandfather CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 80 of 210 Shri BL Shaw. By the time the division in the companies had already taken place, but the enquiry was related to the period where the family was not separated and all these matters are being looked after by my grandfather Shri BL Shaw. So, since he had the full knowledge about the affairs of allocation of the Coal block and related matters, he took upon the responsibility to make the strategy, communications and representations what the family will make in the investigation. So, I do not recall writing this letter but factually if this letter may have been written by me, it would have been sent by my grandfather for my signature to be sent to CBI. Again, said, it may have been sent by me and not written by me."
193. In respect of letter dated 12.08.2012, on behalf of Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. Reliance was placed on State versus N.S. Gnaneshwaran, 2013 SCC 594(3) to submit that this letter cannot be put to the witness as it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C being part of Preliminary Enquiry. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that noncompliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 154, Cr.P.C. if the case is registered on the basis of the information received suo-motu after specifying that the information reveals prima facie cognizable offence against the accused and found that the matter is fit for investigation to be taken by the investigating agency, in not following the provisions of Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of FIR and further proceedings in the matter of registration. Therefore, this judgement is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Reliance is also placed on Rajeshwar Sharma versus State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition Crl. 678 of 2020 dated 07.06.2021. In this case, it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh that Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not apply during pendency of Preliminary Enquiry. Letter dated 12.08.2012 was given by Abhishek Jayaswal during pendency of Preliminary Enquiry. When this letter was written by Abhishek Jayaswal, he did not take any defence that during CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 81 of 210 Preliminary Enquiry, no notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be given. Since this letter was given during pendency of Preliminary Enquiry, it is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and would be read as a piece of evidence.
194. The first witness who has spoken in favour of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is PW 12 Chandershekhar Barde, who had worked for Jayaswal Neco group of companies from 1985 to 2006. Thereafter, he had joined the Secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and worked there till 2015. He had signed several important letters addressed to Ministry of Coal during the year 2006.
195. He has deposed during his cross-examination that BL Shaw was taking all important decisions of the company M/s Abhijeet infrastructure Ltd during 2000-2007. He stated that BL Shaw did not allow Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to deal with any matter relating to public offices/government departments.
196. Second witness deposing in favour of Accused No. 1 is PW-27 K.B. Singh has stated that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal used to be given petty jobs and was not given the responsibility to run any factory or any other major responsibility.
197. The third witness to speak in favour of Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is DW 1 Sohan Chaturvedi, who had qualified as a Chartered Accountant in the year 1977 and had become a partner in M/s. Chaturvedi and Shah Chartered Accountants Firm and worked there till 1999. This firm was the statutory auditor of Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 82 of 210198. Thereafter, he started his own firm by the name of Chaturvedi Sohan and Company.
199. After 1999, he claims that he came near to B.L. Shaw and started advising him but first official association of this witness came in the year 2006 when he was made an Auditor of M/s Inertia (IISIPL). However, when this company came under the fold of Neco group in the year 2009-10, he quit as statutory auditor of this company and became auditor of several other companies which came under the control of Abhijeet group.
200. He stated that a separate group, Abhijeet Group was created by segregating 3-4 good entities of the family for securing bank loans as the main company of the group Jayaswal Neco Limited was not getting bank loans and had gone in Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR).
201. In this group, all those family members who had a clean record from banking point of view were shifted and a new name was given to the group, namely Abhijeet group to get finance from banking sector and put up certain plants which were needed by Jayaswal Neco to build a consolidated Steel plant.
202. He stated that when Abhijeet group was created, Manoj Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal son of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, Avneesh Jayaswal son of Arbind Jayaswal and Abhishek Jayaswal son of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal were made the Directors and incharge for banking support.
203. The witness stated that since BL Shaw did not consider Manoj Jayaswal as a reliable head, BL Shaw created Vyawastha Patrak to get CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 83 of 210 confirmation from all family members that he is the head of this family, he has created this whole empire and for the commercial convenience, a separate group is created, but ultimately ownership, control and management of both the groups must remain with the family and under the leadership of BL Shaw.
204. The witness stated that BL Shaw was having full authority about all policy decisions taken for both the groups i.e., BLS group and Abhijeet group.
205. The lease agreement executed between JNIL and AIL dated 01.12.2006 and the lease agreement executed between JNIL and CIAL dated 26.03.2007 were exhibited as Exhibit D-3/DW-1 and Exhibit D- 5/DW-1 respectively.
206. He stated that Jayaswal Neco was not getting any funds from banking system because of their default and M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd was able to get finance from bank and buy equipments which were needed at Jayaswal Neco Ltd plant. Therefore, the plant was purchased by M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd and leased out to Jayaswal Neco at a lease rental. He stated that the lease amount was structured based on EMI payable by the lesser i.e., M/s. AIPL and CIAL to the banks against the loan taken by them.
207. He stated that BL Shaw was not holding any position in AIPL and CIAL but his way of working was so meticulous that virtually every major decision or a policy decision relating to any entity of the family, including AIPL was taken by him.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 84 of 210208. The witness reiterated during his examination in chief that he was very close to the family and, therefore, he knew that all policy decision authority was with BL Shaw, he used to decide who will represent either of the group to the government agencies, banks or any other authority, including signing documents, acquiring properties etc.
209. He stated that BL Shaw was head of the family and was taking all the decisions despite the fact that he was not on the board of Directors. He submitted that BL Shaw was 'Officer in Default' under whose directions and control the board of Directors of AIL were accustomed to act.
210. The witness reiterated that Abhijeet group was created to get banking finance for JNL which was a main company of the BLS family, but was suffering financial hardships. Therefore, separate clear and bankable borrower companies were selected and were brought under the group named as Abhijeet group. The Directors of Abhijeet group were selected from those members who were not earlier exposed to banking system and for giving representation to whole family.
211. He stated that BL Shaw had special affection for his grandson Abhijeet Jayaswal and, therefore, the new group was named as Abhijeet group. He stated that all the senior employees appointed earlier in JNL had no specific demarcation demarcating which employ will work for which company.
212. He stated that he was explained by BL Shaw that Noninterference Agreement, D-69, PDF 8179, Exhibit P-45 was executed to show that JNL and Abhijeet group are independent and have no interference with CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 85 of 210 one and another. He stated that one of the group companies was planning for public issue and additional banking facility and to show that Abhijeet group was not part of JNL group, the Noninterference Agreement was executed. However, due to some reason, no public issue was brought out.
213. He stated that in the year 2006, he was called by BL Shaw to Nagpur to help him in the process of separation of Manoj Jayaswal from rest of the family. B. K. Agrawal and this witness were given responsibility of various calculations, tax workings, procedures for assisting BL Shaw in drafting IFS.
214. He stated that due to the nature of Manoj Jayaswal, his working style, his behaviour with the staff, BL Shaw used to always remain unpleasant with him. Many a times, BL Shaw used to feel that Manoj Jayaswal is not following his instructions. Though the principle of the family was that elders are always respected and followed. This resulted in ultimate separation of Manoj Jayaswal from the family . He stated that the lifestyle of Manoj Jayaswal was flamboyant, he used to play cricket during office hours and used to take office staff to playground during business hours. Manoj Jayaswal could not get the confidence of BL Shaw. Manoj Jayaswal was clearly instructed that he should remain away from government works, taxation, liasioning and was only handling petty works like authorising petty vouchers, handling administration work as authorised by BL Shaw. All top executives of the group were specially instructed to take final approval from BL Shaw relating to major decisions taken by Manoj Jayaswal.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 86 of 210215. Inter Office Communication dated 25.10.2005, where some directions were given by BL Shaw about nominating alternate Directors in CIAL was exhibited as Exhibit D-6/DW-1. Letter dated 03.05.2007 where BL Shaw had made a note for Hari Gopal Joshi, Director of M/s. Inertia Iron and Steel, requesting him to sign the minutes of the meeting of EOGM was exhibited as Exhibit D-8/DW-1. One undated note in the handwriting of BL Shaw directing B.K. Agrawal for splitting Abhijeet Infrastructure into two companies, was exhibited as Exhibit D-10/DW-1.
216. He stated that BL Shaw used to pass verbal instructions himself or through his officers or he used to make handwritten notes and sometimes he used to ask Manoj Jayaswal to pass on his instructions to senior executives.
217. He stated that Manoj Jayaswal was not very much acquainted with the company law, taxation and accounts and was following the instructions of BL Shaw wherever he was required to sign either balance sheet, annual return, tax returns or any other related documents required to be signed as a Director.
218. He stated that BL Shaw was Chairman of the group and was making all the decisions relating to all decisions relating to Coal block and purchase of lands. All the senior executives, including Harshad Pophali were instructed by BL Shaw only either directly or through any other person and as per practice of family Manoj Jayaswal was not allowed to take any decision or to give any instruction to any executive, including those named above. The executives were not allowed to take instructions from Manoj Jayaswal and in case any CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 87 of 210 instruction was given by Manoj Jayaswal, they were not allowed to implement without specific approval of BL Shaw.
219. The fourth witness who entered the witness box in defence of Accused No.1 and 3 is Ashok Kumar Suryanarayan Patro, B. Com (Hons.) from Orissa, CA (Finalist) (A CA finalist is a student who has passed the CA Intermediate exam and completed the required article ship training and is now eligible to take the CA Final exam) and ICWA (Finalist).
220. He stated that he was selected as Manager (Accounts) in Neco group in 2001 after final interview by BL Shaw, Chairman of the Neco Group. His immediate boss was S.A. Nigudkar, GM (Accounts) who was guiding this witness for accounting standards and rules and taxation matters. Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Manager (Accounts) and later on, he was promoted as AGM (Accounts) and had resigned on 30.11.2006.
221. During 2010-2013, he again worked with Abhijeet MADC Nagpur Energy Private Ltd. Later on, he again worked for Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd (CIAL) for few months in the year 2017.
222. He has stated that all day-to-day business decisions for all group companies were taken by BL Shaw. He is one of the attesting witnesses of MOU dated 31.03.2006, the noninterference agreement, D-69, Exhibit P-45, PDF 8179. He stated that this MOU was executed for commercial convenience.
223. According to him, Manoj Jayaswal was very casual and irregular in day-to-day workings of the Neco group companies. His nature was flamboyant and casual. He had a habit of taking his team who are CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 88 of 210 working on the payroll of the group companies i.e., Neco group and Abhijeet group for his personal activities including playing cricket. This was hampering the office decorum and causing lots of hardships in day-to-day activities of the Neco group. BL Shaw was very unhappy with the nature of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and he used to fire him for his nature in front of the company's employees. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was not serious and management and BL Shaw was assigning him only the work of passing travelling allowance, conveyance bills, administrative expenses and bills of the employees.
224. He has stated that till November 2006, there was no separation and BL Shaw was the Karta of BLS family.
225. He stated that during his tenure, all day-to-day business decisions for all group companies were taken by BL Shaw and as he was reporting day-to-day activities/accounting and payment related issues to BL Shaw, for this reason he came close to BL Shaw. He stated that corporate offices of all group companies of Neco were at Nagpur where all divisions/departments like accounts, audit, purchase, marketing, mining and planning, including secretarial department are situated. Some senior people were stationed at their respective plots for plant operations/site locations.
226. He stated that after leaving JNL, once he was called by BL Shaw during preparation and finalisation of IFS in July 2008 as he needed some reference point from MOU which was drafted in March 2006 to be mentioned in IFS. The witness could trace the draft copy of MOU from the system, which was used by him during his tenure with Neco group. He stated that at the time of drafting of IFS i.e., during July CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 89 of 210 2008, he came to know that there is separation of groups called Neco group and Abhijeet group.
227. He stated that BL Shaw kept a close watch over the payments and group company-related expenses. He stated that BL Shaw used to exercise his authority in all policy matters of the BLS group companies. He stated that BL Shaw wanted to apply for Coal blocks in almost all the companies of Neco group and Abhijeet group so that the possibility of maximum allotment of Coal blocks results in Neco group companies.
228. He stated that he was not reporting to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as he was told by BL Shaw not to report to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
229. With regard to the letter dated 17.09.2003, D-15 (Part II), Page No. 35-36, PDF 2578-79, Exhibit P-29/PW-6, and also Exhibit P-53 (admitted by A-1 under Section 294 CrPC) he stated that at the time of signing of this letter, BL Shaw was informed by Harshad Pophali that this letter has to be signed by D.Y.Moghe who is on leave and therefore BL Shaw instructed this witness to get the same signed from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The witness further stated that when he asked Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign the letter, he refused to sign stating that he has no authority to sign any government, correspondence relating to mines, land, banks and other government activities. When this witness reported the matter to BL Shaw, BL Shaw instructed Manoj Kumar Jayaswal on intercom to sign the same as the submission of the letter was very urgent.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 90 of 210230. The fifth witness who has deposed in favour of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is Ashok Prasad, who is brother-in-law being the brother of the wife of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
231. He deposed that in the year 2001, he was told by BL Shaw that for securing bank loans, he needs reliable family members to become Directors in AIPL and this witness Ashok Prasad, his brother Radheshyam Prasad, Abhishek Jayaswal son of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Anand Jayaswal, son of Arbind Jayaswal were made new Directors in AIPL. He stated that he and his brother Radheshyam Prasad remained Directors of this company till October of 2004.
232. He stated that Abhijeet group and Neco group were one and the same till 2008 and were managed by BL Shaw. He stated that BL Shaw wanted to keep control of both the groups under him, but Manoj Kumar Jayaswal wanted to create his own group.
233. He stated that BL Shaw and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal were not having good relations and would dispute over small issues. He stated that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal use to remain in his own 'duniya' and use to remain busy in sports. BL Shaw liked disciplined living of punctual timing for food and office work, but Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was not maintaining such a disciplined life.
234. He stated that he was under directions from the BL Shaw to sign the letters brought to him for his signatures by DY Moghe or Harshad Pophali. For other documents, he had to verify from BL Shaw before signing them.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 91 of 210235. The witness, during re-examination, was confronted with his statement, from point A to A, recorded by the Investigating Officer on 09.06.2016, where the witness had stated that he had joined as a Director in Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on the directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, his brother-in-law. He was also confronted with his statement from point B to B where he stated that he had signed letters/documents on the request of Manoj Jayaswal. He stated that various other aspects in the statement such as the period when he was the Director in AIPL is correctly recorded in the statement. It is also correctly recorded in the statement that he was non-executive Director and was not drawing any salary or any other remuneration from the company. He admitted that it is also correctly recorded that before he joined the company, he was working as a vendor with Neco group of companies of BL Shaw family. He stated that his date of birth, address, name of his father and his mobile No. are correctly mentioned in the statement. He also admitted that it is correctly recorded in the statement that since his business of supply of sand core and other material depended on them, he was obliged to them. He stated that it is also correctly recorded in the statement that he was not involved in day-to-day activities of the company and their business strategies. He stated that the statement also correctly records that sometimes some letters/documents were brought to him in his office for his signatures. He admitted that his educational qualification is also correctly recorded in the statement. It is also correctly recorded in the statement that he was proprietor of Balaji Earthmovers, a proprietorship firm. He stated that it is also correctly recorded in his statement that he was doing the business of grinding of iron material in the name of M/s. Siri CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 92 of 210 Krishna Industries, a partnership firm at Nagpur. He also admitted that it is correctly recorded in his statement that he was not involved in any decision or strategies of the company.
236. The sixth witness is Abhishek Jayaswal, son of Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who has come to depose in favour of his father.
237. He deposed that Vyawastha Patrak dated 28.03.2005, Exhibit D-15/DW-5 is an affirmative self-declaratory document in first person recording unilateral declaration by BL Shaw (his grandfather) which was confirmed by other family members.
238. He stated that in all, there are three documents.
239. One, Vyawastha Patrak, second, Non-interference Agreement executed in the year 2006 D-69, Page 2, Exhibit P-45 (admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by A-1 and A-2) and third, Indenture of Family Settlement (executed in the year 2008).
240. He stated that the purpose of Vyawastha Patrak was to seek affirmation from all the family members that the business of BL Shaw family is one and for the benefit of all. The purpose was also to reiterate that BL Shaw is the Karta, controlling the entire business for the family.
241. He also stated that it was also the intention of the Vyawastha Patrak that loan from financial institutions will be taken by Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd, but that will be for the benefit of Jayaswal Neco group. The same was done as Jayaswal Neco group was under
Corporate Debt Restructuring and was unable to take loan and therefore the loans were taken under AIPL, projecting it only for CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 93 of 210 commercial convenience and to show to banks that it is a different company though managed by BL Shaw.
242. He submitted that BL Shaw had the apprehensions that an impression was being given that Abhijeet group and Neco group are separate and the purpose of Vyawastha Patrak was to show that the business was actually one and without any division.
243. During cross examination, he stated that BL Shaw was of the view that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal does not work sincerely in the business. He stated that Vyawastha Patrak was supposed to be an internal document and was not supposed to be in public domain.
244. He stated that he has been arraigned as an accused in one case pertaining to bank fraud at Kolkata and two more cases are under investigation, but he is not summoned in those cases so far. He stated that he remained in custody during investigation in one of the cases.
245. He submitted that Abhijeet group had launched a separate website in February 2005, highlighting the achievements of its group companies without any reference to any of the Jayaswal Neco group companies. He explained that the reason for the same was that his grandfather BL Shaw was of the view that, for securing loan from banks, it should be projected to the public that Abhijeet group and Neco group are separate groups and for this reason, the website was silent about group companies of Neco group.
246. He stated that all the people associated with the Coal block allocation and end use plants used to take instructions from BL Shaw. Manoj CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 94 of 210 Kumar Jayaswal, his father, was nowhere involved in taking any decisions regarding Coal block matter or end use plants.
247. He stated that BL Shaw used to pass instructions through his father Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to concerned employees.
248. He stated that after the death of his grandmother in the year 2000, the communication between BL Shaw (his grandfather) and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (his father) was very strained.
249. He stated that around 2001, Jayaswal Neco was under debt problem with the lenders and for that reason, a separate group (Abhijeet group) was being projected to outsiders to gain finance for setting up new projects.
250. When the attention of the witness was drawn to Vyawastha Patrak, Exhibit D-15/DW-5, Para 6, last four lines where it is recorded that Manoj, Anand, Abhishek and Avneesh, the Directors of Abhijeet group shall look after the business of Abhijeet group under the leadership of Manoj Jayaswal and BL Shaw would lead Neco group and Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal would look after the business of Neco group with BL Shaw, the witness stated that BL Shaw had declared in the first part of this para that for putting up new plants and raising finance in the name of one of the family members, some of the companies will be carved out as Abhijeet group.
251. When the attention of the witness was drawn to MOU dated 31.03.2006, Exhibit P-45/A1 and A2, D-69, Clause 2, Page 3, where it is recorded that Abhijeet group had already come into existence and shall have its own identity consisting of Manoj Jayaswal, Anand, CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 95 of 210 Abhishek Jayaswal and Avneesh Jayaswal as members, the witness stated that JAS Toll Road Ltd Draft Red Herring Prospectus for public offering was being filed with SEBI. During due diligence, the advisers pointed out that there is no document to show that Neco group and Abhijeet group are separate as the shareholding and Directorship of Abhijeet group companies are being held by sons of promoters of Neco group. Also, they found that Manoj Jayaswal and Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd were being shown as promoters of Jayaswal Neco with SEBI. So it was pointed out that in the prospectus of JAS Toll Road Ltd, Jayaswals Neco will be shown as a group company. As Jayaswal Neco was in problems with its debt, it will not be possible to get money from public successfully. So, to show separation of Abhijeet and Neco group to avoid Jayaswal Neco name coming in the prospectus, this MOU was executed for commercial convenience. But it was not true, which has been brought out in the subsequent to IFS signed in 2008, which clearly says that there is no separation before that date and BL Shaw, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and Arbind Jayaswal owned 25% each of the whole group and he himself, i.e., Abhishek Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal and Avneesh Jayaswal had no ownership in the business.
252. He stated that whereas in this MOU, it was agreed that Abhijeet group and Neco group shall not interfere with the affairs and conduct of business of the other group, but the same was never acted upon.
253. He stated that in the Vyawastha Patrak it was mentioned that Abhijeet Infrastructure and Corporate Ispat Alloys will take bank finance as Abhijeet group and set up plants for Jayaswals Neco adjoining to its CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 96 of 210 plant at Siltara, Raipur. After the plants start commercial operations, they will be leased to Jayaswal Neco and Jayaswal Neco will run and operate the plants. Even after signing this MOU, in late 2006, the lease agreements (Exhibit D-3/DW-1 and Exhibit D-5/DW-1) were executed which contained a totally one-sided clauses which gave Jayaswals Neco the control of both the plants. Both the plants were later on merged and demerged into Jayaswals Neco without any consideration coming to Abhijeet group which shows that the promoters of Neco group were controlling the board of Abhijeet group and got all these decisions and demerger done in favour of Neco group. He stated that the stipulation regarding merger and demerger of the plants was part of prior family agreements including Vyawastha Patrak which shows that the MOU was sham and it was only for outsiders and was never to be acted upon.
254. He stated so far as he knew Abhijeet infrastructure Ltd, Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd, JAS Toll Road Co Ltd, Jayaswals Ashoka Infrastructure Private Ltd and Chitarpur Coal and Power Limited (Subsequently named as Corporate Power Limited) were shown as part of Abhijeet group from 2004-2005, when he joined the business. He stated that before that he was not in India. He stated that under IFS, these companies went to the share of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and family, but major part of the two major companies namely Abhijeet Infrastructure and Corporate Ispat were demerged and went to Neco group for no consideration.
255. He stated that he knows that he became a Director in Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd in 2008 and before that he stated that he used to sign CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 97 of 210 the papers sent by BL Shaw in good faith and does not know whether he was a Director in these companies before 2008.
256. The Draft Red Herring Prospectus of JAS Toll Road Company limited was exhibited as Exhibit D-16/DW-5. In this prospectus, Dis- association of Promoters is signed by this witness and he stated that he may have signed this prospectus after receiving the same from his grandfather BL Shaw.
257. He stated that when the investigation into Coal block allocations had started, there was a meeting of family members (including his uncles) headed by his grandfather BL Shaw. By the time the division in the companies had already taken place, but the enquiry was related to the period where the family was not separated and all these matters were being looked after by his grandfather BL Shaw. So, since he (BL Shaw) had the full knowledge about the affairs of allocation of the Coal block and related matters, he took upon the responsibility to make the strategy, communications and representations, what the family will make in the investigation. When he was shown copy of letter dated 12.08.2012 signed by him and addressed to the officer of CBI conducting preliminary enquiry, he stated that the signatures on this letter appeared to be his signatures and he would have signed this letter on the directions of his grandfather BL Shaw as it was of the time when the companies were not separated. He stated that the demerger had continued till 2013 and he continued to have his personal interactions with BL Shaw till date.
258. The seventh witness to depose in favour of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is DW 6 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself who has CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 98 of 210 relied on the autobiography of his father Basant Lal Shaw, where it is mentioned by BL Shaw that his family had got divided in 2008.
259. DW 6 stated that while attending trial in this case, he observed there is a controversy regarding the actual date of division in the family. All Coal scam cases where he is an accused, including present case pertains to a period prior to 2008. He has been prosecuted by getting singled out from the family as the case set up against him is that he was the one who having been separated in 2002 was conducting business independently.
260. DW 6 stated that in one of the cases he was convicted because his defence that his father was looking after all the affairs of the business, including allocation of Coal blocks was not accepted because BL Shaw was not examined as a defence witness. He stated that he had moved an application in this case to examine his father but his father could not be examined due to his failing health.
261. DW 6 relied on testimony of various defence witnesses who were examined by him to show that his father BL Shaw was controlling the business, including the aspects of Coal block.
262. He stated that the autobiography mentions that in year 2005 family division was first contemplated which is contrary to the stand taken by prosecution that it was divided in 2002.
263. He stated that all companies had cross holdings and slowly shareholdings were divided into two groups, Neco group and Abhijeet group.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 99 of 210264. He stated that he was not the Managing Director in Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and wherever he has been shown as a Director or key managerial person, he was not actually discharging any function, but was shown so on the instructions of his father BL Shaw.
265. He stated that he had not called AK Srivastava to come to India from Baharin to attend the Screening Committee meeting.
266. He stated that he had attended 10 Screening Committee meetings of Jayaswal Neco industries Ltd but used to just sit in the Screening Committee meeting and the experts accompanying him used to participate in the meetings.
267. He stated that he had attended the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee to represent Jayaswal Neco and his younger brother Ramesh Jayaswal along with AK Srivastava and Dr Garg had represented AIPL. He stated that it was the decision of his father BL Shaw who will represent AIPL before Screening Committee. He stated that he had not attended the meeting of Screening Committee to represent AIPL.
268. When the witness was shown letter dated 23.07.2004 along with its annexures, Exhibit P-231/PW-29, D-6, Page 333, the witness stated that he was not aware about this letter or its enclosures. He was not looking after any work relating to any correspondence with MoS or for allocation of Coal blocks.
269. When the attention of the witness was drawn to letter dated 15.04.2004, Exhibit P-190/PW-27 (Colly), Part of D-6, he stated that CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 100 of 210 he was not looking after any work relating to any correspondence with Land Acquisition Officer.
270. When his attention was drawn to letter dated 23.05.2004, Exhibit P-
233/PW-29 (Colly), Part of D-6, he stated that he was not looking after any work relating to correspondence in respect of manufacture or supply of any kilns or allocation of Coal blocks.
271. When the attention of the witness was drawn to letter dated 13.05.2004, Exhibit P-235/PW-29 and Exhibit P-236/PW-29, Part of D-6, he stated that the banking work was looked after by SK Moitra of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd and it was his conspiracy to get loan in 2005 in the name of Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd.
272. He stated that at times, if any document was sent to him for his signatures, he used to 'sahi' the same on the instructions of his father BL Shaw without bothering about the contents of the same and he never used to understand contents of such letters.
273. When the attention of the witness was drawn to letter dated 16.09.2004, Exhibit P-241/PW-29 (Colly), Part of D-6, addressed to D.Kashiva, Joint Industrial Adviser, MoS, he stated that he was not looking after any work relating to correspondence with MoS or in respect of allocation of Coal blocks and he has no knowledge about this letter and its enclosures.
274. He stated that during the year 2020 he came to know that relating to land matters, sale deeds have been forged and Harshad Pophali stated in his statement that he had forged those sale deeds on the asking of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He stated that in various documents there CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 101 of 210 were nearly 300 forged signatures and only the signatures of Harshad Pophali are genuine signatures on the agreement to sell.
275. The witness stated that he had informed his father BL Shaw that it is a serious matter and can lead to his conviction because of forgery but his father told him that he, BL Shaw was involved in the purchase of land in the name of AIPL. BL Shaw told the witness that Harshad Pophali was looking after the purchase of land and was reporting to Shri Moghe. BL Shaw told the witness that he had given the money to Ashok Patro through the cashier. Ashok Patro had given this money to Prakash Jayaswal at Bhilai. The witness was told by his father that from Bhilai, his brother-in-law Ashok Prasad will take the money to Hazaribagh in the presence of KB Singh. He stated that his father BL Shaw told him that BL Shaw wrongly believed Harshad Pophali. When the witness showed forged documents to his father, he told the witness that Harshad Pophali had given the forged documents to the cashier and has swindled them of the sale consideration. He stated he had no role, function or involvement in respect of applying for allocation of Coal block by Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd.
276. In respect of balance sheets, Exhibit P-42/PW-9 to Exhibit P-48/PW-9, he stated that BK Aggarwal was the Auditor of AIPL till separation of the groups in 2008 and even thereafter till 2013, i.e., the demerger of Corporate Ispat. The balance sheets were produced before him for signing and he had simply signed on them.
277. When he was shown letter dated 17.09.2003, Exhibit P-29/PW-6, D-
15, he stated that this letter was brought to him by Ashok Patro for signing but he did not sign the same as he was told by BL Shaw not to CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 102 of 210 sign any letter pertaining to any matter related to Coal block, banks, sponge iron plant etc. then he got instructions from his father on intercom for signing the letter and he signed this letter on the asking of his father, without bothering about the contents of the same.
278. He stated that he did not attend 24th meeting of the Screening Committee to represent AIPL. Each applicant was called individually by the Screening Committee. He stated that it is not in his knowledge the conversation that may have taken place regarding AIPL. He stated that his father BL Shaw had instructed AK Srivastava, VS Garg to go along with Ramesh Jayaswal in respect of AIPL before the Screening Committee. He stated that Ramesh Jayaswal was also not aware of any matter. He stated that AK Srivastava and VS Garg were senior officers being ex-CIL and ex-Western Coalfields Ltd employees. AK Srivastava was mining expert and used to do all discussions in the meeting on behalf of the company when Manoj Kumar Jayaswal attended the meeting for Jayaswal Neco.
279. In respect of letters signed by Rahul Gupta and Shekhar Barde, the witness stated that BL Shaw had told him that several applications/ correspondence which were approved by him shall be sent to the Secretariat to mining department for signing by secretarial staff of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The witness stated that these instructions of his father were passed on by him to the staff of Secretariat including to Rahul Gupta and Shekhar Barde. He stated that he is not aware of any MOU of 2002. Had it been in existence, it should have been mentioned in any of the documents executed by the family members including in Vyawastha Patrak and IFS 2008.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 103 of 210280. The witness referred to letter written by his son Abhishek Jayaswal DW 5 to the officer of CBI in the year 2012 during preliminary enquiry. He stated that at that time there was a meeting of the family members convened by his father who decided that he was the head of the family and all correspondence for CBI officers pertaining to PE shall be as per his directions. He stated BL Shaw was of the view that for securing loans from banks and for public issue of JAS Toll, the stand taken by the group is that there was a division in the companies in the year 2002 and we must continue to keep the secret and not to disclose true facts. He stated that this is the reason why Vyawastha Patrak was not given to CBI. He stated that in the charge framed against him by this court, there is no reference of MOU of the year 2002. He stated that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is falsely referring to MOU of 2002 to show initiation of division of companies into two groups whereas even after 2002 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal has been writing letters to the Screening Committee and he attended the Screening Committee meeting with AK Srivastava to represent AIPL.
281. He stated that AIPL had no other assets except DRI plant which was merged with Jayaswal Neco and AIPL was a "khokhali company" and was given in his share during separation of business. He stated that it was mentioned in the Vyawastha Patrak that a Coal block is likely to be allocated in favour of AIPL and CAL and land is being taken for EUP. He stated that it was mentioned in the Vyawastha Patrak, Exhibit D-15/DW-5, Para-10 that the sponge iron factories at Siltara Raipur belonging to Corporate Ispat and Abhijeet Infrastructure shall be hived off and merged with Jayaswal Neco.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 104 of 210282. Email dated 07. 03.2020, sent by this witness to the IO was exhibited as Exhibit D-20/DW-6.
283. He stated that during the 24 th meeting of the Screening Committee respective applicants was called one by one by Screening Committee. Each applicant's representative signed the attendance register and he and DY Moghe signed on behalf of Jayaswal Neco. He stated that the representatives of applicant companies had to give presentations to the Screening Committee and justify technically their requirements of Coal along with EUP. He stated that he was sent to the Screening Committee meeting by his father BL Shaw though he was not understanding anything. He stated that before this meeting, he had already attended for meetings of the Screening Committee along with AK Srivastava, who was expert in mining being Ex CIL man. He stated that in the 24th Screening Committee meeting every presentation was given by DY Moghe, who elaborated, explained and justified the things to the Screening Committee. He stated that Mr Srivastava and Mr Moghe were doing everything before the Screening Committee and he was attending the meeting is on the directions of his father BL Shaw. He stated that his father BL Shaw used to decide which son will go to which meeting and which expert will accompany his sons. He stated that earlier he was sent by his father to represent Jayaswal Neco with Mr Srivastava, but this time, he was told that Mr Moghe will accompany him and Mr Garg and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal would go and attend Screening Committee meeting for AIPL and presentations for AIPL will be given by Shri Srivastava. He stated that he had no role in presentation by AIPL and he even did not enquire after the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 105 of 210 Screening Committee meeting was over about the discussions regarding AIPL.
284. In response to the evidence of AK Srivastava, PW 14 that he was called from Baharin by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and it was decided by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who will attend the meeting on behalf of AIPL and Jayaswal Neco, the witness stated that after partition of his family in 2008, AK Srivastava and both his sons joined Abhijeet group, but after filing of FIR, the banks stopped giving disbursement to all the projects in his group, so AK Srivastava felt that there is no future of his group and without bank assistance, the group of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal will become bankrupt. Therefore, he and his son Vinay Srivastava filed Winding-up Petitions against one of his group companies (corporate Power Ltd and Abhijeet Ferro Tech Ltd).
285. He submitted that since illegal dues of AK Srivastava were not admitted and accepted by the court, he was not paid and still the winding up petition was pending with regard to his claim around Rs. 40-50 lakhs, he got an opportunity when he was called by the IO for investigation in this case to depose against him.
286. He stated that the IO also wanted to fix him and Mr Srivastava took his revenge and deposed against him i.e. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
287. He stated that he had filed a suit only to pressurise his father BL Shaw by stating that Abhijeet group had separated in the year 2002 and he was the stakeholder and group was under his control. Finally, after signing of IFS, the case was withdrawn. He stated that the suit was filed only to pressurise his father for settlement.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 106 of 210288. He stated that during IFS, there were discussions which Coal mine will go to whom, for example, JLD Yavatmal where Vijay Darda and Devender Darda were the co-promoters of Delhi was given to BLS family share which shows that BL Shaw exercised all authorities till Indenture of Family Settlement.
289. He stated that in the annual return of AMR Iron and Steel Private Ltd for the year ending on 31.03.2015, Exhibit D-21/DW-6, it is shown that on 29.08.2014, all the four Directors of the company were present, including himself. However, as per the order sheet of this Court dated 31.08.2017, he was present in person at Delhi which shows that in the Annual Return, his presence was being shown during Board meetings without his being present there actually. He submitted that same is the situation with regard to Annual Return of the year ending on 31.03.2018, Exhibit D-22/DW-6, where his presence is shown in the Board meeting on 31.08.2017, but on that date, he was present in person in this court at Delhi. Similarly, for the Annual Return as on 31.03.2019, Exhibit D-23/DW-6, his presence during Board meeting is shown, but on that date, he had taken a flight from Hyderabad to Pondicherry. The printout of air ticket with certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was exhibited as Exhibit D- 24/DW-6. He stated that he should have been given the notice for board meeting. But the same was conducted in his absence and he was wrongly shown present in the meeting by his father BL Shaw and B.K. Aggarwal, the Auditor of AMR.
290. In respect of Vyawastha Patrak, he stated that the same is a self-
declaration of his father that he has created all the assets of the family CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 107 of 210 as karta of the family, he has created Abhijeet group out of a group to integrate the Steel plant of Jayaswal Neco. Once the integration was over, the same had to be merged. Since Jayaswal Neco was Corporate Debt Restructuring company, Jayaswal Neco would not have got loan. He submitted that his father had asked him to resign from the board of Jayaswal Neco Ltd and showed him as separate entity along with his son and son of his elder brother Arbind Jayaswal and Anand Jayaswal and two sons of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal namely Avneesh and Archit. The purpose of Vyawastha Patrak was to state that all the business belongs to the family and will be separated only after evaluation and he had also mentioned in Clause No. 10 and 11 of the said Vyawastha Patrak that after integration of Jayaswal Neco, this group will be merged simultaneously with so-called Abhijeet group, which is being created, and has also applied for Coal mines and taking land and end use Plant under his directions and once this integration was over, all the family, including BL Shaw will create and use plants in Jharkhand.
291. He stated that because there will be no assets in Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd and Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd as CIAL had one small Ferrous Alloy Company, which was finally handed over to him after 2008, he stated that remaining only skeleton companies of Abhijeet Infrastructure and Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd along with respective Coal mines without any end use plants were handed over to him.
292. He stated that since the filing of application for allocation of Coal block till allocation in favour of AIPL, he was not involved at all and he had not written any letters relating to Coal block allocation and in CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 108 of 210 case he had written any letter, the same were written with clear instructions of his father.
293. He stated that he was only doing actual work of bill clearing and used to play cricket all the time and visited office after lunch and went back early home. He stated that he was returning home after partying till late hours. He proved the autobiography of BL Shaw as Exhibit D- 25/DW-6.
294. He also stated that in case this court is of the opinion that he is guilty, then he should be given an opportunity to examine more witnesses to prove his innocence.
295. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that in the autobiography, his father has expressed his personal views about family members. He stated that he is a B.Com Graduate from Calcutta University but denied that he used to sign the documents put up before him for his signatures after reading and understanding them. He stated that he used to sign the documents without reading them.
296. He stated that he had filed the suit Exhibit P-48, D-74 against his father and brothers after reading and understanding the same and in full senses.
297. He denied the execution of MOU in the year 2002 starting the separation process for separating Neco group and Abhijeet group and stated that had there been such a MOU, it would have been mentioned in Vyawastha Patrak.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 109 of 210298. He stated that there is no written record to show that his father BL Shaw had given him the work related to HR or for passing of bills etc. He stated that the directions in this regard were verbal directions.
299. He stated that he was told by his father BL Shaw that all the forgery has been done by Harshad Pophali and since he was working for Jayaswal Neco, he has falsely taken his name.
300. He stated that till his conviction in other Coal scam case (in the year 2023), he was not looking after the affairs of the company and proceedings of those cases and therefore he did not file FIR or took any action against Harshad Pophali for forgery. He volunteered that he had told his father to lodge a case against him but he was told that Harshad Pophali has many information about the companies and it is not advisable to file any case against him.
301. He stated that Harshad Pophali had attended Screening Committee meetings being mining expert but he was not prosecuted only for the purpose of targeting him by CBI. If Harshad Pophali was made an accused, the credibility of all his evidence in other cases would have come to an end. He stated that he had come to know that Harshad Pophali had given forged documents to the cashier and has swindled them of the sale consideration when he was summoned in this case and provided a copy of the chargesheet.
302. During cross examination, he was given a suggestion that he was present during 24th Screening Committee meeting when discussions regarding allocation to AIPL had taken place and the witness had responded that the representatives of each company were called CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 110 of 210 individually and he does not know what had happened during presentation on behalf of AIPL before Screening Committee.
303. He informed that he is accused in 10 criminal cases excluding cases under PMLA. He stated that out of these ten cases, six are pertaining to Coal block allocations itself and in one of the cases, he was discharged. He also stated that he has been convicted in one of the cases pertaining to Coal block allocations in the year 2023. He also stated that there are several complaints/investigations also pending against him under PMLA, 2002.
304. In response to the question that every company is an independent legal entity and Board of Directors of that company are responsible for running the affairs of that company and only the Directors can give directions to the employees of the company and any third person cannot give directions to its Directors not to sign the documents without his/her permission, the witness responded that after 2008 when the company came under his control, he became accountable for the affairs of the company but he was not accountable for the affairs before that.
305. During cross examination by learned counsel for Accused No.2, he stated that his father was unhappy and upset with him since the beginning as he was of the view that he (the witness, Accused No.1) was a careless person and was not hard-working.
306. He stated that his father has given truthful account about his family and business affairs in his autobiography.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 111 of 210307. He stated that his father was unhappy with him due to his friendship with Vijay Darda (son of Jawahar Lal Darda, the then Minister of Industries for State of Maharashtra and Devender Darda (son of Vijay Darda) as he used to remain with them till late hours. Accused No. 1Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Vijay Darda and Devender Darda are accused in another case pertaining to allocation of Coal blocks titled as CBI versus M/s. AMR Iron and Steels Private Ltd and others. Vijay Darda and Devender Darda are also accused in another matter pertaining to investigations by CBI in Coal block allocation cases titled as CBI versus K Sudhakar and others. He affirmed that a company JLD Yavatmal Energy Private Ltd was incorporated in the year 2006 with the shareholding of Vijay Darda, Rajendra Darda, Devender Darda, himself, Abhishek Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal and Karishma Jayaswal.
308. In response to the question that given his father's disapproval of his relationship with Vijay Darda and others of the Darda family, BL Shaw could not have willingly approved of the joint venture between Abhijeet group and the other group in December 2006 by incorporating JLD Yavatmal company with the shareholding of Darda family and Jayaswal family to which the witness replied that had it been so, his father would not have opted for companies where Darda family had shareholding at the time of family partition.
309. He stated that in JAS there was no shareholding of Darda family which was given to him and in JLD, Darda family had shareholding but that was taken over by his father in his share.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 112 of 210310. The witness was put a question that as part of family settlement, JLD Yavatmal company came to the share of BLS group and at the time of transfer, Accused No. 1 and Darda family of both exited JLD Yavatmal company to which the witness responded that after the company had come to the share of BLS group, it was their decision regarding shareholding and they had to decide whether they want shareholding of Darda family or not.
311. When he was put a question that after the Indenture of Family Settlement, JAS company came to the share of MKJ group, somewhere in November 2007 Vijay Darda and Devender Darda entered as shareholders and Directors with him in JAS and their shareholding was increasing the year 2009 and 2010, the witness responded that the business affairs, even after partition were being looked after in MKJ group by financial experts and he had started paying attention only after his conviction in JLD case in 2023.
312. When the witness was confronted with Exhibit P-52, plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 603/2008 where he had mentioned that in around October 2002, the Jayaswal family under the guidance of their patriarch had allowed him to disassociate from the family -controlled business in a phased manner and pursue his ventures independently and this decision was documented in the form of an MOU, the witness stated that statements in the plaint were false and were made only as pressure tactics.
313. He also stated that Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is innocent and has been working under the instructions of their father BL Shaw but is trying to save their father from prosecution.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 113 of 210314. He also admitted that at the beginning of the 24 th Screening Committee meeting, representatives of all applicants are present in the hall and an opening address of 15-20 minutes was given by government officials on issues common to all applicants which were recorded in minutes Exhibit P-297/PW-38, D-61, PDF 7575. He also admitted that after the general discussions, the first case, which the committee had taken up for consideration was of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. However, he denied that Mr Moghe, Mr Srivastava, Mr Garg, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and he had continued to sit in the hall during the time when the Screening Committee meeting was considering the case of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.
315. He also stated during his re-examination by his learned counsel that the purported signature on letter dated 07.12.2004, D-72, Page 51 are not his signatures.
316. The attention of the witness was drawn to para 4 of the civil suit filed by him, Exhibit P-52 where there is a mention of MOU of 2002, the witness responded that no such MOU was executed in the year 2002.
317. The evidence discussed above shows that there are two prosecution witnesses who have deposed about separation of Abhijeet group under the leadership of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in the year 2002.
318. Analysis: - This court has considered the evidence on record.
319. PW 9 B.K. Agrawal had been the statutory auditor of M/s. AIPL from the year 2001 till 2013 (with the exception of the year 2009).
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 114 of 210320. Auditor is an important functionary of the company. The powers and duties of auditors under Section 227 of the Companies Act, 1956 are as under:
POWERS AND DUTIES OF AUDITORS.
(1) Every auditor of a company shall have a right of access at all times to the books and accounts and vouchers of the company, whether kept at the head office of the company or elsewhere, and shall be entitled to require from the officers of the company such information and explanations as the auditor may think necessary for the performance of his duties as auditor. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section (1), the auditor shall inquire -
(a) whether loans and advances made by the company on the basis of security have been properly secured and whether the terms on which they have been made are not prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members;
(b) whether transactions of the company which are represented merely by book entries are not prejudicial to the interests of the company;
(c) where the company is not an investment company within the meaning of Section 372 or a banking company, whether so much of the assets of the company as consist of shares, debentures and other securities have been sold at a price less than that at which they were purchased by the company;
(d) whether loans and advances made by the company have been shown as deposits;
(e) whether personal expenses have been charged to revenue account;
(f) where it is stated in the books and papers of the company that any shares have been allotted for cash, whether cash has actually been received in respect of such allotment, and if no cash has actually been so received, whether the position as stated in the account books and the balance sheet is correct, regular and not misleading. (2) The auditor shall make a report to the members of the company on the accounts examined by him, and on every balance sheet and profit and loss account and on every other document declared by this Act to be part of or annexed to the balance sheet or profit and loss account, which are laid before the company in general meeting during his tenure of office, and the report shall state whether, in his opinion and to the best of his information and according to the explanations given to him, the said accounts give the information required by this Act in the manner so required and give a true and fair view -CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 115 of 210
(i) in the case of the balance sheet, of the state of the company's affairs as at the end of its financial year; and
(ii) in the case of the profit and loss account, of the profit or loss for its financial year.
(3) The auditors' report shall also state -
(a) whether he has obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of his knowledge and belief were necessary for the purposes of his audit;
(b) whether, in his opinion, proper books of account as required by law have been kept by the company so far as appears from his examination of those books, and proper returns adequate for the purposes of his audit have been received from branches not visited by him; (bb) whether the report on the accounts of any branch office audited under Section 228 by a person other than the company's auditor has been forwarded to him as required by clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of that Section and how he has dealt with the same in preparing the auditor's report;
(c) whether the company's balance sheet and profit and loss account dealt with by the report are in agreement with the books of account and returns. 1 [(d) whether, in his opinion, the profit and loss account and balance sheet comply with the accounting standards referred to in sub-Section (3C) of Section 211.] [(e) in thick type or in italics the observations or comments of the auditors which have any adverse effect on the functioning of the company;
(f) whether any Director is disqualified from being appointed as Director under clause (g) of sub-Section (1) of Section 274.]
(g) [whether the cess payable under Section 441-A has been paid and if not, the details of amount of cess not so paid.] (4) Where any of the matters referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-Section (2) or in clauses (a), (b), (bb), 3 [(c) and (d)] of sub-Section (3) is answered in the negative or with a qualification, the auditor's report shall state the reason for the answer.
(4A) The Central Government may, by general or special order, direct that, in the case of such class or description of companies as may be specified in the order, the auditor's report shall also include a statement on such matters as may be specified therein:
Provided that before making any such order the Central Government may consult the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (38 of 1949), in regard to the class or CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 116 of 210 description of companies and other ancillary matters proposed to be specified therein unless the Government decides that such consultation is not necessary or expedient in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The accounts of a company shall not be deemed as not having been, and the auditor's report shall not state that those accounts have not been, properly drawn up on the ground merely that the company has not disclosed certain matters if -
(a) those matters are such as the company is not required to disclose by virtue of any provisions contained in this or any other Act, and
(b) those provisions are specified in the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company.
321. Who would know about the affairs of a company better than its statutory auditor?
322. From the evidence of PW 9, it is noted that:
i. He had been the auditor of Accused No. 3 since 2001 till 2013 (except for the year 2009).
ii. He has stated that the main person for running the affairs of Accused No. 1 company M/s AIPL was Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal, its Director/chairman of the Group.
iii. However, the case of Accused No1 is that this is improvement from the statement of the witness recorded during investigation. Prosecution has relied on Chandrasekhar Sureshchandra Bhatt and others (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the prerogative of the public prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deems necessary for the case. No public prosecutor can be nailed to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. However, it was also noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the variations are marginal which cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also scrutinised the improvements and had satisfied itself that the witness had basically remained at the same position which he had stated in the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, [2024] 1 SCR 249 that if the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [See: (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 117 of 210 (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175]. Therefore, this court is not relying on the statement of this witness in his examination-in-chief that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal Accused No. 3 was the main person for running the affairs of Accused No. 1 company M/s AIPL.
iv. Before the family settlement in the year 2008, there were already two groups namely Neco Group and Abhijeet Group though there were cross shareholding between the groups and Abhijeet Group was controlled and headed by Manoj Jayaswal and Neco Group was controlled and managed by BL Shaw, Ramesh Jayaswal and Arbind Jayaswal.
v. By the time family settlement was executed in 2008, separate businesses were conducted by MKG Group and BLS Group but the assets in the family were distributed by way of family settlement. The businesses being looked after by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal Group (Abhijeet Group) were given to MKG group (Abhijeet Group) and businesses being looked after by BLS Group (Neco Group) were given to BLS Group.
vi. There was a separation of business in the family and Abhijeet Group was looked after and controlled by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The presence of son of Shri Ramesh Jayaswal namely Sh. Avneesh Jayaswal and presence of Anand Jayaswal son of Arbind Jayaswal in Abhijeet group was only as per Vyawastha Patrak to show that the assets belong to the family members equally till there was partition of assets in the family. vii. The statement of this witness during his examination in chief that Abhijeet Group was headed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and was not under overall control of BLS family is not believed by this court being an improvement, but the same is reiterated during his cross-examination. When a witness improves his statement and such an improvement is brought on record by drawing the attention of the witness to his statement recorded during investigation u/s 161 Cr. PC, the matter should be left there and the witness should not be cross-examined which will enable him to reiterate the improvement. When in response to a question put to the witness, he answers what he had not stated during his statement during investigation, it no more remains improvement in his statement but becomes part of evidence being the response elicited by the accused in cross-examination. Therefore, the statement of this witness in his cross-examination that the Abhijeet Group was headed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and was not under overall control of BLS family is now part of admissible evidence.
viii. After formation of Abhijeet Group, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal resigned from the Directorship of the company presently known as M/s. Jayaswal Neco industries Ltd.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 118 of 210ix. Since this witness was independent Director in Jayaswal Neco and Advisor in other companies and was not associated in any manner with companies of Abhijeet group, the argument of Accused No. 1 and 3 is that the witness was inimical towards Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. x. The process of separation of businesses into Abhijeet Group and Neco Group had commenced in the year 2002.
xi. Being an auditor of M/s AIPL, the witness knew that the businesses had separated, but their offices were common and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal continued to use the office for some time, even after execution of family settlement. Till then, the businesses were conducted from the common place.
323. Accused No. 1 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. gave an explanation that several companies under control of PW 9 B.K. Aggarwal were the shareholders in M/s. AIPL but after Indenture of Family Settlement, 2008 he had to give up the shareholding in M/s. AIPL (which had bright prospects) and for this reason, the witness has deposed against Accused No.1. This argument of Accused No.1 is not acceptable for two reasons. One, when PW 9 B.K. Aggarwal was in the witness box, he was not put these allegations on behalf of Accused No. 1. Second, there is no evidence that the companies named by Accused No. 1 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and during defence evidence as DW 6 were under the control of PW 9 B.K. Aggarwal.
324. Next, from the evidence of PW-35 S.K. Moitra, it is noted that:
(i) The case put up before UCO Bank, for debt funding was that Manoj Jayaswal is neither a Director nor holds any key post in the affairs of Neco group of companies after 2002.
(ii) It was also presented to the bank that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has ventured out of Neco group and formed his separate group called Abhijeet group (one of the companies of the group was Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd).CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 119 of 210
(iii) UCO Bank was made to believe that the bifurcation had taken place during the end of 2002, or in early 2003.
(iv) UCO Bank was made to believe that after the bifurcations, none of the Directors are common among both the groups.
(v) It was mentioned to UCO Bank that all companies of Abhijeet group are professionally managed companies and are being controlled by Manoj Jayaswal.
(vi) Aforesaid information was given to UCO Bank on the basis of directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
(vii) Presently, this witness was associate Director of M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd, against which one of the companies of Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal namely M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd had filed winding up petition.
325. Additionally, it is to be noted that on the basis of information given by M/s AIPL to UCO Bank, the Church Gate Reclamation branch at Mumbai had written letter dated 15.04.2004, PDF 8019 to the Head Office of UCO Bank that (i) Manoj Jayaswal is one of the promoter Director of AIPL and is involved in day to day management of the company, (ii) personal guarantee shall be given by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal for Rs.614.14 (in lakhs) and (iii) in the observation sheet on Memorandum submitted by GM OP/RO, PDF 8029, it was noted that the company has clarified that the Director has resigned from the company in 2002 itself from the family owned company and has started Abhijeet Group.
326. Most important documentary evidence to prove that Abhijeet Group had separated from Jayaswal family business in the year 2002 is the Civil Suit filed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself against M/s Neco Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., B.L. Shaw, Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, PDF 8580. Detailed pleadings in the said plaint are noted in earlier CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 120 of 210 paragraphs above. The response of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to this suit is that the same was filed to pressurize his father for settlement and once IFS was executed in the year 2008, the suit was withdrawn. He has stated that he had falsely stated in that suit that the family settlement had taken place in the year 2002. Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, while in the witness box as DW-6 on oath has stated that he had made false averments in the suit.
327. What weightage can the court give to the defence of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in the light of his statement on oath that he had filed false plaint against his father and brothers? With this answer, he lost all his credit worthiness.
328. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in his letter dated 17.09.2003 addressed to Deputy Director (Industries) had categorically stated that M/s AIPL is a flagship company of a reputed group Abhijeet Group.
329. Anand Jayaswal being the authorized signatory of the company had written letter dated 01.08.2003, D-15, Page 30 to the Director of Industries, Jharkhand State, Ranchi in which he also mentioned that M/s AIPL belongs to Abhijeet Group of Companies which is one of the large industrial groups, engaged in core sector industry, infrastructure, construction and diversified activities and is its flagship company.
330. Another documentary evidence supporting emergence of Abhijeet Group as a separate group from Jayaswal Neco group is Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) pertaining to JAS Toll Road Comapny Limited dated 12.06.2006, PDF 8619 in which it was admitted under CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 121 of 210 the heading "Disassociation of Promoters" that in October, 2002, Abhijeet Group emerged as a separate group from Jayaswals Neco Group (JN Group). This DRHP, Exhibit D-16/DW-5, is signed by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as well as DW-5 Abhishek Jayaswal as the Directors of the company.
331. Again on 12.08.2012, DW-5 Abhishek Jayaswal, in his letter to the Enquiry Officer conducting preliminary enquiry concerning JAS Infrastructure and Power Limited mentioned under the heading "Family Split Details" that in October, 2002, Abhijeet Group emerged as a separate group from Jayaswals Neco Group (JN Group). He also stated that after the year 2002, the process of family separation and reorganization commenced with Mr. Manoj Jayaswal and his family members beginning to resign from the Directorship of Jayaswal Neco Group. At the same time, Arbind Jayaswal (Jayaswal Neco Group) started resigning from Abhijeet Group companies.
332. As per the Noninterference Agreement dated 31.03.2006, D-69, Exhibit P-45 (A-1 and A-2), PDF 8179, it was agreed by Basant Lal Shaw, Arbind Jayaswal and Ramesh Jayaswal representing Neco Group of companies (comprising of Jayaswals Neco Limited, Neco Fastings Limited, Jayaswal Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Neco Ceramics Limited, NSSL Limited and MAA Usha Urja Limited) and Manoj Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal, Abhishek Jayaswal and Avneesh Jayaswal representing Abhijeet Group of Companies (comprising of Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited, Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited, JAS Toll Road Company Limited, Jayaswals Ashoka Infrastructure Pvt. Limited and Chitarpur Coal and Power Limited) that Neco Group shall not CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 122 of 210 interfere with the affairs and conduct of business of Abhijeet Group. Similarly, Abhijeet Group shall not interfere with the affairs and conduct of business of Neco Group.
333. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it can be concluded that Abhijeet Group was carved out in the year 2002 out of Neco Group.
334. The defence of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that the same was for commercial convenience. Reliance is placed on Vyawastha Patrak as well as IFS 2008.
335. In the opinion of this court, a reading of the Vyawastha Patrak shows that in the year 2005, when this document was executed, the companies Corporate Ispat Alloys, Abhijeet Infrastructure, JAS Toll and Jayaswal Ashoka constituted a new group which was already known as Abhijeet Group under the leadership of Manoj Jayaswal.
336. DW-5 Abhishek Jayaswal has stated in his evidence that B.L. Shaw had the apprehensions that an impression was being given that Abhijeet Group and Neco Group are separate and the purpose of this Vyawastha Patrak was to show that the business was actually one and without division.
337. Assuming the explanation given by DW-5 to be correct, it shows that B.L. Shaw had the apprehension that such an impression was within the family because for outside world, in any case this was the impression sought to be given that the two groups are separate. It shows Manoj Kumar Jayaswal heading the Abhijeet Group had started doing business and running the affairs of Abhijeet Group as a separate CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 123 of 210 group. Therefore, to rein in Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, this Vyawastha Patrak was executed. Before the signing of this Vyawastha Patrak, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was having all the independence and opportunity for unrestricted activity (field day) in the affairs of Abhijeet Group. During that time there were five Directors namely Manoj Jayaswal, his son Abhishek Jayaswal, his brothers-in-law Ashok Prasad, Radheyshyam Prasad and fifth Director his nephew Anand Jayaswal. During that unrestricted activity, forged letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 along with forged documents were submitted to Ministry of Steel. During this period, the 24 th Meeting of the Screening Committee had also taken place on 09.12.2004 resulting in recommendation of allocation of Coal blocks in favour of Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Limited.
338. DW-1 Sohan Chaturvedi has also stated that before the signing of Vyawastha Patrak, a separate group, Abhijeet Group was already created but B.L. Shaw was skeptical about continuous control over this group as he did not consider Manoj Kumar Jayaswal a reliable head. Therefore, he took confirmation from all the family members.
339. Therefore, although there is ample evidence to show separation of Abhijeet Group from Neco Group in the year 2002, in case the Vyawastha Patrak is taken into consideration, it shows that by getting this document dated 28.03.2005 executed, B.L. Shaw was only trying to seek affirmation from all the family members that the business of B.L. Shaw family is one and for the benefit of all. It was executed because B.L. Shaw had the apprehension in his mind that the family members and above all Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was doing business in CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 124 of 210 Abhijeet Group as a separate group. It shows before execution of Vyawastha Patrak, all the affairs of Abhijeet Group were certainly under the leadership of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
340. There is another aspect to this matter. The defence of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that the two groups were created to secure bank loans as Neco Group was not getting the loan as it was undergoing corporate debt restructuring. Therefore, loan was taken in the name of Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited and Corporate Ispat Limited (Group companies of Abhijeet Group) to set up sponge iron plants which were leased to Jayaswal Neco which had to pay the loan installments to the bank.
341. The reasoning given for execution of Non Interference Agreement is that the same was required to win over the confidence of public at the time of draft red herring prospectus of JAS Toll Road Company Limited.
342. The doctrine or rule of pari delicto is the embodiment of the principle that the Courts will refuse to enforce an illegal agreement at the instance of a person who is himself a party to an illegality or fraud, Virender Singh vs Laxmi Narain, 2006 (135) DLT 273. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred to Herbert Broom's "A Selection of Legal Maxims" (10th Edition), where the maxims is explained as follows:
"The maxim, in pari delicto portior est conditio possidentis, is as thoroughly settled as any proposition of law can be. It is a maxim of law, established, not for the benefit of plaintiffs or defendants, but is founded on the principles of public policy, which will not assist a plaintiff who has paid over money, or handed over property, in pursuance of an illegal or immoral contract, to recover it back; 'for the Courts will not assist an illegal transaction in any respect'. The maxim is therefore, intimately connected with the more CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 125 of 210 comprehensive rule of our law, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, on account of which no court will "allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal"; and the maxim may be said to be a branch of that comprehensive rule: for the well-established test, for determining whether the money or property which has been parted with in connection with an illegal transaction can be recovered in a Court of justice, is to ascertain whether the plaintiff, in support of his case, or as part of his cause of action, necessarily relies upon the illegal transaction: if he "requires aid from the illegal transaction to establish his case, " the Court will not entertain his claim."
343. In this case, the defence of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that Abhijeet Group was created to take loans for the benefit of Neco Group. Had this fact been known to the banks, they would not have given the loan.
344. It is also his defence that Non Interference Agreement was executed at the time of Draft Red Herring Prospectus of JAS Toll Road Company Limited to win over the confidence to invest in the said company. Meaning thereby, the intention was to deceive the public by falsely showing the two groups to be different and separate. If the version of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is accepted, it will show that both groups had voluntarily and by their free will joined hands to flout the law. Therefore, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal cannot be permitted to take this defence.
345. This Court is not believing the testimony of DW 1 about separation of two groups in the year 2008 because in the opinion of this Court, the said witness was just a junior partner in M/s Chaturvedi and Shaw, which firm was the statutory auditor of Neco Group. This witness remained a partner in that firm till 1999. His first official association came when he was made auditor of M/s Inertia in the year 2006 for a CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 126 of 210 period of three years. In between, he claims to be close to BL Shaw after the death of wife of BL Shaw in the year 2000. This Court is not believing his closeness with BL Shaw during this time because had he been close to BL Shaw he would have had some role in the execution of Vyawastha Patrak or Non Interference Agreement of the year 2006.
346. When M/s Inertia came under fold of Jayaswal Neco in the year 2009- 10, he was removed as auditor of the company. Had he been close to BL Shaw, he would have continued as auditor of this company when this company came under the fold of Neco Group i.e. the year 2004.
347. Later on, he became auditor of few companies under the control of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. Therefore, this witness was not in the picture and therefore, was not in a position to depose about the affairs of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited during the relevant time.
348. This Court also disbelieves DW 2 Ashok Patro that the separation had taken place in the year 2008 because he has deposed that he was called by BL Shaw during preparation and finalization of IFS in July 2008 as he needed some reference point from MoU of the year 2006, which were to be mentioned in the IFS. The witness has stated that he traced the draft copy of the MoU from the system which was used by him during his tenure with Neco Group and that is how he came to know about separation of the groups during July 2008. A perusal of record show that the original MoU was provided by the Assistant General Manager of M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited to CBI during investigation vide production cum seizure memo dated 02.05.2013. Therefore, the same was available in the company in original and there was no need for BL Shaw to call this witness for referring to the said CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 127 of 210 draft MoU retrieved by this witness from the computer, which he was using during his employment in Neco Group. This statement is given by the witness only to falsely show his interaction with BL Shaw, so that he can depose that he knew that the separation had taken place during the year 2008.
349. This Court is also not believing the testimony of DW 3 Ashok Prasad that the Abhijeet Group and Neco Group were one and the same till 2008 and were managed by BL Shaw, in view of the testimony of PW 9 and PW 35 and documentary evidence, where under their own signatures, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Abhishek Kumar Jayaswal have stated that the separation had taken place in the year 2002. Moreover, this witness is the brother-in-law of Manoj Jayaswal being the brother of the wife of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and being an interested witness, his statement after sifting and weighing by the Court is rejected as it fails to match evenly with the other evidence discussed above.
350. Similarly, the evidence of DW 5 Abhishek Jayaswal and DW 6 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is held unbelievable in the face of their own documents mentioning separation of the two groups in the year 2002 (such as the Civil Suit filed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Draft Red Herring Prospectus of JAS Toll Road Company Limited and Letter dated 12.08.2012 by this witness to the Enquiry Officer of CBI). Their explanation for claiming separation of two groups in the year 2008 is equally rejected for the principles of Pari Delicto. According to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Abhijeet Group had become a separate and independent group in the year 2008. If it is so, it is unbelievable that CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 128 of 210 DW 5 Abhishek Jayaswal on the advice of BL Shaw would have wrongly mentioned in the letter to the Enquiry Officer of CBI that the separation had taken place in 2002. It is common case of all the accused that there was no love lost between BL Shaw and the Darda's family (Vijay Darda is son of one Jawahar Darda, Ex Minister in State of Maharashtra. Vijay Darda and his son Devender Darda are accused with Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in CBI versus AMR and others. Vijay Darda and Devender Darda are accused in CBI versus K. Sudhakar. Both of them along with the accused Manoj Kumar Jayaswal have been convicted in an earlier coal block case). In 2006, M/s. JLD Yavatmal was incorporated with shareholding of Darda's on one hand and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal, Abhishek Jayaswal and Karishma Jayaswal on the other hand. This would not have been possible if BL Shaw was controlling affairs of all the group companies till 2008. When this company came in the fold of BL Shaw in 2008, Darda's exited M/s. JLD Yavatmal company's shareholding. In 2007, when M/s. JAS came under fold of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal group, Darda's entered shareholding in this company, which would not have been possible if BL Shaw was controlling all the company still 2008.
351. Moreover, when a defence is taken by an accused under oath during his trial for an offence that he had made false averments (which are contrary to his defence in the trial) in the earlier suit, he loses the trust of the court. When an accused or a witness state that he had not disclosed true state of affairs of a company only for securing loans from the bank, he loses the trust of the Court. When an accused or a witness takes a defence that he had made false averments in Draft Red CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 129 of 210 Herring Prospectus about the affairs of a company for seeking public investment to win over the confidence of the public, he loses the trust of the Court. When an accused or a witness state that he had executed an agreement (MoU of 2006, Non-interference Agreement) to present false state of affairs of a company to the public for the success of their public issue, he loses the trust of the Court. When a witness states that he knowingly furnished false information to a public servant (Enquiry Officer in this case), he loses trust of the Court.
352. Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has relied on Autobiography Exhibit D-25/DW-6 written by his father Sh. BL Shaw to submit that according to BL Shaw the family separation had taken place in the year 2008. BL Shaw could not be summoned as a Defence Witness as Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as well as his Ld. Counsel were also of the view that because of his advanced age and debilitating health, he is not fit to be examined even on Commission. On the query of the Court about evidentiary value of the Autobiography, the Ld. Counsel for Manoj Kumar Jayaswal cited Santosh Kumar Jain (supra), where the Autobiography of an Author was tendered in evidence and in proof of ancestral nature of the business. A perusal of the judgment nowhere deals with evidentiary value of Autobiography. Assuming the Autobiography to be the statement of BL Shaw who has become incapable of giving evidence to be a relevant fact, it has to fall under one of the eight instances referred in Section 32 of the Evidence Act. However, this Autobiography does not come under any of those eight instances.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 130 of 210353. Moreover, the entirety of the facts of the case reveal that PW 9 BK Agarwal has aptly deposed that the family partition had taken place in 2008 but before that there was partition of business into two groups i.e. BLS Group headed by BL Shaw and controlled by BL Shaw, AKJ and RKJ and another group i.e. MKJ Group headed and completely controlled by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
354. In view of the above discussion, this point for determination is answered holding that a new group called Abhijeet Group had come into existence in the year 2002 under the leadership of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
355. 13th Point for Determination: Whether Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after affairs of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Ltd (including allocation of Coal blocks) during the year 2004 when false and forged documents were submitted by M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel?
356. Whereas the case of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that he was not given any important work before IFS 2008, the evidence of PW-6 Rahul Gupta shows that: -
(i) He was under instructions of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign various letters on behalf of M/s AIPL.
(ii) Accused No. 1 had an independent Secretariat where this witness was posted.
(iii) This Secretariat of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was dealing with submissions of modified project implementation schedules for the Mining Project and the End Use Project D-3, Page 66-68, PDF 383-385 Exhibit P-27/PW-6 dated 07.06.2005, seeking extension of period for procurement of geological reports from Central Coalfields Limited and CMPDIL D-3, Page 69, PDF 386 Exhibit P-28/PW-6 dated 07.07.2005, filing of revised bar charts for implementation of the Coal mining project, D-3, Page 2-4, PDF 317-319 Exhibit P-24/PW-6 dated 18.08.2005 and submitting mining plan for approval of MoC, D-3, Page 16, PDF 331 Exhibit P-25/PW-6 dated 28.12.2005.CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 131 of 210
(iv) Vide letter dated 17.09.2003, Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had provided clarifications regarding certain points raised by Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Geology, State Government of Jharkhand in respect of proposed MoU between the State Government of Jharkhand and M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Limited, D-15, Page 36-37, PDF 2578-2579 Exhibit P-
29/PW-6. The letter dated 17.09.2003 is quoted below to show the involvement of Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal in the affairs of Accused No. 3 Company M/s AIPL including allocation of Coal Block in favour of M/s AIPL:
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 132 of 210 CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 133 of 210(v) He had clear instructions to sign the letters whenever so placed before him.
(vi) There was no scope for questioning and whatever was directed had to be carried out.
(vii) He had no authorisation in his favour to represent Accused No.3 company, but nobody could have questioned the directions to sign on the letters so directed.
(viii) This witness has/had no litigation with any company controlled by Accused No.1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and was a neutral witness in as much as he had worked in the companies which later on became part of Neco group and Abhijeet group.
357. The response of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in this regard is twofold. One, he has stated that on the instructions of B.L. Shaw, he had instructed PW-6 Rahul Gupta and PW-12 Chandrasekhar Barde to sign various letters. This court does not believe this explanation because if B.L. Shaw did not trust Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, he would not have given the instructions to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself to instruct officials working in his secretariat to sign the letters which were sent from his secretariat.
358. The second explanation given by Manoj Jayaswal is that DW-2 Ashok Patro had brought letter dated 17.09.2003 for his signatures but he had refused to sign the same as he was under instructions not to sign any important letter. Thereafter, Ashok Patro informed B.L. Shaw about refusal by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign the letter and B.L. Shaw instructed him on intercom, only then he signed this letter.
359. In support of this defence, Manoj Jayaswal has examined DW-2 Ashok Patro. A perusal of the evidence of Ashok Patro shows that this is a false defence created by the Accused No. 1. The version given by DW-2 is that at the time of signing of this letter, BL Shaw was CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 134 of 210 informed by Harshad Pophali that this letter has to be signed by D.Y. Moghe who is on leave and therefore BL Shaw instructed DW-2 to get the same signed from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
360. DW-2 was a person working in Accounts department and not in the Mining Division. So, why BL Shaw did not ask Harshad Pophali to get the letter signed from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and why BL Shaw asked Ashok Patro to get it signed from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and then return it back to Harshad Pophali.
361. This letter being unrelated to Accounts department, had no concern whatsoever with DW-2 Ashok Patro. This letter was being written in response to the letter of the Deputy Director (Industries) on the subject of MoU between State Government of Jharkhand and M/s AIPL. Obviously, DW-2 had not drafted this letter. It is therefore, extremely difficult to believe that the witness remembered that 21 years ago, one letter was given to him by B.L. Shaw for signatures of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal but he had refused to sign the same for want of authority from B.L. Shaw.
362. When the statement of this witness is considered, it will show that he had poor memory of recent years and therefore could not have remembered 21 years old innocuous incident. The witness stated that CBI had recorded his statement but he could not remember the date, month or year when the same was recorded or the case in which it was recorded. The witness stated that he had received summons to appear as a witness from the court but was granted exemption as he was very much busy in his professional work. However, the witness could not give the date, month or the year when he had received summons to CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 135 of 210 appear as a witness and could not give the name of the court which had summoned him or the name of the case in which he was summoned. He was not even knowing whether B.L. Shaw was ever a Director in AIPL which shows his scanty involvement in the affairs of various companies of the group.
363. It is just a ploy to introduce Ashok Patro in the story so that he can depose about this letter during his defence evidence.
364. PW-9 B.K. Agrawal has stated that the main person running the affairs of Accused No. 3 company M/s AIPL was Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal, its Director/Chairman of the group.
365. However, the case of Accused No1 is that this is improvement from the statement of the witness recorded during investigation.
366. Prosecution has relied on Chandrasekhar Sureshchandra Bhatt and others (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the prerogative of the public prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deems necessary for the case. No public prosecutor can be nailed to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. However, it was also noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the variations are marginal which cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also scrutinised the improvements and had satisfied itself that the witness had basically remained at the same position which he had stated in the FIR.
367. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, [2024] 1 SCR 249 that if the PWs had failed to CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 136 of 210 mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [See: (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175]. Therefore, this court is not relying on the statement of this witness in his examination-in-chief that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal Accused No. 3 was the main person for running the affairs of Accused No. 1 company M/s AIPL.
368. A perusal of the statement of this witness shows that during his examination in chief, he made an improvement that Manoj Jayaswal was the main person running the affairs of M/s AIPL. To that extent, it may not have been admissible. However, he has reiterated the same during his cross-examination also in response to questions put to him. When a witness improves his statement and such an improvement is brought on record by drawing the attention of the witness to his statement recorded during investigation u/s 161 Cr. PC, the matter should be left there and the witness should not be cross-examined on the subject which may otherwise enable him to reiterate the same improvement during cross examination. When in response to a question put to the witness during cross examination, he gives the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 137 of 210 answer which is not part of his statement during investigation, it no more remains improvement in his statement but becomes part of evidence being the response elicited by the accused in cross- examination. Therefore, the response of this witness in his cross- examination that the Abhijeet Group was headed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and was not under overall control of BLS family is no more improvement but part of admissible evidence.
369. PW 12 Chander Shekhar Barde has stated that BL Shaw was taking all important decisions of the company M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited during year 2000-2007. He stated that BL Shaw did not allow Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to deal with any matter relating to public offices/government departments.
370. This statement of the witness is discredited by the evidence of PW-6 Rahul Gupta as well as by the statement of this witness in his examination in chief from where it is evident that important letters (such as submitting modified project implementation schedules for the mining projects and end use project, extension of time for procuring geological report from CCL and CMPDIL, filing revised bar chart for implementation of the Coal mining projects at Coal blocks allotted to Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited, submitting mining plans for approval of MoC, payment of crores of rupees i.e. Rs.7,53,52,872.96/- for drilling charges/exploration charges were given to MoC/CCL/CMPDIL through the Secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. Moreover, if people were coming from various states to the office of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal regarding purchase of land, it would show that important decisions were taken by Accused No. 1 Manoj CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 138 of 210 Kumar Jayaswal. Moreover, most of the evidence of this witness is in the nature of hearsay as he deposed on the basis of decisions told to him by his senior officers during lunch hours. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, this witness has supported prosecution during examination in chief, but falsely parroted the version of Accused No. 1 during his cross-examination. This court, therefore, discards the testimony of this witness to the extent that all the important decisions pertaining to M/s. AIPL during 2000-2007 were taken by BL Shaw.
371. PW-14 A.K. Srivastava has stated that since 1999, when the policy of allocation of Coal blocks to private companies came into being, Sh. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after all the matters related to allocation of Coal blocks. This part of the statement is not in the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, this part of the statement of the witness is corroborated by the statements of PW 6 Rahul Gupta as well as PW 12 Chander Shekhar Barde who were working in the Secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and had signed important documents pertaining to Coal mines to MoC (including approval of mining plans, payment of crores of rupees for drilling charges/exploration charges were given to MoC/CCL/CMPDIL) on the instructions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. This would not have been possible if Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was not looking after all the matters pertaining to allocation of Coal blocks. The fact that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after the matters pertaining to allocation of Coal blocks is also corroborated by the statement of PW 20 Harshad Pophali.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 139 of 210372. PW-14 has stated that it was Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who used to decide who will attend which meeting of the Screening Committee. He has also stated that it was the decision of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who will attend the 24th Screening Committee meeting for representing AIPL.
373. The evidence of AK Srivastava cannot be discredited only for the reason that he had filed a winding up petition against one of the companies of Abhijeet group in the year 2015, or because his son had filed a winding up petition against one of the companies of Abhijeet group. The claim of his son was justified is evident from the fact that the witness stated that the dues of his son were paid as a result of compromise with the company. So far as claim of the witness is concerned, the same was not rejected but since the company went under liquidation, was under consideration of the official liquidator.
374. From the evidence of PW-20 Harshad Pophali, it is noted that:
(i) This witness had joined Jayaswal Neco Ltd in the year 2003. When the forged letters with the forged documents were sent on behalf of M/s. AIPL to Ministry of Steel (23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004), he may even not have completed one year of service and may have been on probation. Therefore, his involvement in such forgery is ruled out.
(ii) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after all matters related to allocation of Coal blocks.
(iii) In the year 2004, he was directed by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to visit Ranchi for land related matters and for site identification for their proposed plant at Jharkhand.
(iv) Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had his own Secretariat at Nagpur.
(v) He had collected village maps from District Land Acquisition Office and submitted them in the Secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
(vi) He was under instructions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal for signing documents on behalf of M/s. AIPL whenever so asked for by the local persons CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 140 of 210 who will be helping Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to look out for land at Hazaribagh.
(vii) Such types of commands were given by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to the employees is also evident from the evidence of PW 6 Rajesh Gupta and PW 12 Chandrashekar Barde.
(viii) This witness had signed on agreements to sell, Exhibit P-115-118/ PW 20, as he was under the directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign on the documents produced by local persons who were there for arranging land and for any other purpose pertaining to setting up of plant by the company.
(ix) This witness had also written the name of the company on sale deeds, Exhibit P-1/PW-1 to Exhibit P-3/PW-1, as he was under instructions of Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to render all help by signing/writing wherever so required by the local persons.
(x) The dues of this witness were not given by Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited, one of the group companies of Abhijeet Group and he had filed an application for impleadment in a pending winding up petition against the said company in the year 2014. This is no ground to reject the testimony of this witness. It is not the case that his claim petition was dismissed being without any merit, leaving him unsatisfied and thereby inimical against Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
(xi) The defence of Accused No. 1 that in the year 2014, this witness had a public spat with him in respect of certain bills and the witness had vowed to teach Manoj Kumar Jayaswal a lesson is unbelievable. It is difficult to believe that the witness, a mere employee in the company would have had spat publicly with Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who was running a conglomerate of several companies of Abhijeet group worth hundreds of crores.
(xii) The submission of Manoj Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that this witness after leaving Abhijeet group had joined M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd is also no ground to believe that the evidence of this witness is tainted. The witness had left M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd in the year 2019. When his evidence was recorded, he was no more the employee of the said company. The fact that the witness was not under the sway of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is evident from the fact that he had requested the prosecutor to show his statement recorded during investigation, before his examination in the court. Whereas it is correct that neither such request should have been made nor entertained, but it shows that the witness was not under tutoring of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal otherwise he would not have requested to be shown his statement and his statement would have been made available to him by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal who is a co- accused in this case.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 141 of 210375. PW-35 S.K. Moitra has also stated that all the information to the UCO Bank given on the basis of directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and on the basis of records of the companies.
376. Admittedly, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has attended as many as 10 meetings of the Screening Committee.
377. Assuming the case of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that Abhijeet group was created for commercial convenience to be true, it negates his defence that neither B.L. Shaw neither liked him nor trusted him with important work. If it was so, B.L. Shaw would have asked Arbind Jayaswal or Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal to resign from Neco Group for heading the Abhijeet Group and would not have given this opportunity to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
378. DW-1, DW-2, DW-3, DW-5 and DW-6 have stated that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was insincere in business. However, it is often said that witnesses may lie but the circumstances do not lie.
379. It is admitted case that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had his own secretariat. PW-6 and PW-12 have sent important letters from the secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. PW-20 Harshad Pophali was given important directions by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. Accused No.1 has attended as many as 10 Screening Committee meetings. It is no coincidence that he is an accused in ten criminal cases including six coal block cases (so far, discharged in one case and convicted in another case). He is being prosecuted in several matters under PMLA. A person who passes travelling bills for the employees or looks after General Administration would not have been embroiled in more than a CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 142 of 210 dozen criminal cases. PW-14 A.K. Srivastava has deposed that Accused No. 1 used to decide who will attend the meetings of Screening Committee for representing companies of the two groups. So much so, A.K. Srivastava was called by him from Bahrain to attend the 24th Screening Committee Meeting and before the start of the meeting, he was told by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to represent M/s AIPL. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has taken the plea that washery was not such a subject for which the said witness had to be called from Bahrain and any other expert would have been sufficient for this purpose. Simultaneously, he has contradicted himself several times by stating during defence evidence that A.K. Srivastava was an expert in the field being Ex-Coal India Limited man and used to be sent by BL Shaw for attending Screening Committee meetings.
380. Therefore, this point for determination is answered holding that it was Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who was looking after affairs of M/s AIPL (including allocation of Coal blocks) during the year 2004 when false and forged documents were submitted by M/s AIPL to MoS.
381. 14th Point for Determination: Who submitted forged letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 enclosing therewith forged documents on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to Ministry of Steel?
382. This Court while passing the Order on Charge had noted that this was a case which required remand of the suspects during investigation to find out the person who had sent the forged letters to the Ministry of Steel.
383. In the absence of identification of the such person i.e. direct evidence, the case is now of circumstantial evidence.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 143 of 210384. The main thrust of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that he was a good for nothing person in the eyes of BL Shaw. He was on the verge of becoming a naxalite or politician. He used to visit the office late and leave early for home. He used to play cricket with the staff of the office and lived a life of luxury without any contribution to the business. Everything was, according to him, controlled by his father BL Shaw. Meaning thereby, it is BL Shaw (whom he reverentially addresses as Babuji) who should have been in the docks facing the trial but Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has been falsely accused due to bias and prejudice of the IO against him.
385. In the earlier paragraphs, it is noted that during the year 2004 when forged letters and forged documents were submitted to MoS, M/s AIPL was under control of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as he was heading Abhijeet Group.
386. The Directors in the company were he himself i.e. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, his own son Abhishek Jayaswal, his brothers-in-law (brothers of the wife) Ashok Prasad, Radheyshyam Prasad and his nephew Anand Jayaswal.
387. His nephew Anand Jayaswal was a Director because there were common shareholdings and the two groups were in the process of completing the process of separation which had began in the year 2002.
388. Therefore, M/s AIPL was practically under the control of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in the year 2004.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 144 of 210389. Unquestionable commands used to be given to the employees by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is evident from the evidence of PW 6 Rahul Gupta, PW 12 Chander Shekhar Barde and PW 20 Harshad Pophali. Nobody could have questioned him and they had to merely sign on the letters whenever he so directed them to sign.
390. PW 20 Harshad Pophali was under instructions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal for signing documents on behalf of AIPL whenever so asked for by some local persons assisting Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to look out for land at Hazaribagh.
391. Pursuant to those directions, PW 20 Harshad Pophali had signed agreements to sell Ex. P-115/PW-20 to Ex. P-118/PW-20. He had also written the name of the company on the sale deeds Ex. P-1/PW-1 to Ex. P-3/PW-1.
392. These Agreements to Sell and Sale Deeds are forged is already proved in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment.
393. During investigation, those local persons could not be identified. But this Court believes the version of PW 20 Harshad Pophali about such directions having been given by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to him.
394. It is reiterated here that PW 6 Rahul Gupta has stated that there was no question for questioning and whatever was directed had to be carried out. There was no authorization in favour of PW 6 but he was directed to sign as Authorized Signatory of the company.
395. Similarly, PW 12 Chander Shekhar Barde has also stated that he had clear instructions from Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to sign letters put up before him for his signatures.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 145 of 210396. The involvement of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in purchase of land is also spoken by PW 12 Chander Shekhar Barde as he stated that people used to come from various states to the office regarding purchase of land. Since PW 12 was posted in Secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, 'office' would refer to Secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
397. PW 14 AK Srivastava has also stated that since 1999, when the policy of allocation of Coal blocks to private companies came into being, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after all the matters related to allocation of Coal blocks.
398. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had written letter dated 17.09.2003 to the Deputy Director (Industries), State of Jharkhand in respect of MoU between that State Government and M/s AIPL.
399. The fact that on the directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Harshad Pophali signed on Agreements to Sell and wrote the name of M/s AIPL on Sale Deeds brought to him by local persons as per directions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and these forged documents reached Ministry of Steel proves that these forged documents were got submitted to MoS by none else but Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
400. Forged letters of UCO Bank and J&K Bank showing financial closures were submitted to Ministry of Steel. Forged letters showing placing of order for supply of kilns worth Rs. 1600 lakhs were submitted to Ministry of Steel. Forged letters to Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand for acquisition of 275 acres of land in Hazaribagh District were submitted to Ministry of Steel. Forged letters CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 146 of 210 to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi for sending agreement to be completed and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act for administrative approval for acquisition process for acquiring 272.42 acres of land were submitted to the Ministry of Steel.
401. The evidence on record has shown that Coal block allocation matters were looked after by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who was leading Abhijeet group since 2002. There are certain letters where signatures of Ashok Prasad and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal are forged. So far as one such letter dated 03.12.2002 is concerned, Ashok Prasad had admittedly sent letter dated 14.12.2002 to the Ministry of Steel in which there is reference to his earlier letter dated 03.12.2002. It shows Ashok Prasad is party to sending letter to Ministry of Steel. He had the knowledge that earlier letter dated 03.12.2002 was sent under his forged signatures. Ashok Prasad has denied his signatures on letter dated 01.12.2002 but when the Ministry of Coal sent reply to this letter, vide its letter dated 28.01.2003, Ashok Prasad did not object that he had not sent any letter dated 01.12.2002 or his signatures on that letter are forged. It is to be noted that letters under forged signatures from M/s. AIPL started in 2002 when M/s. AIPL had come under Abhijeet group, run under the leadership of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. Before that, there is no letter with the forged signatures of anyone. It shows ill intentions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who was heading Abhijeet group in 2002. The aim of sending innocuous letters under forged signatures was obfuscation. It was with the intention to show CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 147 of 210 that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal himself was a victim of forgery. But truth manifests itself.
402. Therefore, this point for determination is answered holding that the forged letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 enclosing therewith forged documents on behalf of M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd were got submitted by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to the Ministry of Steel.
403. 15th Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 471 IPC framed against Accused No. 1 and 3?
404. On behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal reliance is placed on Chatt Ram (Supra) and Dasrathlal Chandulal Joshi (Supra) to submit that in respect of offence u/s 471 IPC, it is necessary to consider whether the prosecution had established by adducing cogent and convincing evidence that the accused knew or had reason to believe the documents (letters dated 23.07.2004 & 16.09.2004 along with documents enclosed with them) to be forged documents when he got them presented them before the Ministry of Steel.
405. In the case of Chatt Ram (supra), the appellant had claimed lottery prize by submitting a forged lottery ticket. However, there was no evidence that he was concerned in forging the lottery ticket or had the requisite guilty knowledge of its forged character when he presented it and claimed prize on its basis before the officers concerned. Hence, the conviction of appellant u/s 467/471 IPC was set aside.
406. In the case of Dasrathlal Chandulal Joshi (supra), the appellant had accompanied the co-accused for collecting donations on the basis of forged receipts. It was held that it was not proved that the appellant CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 148 of 210 knew from before that the receipts used by his co-accused were forged. There was no evidence that the co-accused of the appellant had shared the fraudulent intention with the appellant in passing as genuine forged receipts and obtaining donations from various persons on false pretexts. Hence, the conviction of the appellant u/s 420/34 and 471/34 IPC was set aside.
407. So, the question is whether Manoj Kumar Jayaswal knew that the letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 and documents enclosed with them were forged documents and knowingly used them as genuine by submitting the same to the Ministry of Steel in response to the queries of the said Ministry.
408. It is nobody's case today that the agreements to sell and the sale deeds submitted to Ministry of Steel were genuine or not forged one.
409. The defence set up by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that more than Rs.20 lakhs were given in cash to PW Harshad Pophali for purchasing various parcels of the land and he swindled the Accused No. 3 company by submitting forged agreements to sell and forged sale deeds to show that he has spent the money given to him for purchasing the land in favour of Accused No. 3 company.
410. Hence, his submission is that till the time this charge-sheet was filed, nobody knew that the agreements to sell and sale deeds were forged.
411. If Manoj Kumar Jayaswal proves these submissions, then definitely he can argue that he had no knowledge that the Agreements to Sell and Sale Deeds were forged.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 149 of 210412. PW 12 Chander Shekhar Barde has stated during his cross-
examination on behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that BL Shaw used to take decisions for purchase of land for setting up of EUP for various companies including AIPL and his three sons had no say in that respect. PW-12 Chandrasekhar Barde though claimed that B.L. Shaw had a land acquisition team with him for purchase of land but he could not support his statement as he could not remember the names of the persons who were part of the said team. Meaning thereby there was no such team of BL Shaw dealing with land acquisition/purchase of land. During re-examination, he stated that he had seen people coming from various states coming to 'office' regarding purchase of land also. Since this witness was employed in the secretariat of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and not in the secretariat of B.L. Shaw or Arbind Jayaswal or Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, his statement that he had seen people coming from various states coming to 'office' regarding purchase of land also refers to the office of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. It shows that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was dealing with purchase of land.
413. DW 1 Sohan Chaturvedi has also stated that BL Shaw was Chairman of the Group and was making all the decisions relating to Coal block and purchase of land. However, it is noted in the earlier parts of this judgment that this witness had done his article-ship in the year 1977 with a firm of chartered accountants namely M/s Chaturvedi and Shah Chartered Accountants Firm. This firm was the statutory auditor of Jayaswal Neco Limited till the year 1999. The witness claims that he had come closer to B.L. Shaw in the year 2000 when the wife of B.L. Shah passed away. However, the association of this witness with B.L. CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 150 of 210 Shaw is proved only in the year 2006 when he was made Auditor of M/s Inertia. Therefore, this witness could not have deposed about affairs of M/s AIPL in the year 2004. Moreover, this court has already rejected with reasons the defence of the accused that he was given only petty jobs by B.L. Shaw. Therefore, this court is not inclined to believe the statement of this witness that all decision in respect of purchase of land for M/s AIPL were taken by B.L. Shaw.
414. DW 2 Ashok Patro has stated that sometime earlier 2004, he was called by BL Shaw where he saw that DY Moghe, Harshad Pophali and Ashok Prasad were discussing about land which was to be cash acquired at around Hazaribagh for the proposed plans/project for AIPL The witness stated that in the meeting, Harshad Pophali said that he had identified some parcels of land near Hazaribagh. He also told that the landowners are very poor and if the same has to be purchased, the settlement has to be done in cash. BL Shaw instructed him i.e., this witness to arrange and transfer the cash to Prakash Jayaswal at Bhilai office. The witness collected the cash from Head Office Cashier and the directions of BL Shaw were that this cash will be collected and transferred by Ashok Prasad from Bhilai and facilitate the same by going to Hazaribagh in the presence of K.B. Singh. The cash transaction for this purpose was between 18-20 lakhs. He stated that it showed that the persons responsible for project/plant in Hazaribagh were DY Moghe, Harshad Pophali and K.B.Singh with respect to land acquisition. He stated that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had never directed any official of the group companies for procuring of land for any project. He stated that after the land purchase was done, he had called CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 151 of 210 DY Moghe, Ashok Prasad and Harshad Pophali to his chamber for checking the documents of land, in original, so that the cash debited to his account can be squared off. He stated that the account was squared off in October 2004 and respective documents for squaring the account were handed over by him to Mr Rawat, the Cashier at head office from whom he had drawn the money. The witness deposed that he had acknowledged the receipt of money from cashier by signing the cash payment voucher and the money was paid from AIPL account.
415. The statement of this witness in respect of purchase of land is unbelievable.
416. There were three persons senior to him in the Accounts Branch i.e., Senior Manager, Assistant General Manager, General Manager and there is no reason why a newly engaged employee will endear him to the top man when he was not even a qualified CA or ICWA as he was only CA finalist and ICWA finalist. This witness has stated that he was getting guidance from his immediate boss S.A. Nigudkar, GM (Accounts) for accounting standards and rules and taxation matters. It means he was not an expert himself in the field, so he could not have found special appreciation from BL Shaw.
417. The submission that Harshad Pophali had stated that the land will have to be purchased in cash because land owners were very poor is unbelievable because sale consideration in Exhibit P-1/PW-1 which is forged deed is Rs.4,13,500/-. Sale consideration in Exhibit P-2/PW-1 which is second forged deed is Rs.5,57,205/-. Sale consideration in Exhibit P-3/PW-1 which is third forged deed is Rs.6,42,580/-.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 152 of 210418. The sale considerations in the three sale deeds were not in hundreds or thousands but in lakhs. Even today, the sale consideration of each sale deed is not a paltry sum. These amounts would have carried much more value two decades earlier. It is unbelievable that such a huge amount was paid in cash. A land owner who had land worth 4-5 lakhs with him in the year 2004 cannot be called a 'very poor' person. Therefore, the story of payment in cash is made because there is nothing to support by way of bank transfer to show the payment by M/s AIPL for purchase of land.
419. Further, in companies', records are maintained for cash payments also.
Books of accounts and financial statements show expenses incurred in acquiring assets such as land. There is not a shred of document to suggest the payment of this money for purchase of land. The balance sheets of M/s AIPL from the period as on 31.03.2004 onwards are signed by Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and his son Abhishek Jayaswal being the Director of the company. They are totally silent about any such investment by the company in land in the state of Jharkhand.
420. The defence of the accused Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that he was signing whatever was placed before him is already rejected in earlier paragraphs of this judgment. Since 2002, he is leading Abhijeet Group and M/s AIPL was its flagship company. Therefore, payment of more than Rs.20,00,000/- could not have been made without any single documentary evidence in support of the same.
421. According to DW-2, when this discussion for cash payment to Harshad Pophali took place, at that time, Ashok Prasad, D.Y. Moghe CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 153 of 210 were already present in the chamber of B.L. Shaw. The circuitous route for payment spoken by DW-2 is unbelievable. The statement of DW-2 is that money had to be taken from the Head Cashier, one Mr. Rawat by DW-2 Ashok Patro after D.Y. Moghe confirmed the same. Then, Ashok Patro had to take this money to Prakash Jayaswal at Bhilai. From there, Ashok Prasad had to take this money to Hazaribagh for giving to Harshad Pophali in the presence of K.B. Singh.
422. What stopped B.L. Shaw to direct the Head Cashier at Nagpur to deliver the money to Harshad Pophali at Nagpur itself straightaway is not clear. It is more surprising because according to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Harshad Pophali was very close to B.L. Shaw.
423. If Ashok Prasad had to handover the cash at Hazaribagh to Harshad Pophali only, the same could have been given at Nagpur itself in the presence of B.L. Shaw without involvement of Ashok Patro, Prakash Jayaswal, Ashok Prasad and K.B. Singh. This story of payment in such a manner is given so that Ashok Patro, Prakash Jayaswal and Ashok Prasad can be introduced as defence witnesses.
424. According to defence, Ashok Prasad and KB Singh went to Hazaribagh and passed on the money to Harshad Pophali. If both of them had gone to Hazaribagh then the money should have been given to the sellers directly in the office of Sub Registrar by them. Then only it could have been argued that BL Shaw had satisfied himself by making the payments to the sellers directly through one of the Directors of M/s AIPL i.e. Ashok Prasad. However, sending this money from Nagpur to Bhilai and from Bhilai to Hazaribagh by CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 154 of 210 involving four persons in this process to ultimately hand over the money to Harshad Pophali makes no sense.
425. Moreover, the Head Cashier Mr. Rawat is also not examined, who according to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had given the cash from the accounts of M/s AIPL at Nagpur to Ashok Patro. DW 2 Ashok Patro says he had checked the documents of land in original in October 2004 and handed over to Mr Rawat, Head Cashier. No efforts were made to bring on record those original land documents.
426. DW 3 Ashok Prasad has stated that he was aware about the procurement of land by AIPL at Hazaribagh, Ranchi. He stated that Harshad Pophali had told BL Shaw that he has spoken to some local persons at Hazaribagh who deal with land and some land is available there which can be purchased but sale consideration will have to be paid in cash because the local people over there are small people will not have the bank accounts. On the recommendations of DY Moghe, BL Shaw entrusted the job of procuring land to Harshad Pophali as he was experienced and competent man regarding land purchase matters. He stated that BL Shaw had instructed himself, i.e., Ashok Prasad, Harshad Pophali and DY Moghe to visit Hazaribagh for procuring the land but Harshad Pophali told BL Shaw that it will not be appropriate for Mr Moghe or Mr Prasad to visit there because that area is in the interior parts and it was a risky affair to visit there due to naxalites and there was apprehension of kidnapping of businesspersons. Therefore, only Harshad Pophali was sent to Hazaribagh to come with the survey map about availability of land. The purchase of land proposed by Harshad Pophali was finalised and Harshad Pophali requested for cash CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 155 of 210 payment for purchasing the land. He stated that BL Shaw called Ashok Patro from the accounts department and was given the responsibility that on the demand of cash by Shri Moghe, same be provided. He was also instructed that he has to take cash from Cash Department of Neco group and Ashok Patro was directed to take that cash to Prakash Jayaswal at Bhillai. He stated that Mr Harshad Pophali used to place the demand for cash to BL Shaw and DY Moghe. Then Ashok Patro used to carry the money to Bhilai, from Bhilai Ashok Prasad used to collect the cash and take it to Hazaribagh along with K.B. Singh of the company. Then, Ashok Prasad used to hand over the money to Harshad Pophali in the presence of K.B. Singh at Hazaribagh. He stated that he had business of supplying Coke from Hazaribagh and therefore he used to frequently visit Hazaribagh. The witness stated that he had visited Hazaribagh as BL Shaw had told him to keep a watch over the procurement of land by Harshad Pophali. He stated that during 2003-05 Harshad Pophali was very close to BL Shaw and was reporting to DY Moghe and DY Moghe was reporting to BL Shaw. He stated that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had never given any instructions to Mr Moghe, Mr Harshad Pophali, Mr KB Singh for procuring land at Hazaribagh. He stated that he had seen originals of sale deeds Ex. P- 1/PW-1 to Ex. P-3/PW-1, which were given to DY Moghe at Nagpur.
427. DW 3 has stated that Harshad Pophali was entrusted the job of procuring land on the recommendations of DY Moghe as Harshad Pophali was an experienced and competent man regarding land purchase matters. However, Harshad Pophali had joined the services with NECO Group in the year 2003. During April 2004, he may be CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 156 of 210 just on probation. It is difficult to believe that the company management would have trusted a junior person for handing over more than Rs. 20 lakhs in cash. Moreover, there is no evidence that Harshad Pophali had experience of purchasing land.
428. DW 3 has stated that BL Shaw had instructed him i.e. Ashok Prasad, Harshad Pophali and DY Moghe to visit Hazaribagh for procuring the land but Harshad Pophali told BL Shaw that it will not be appropriate for Mr Moghe or Mr Prasad to visit there because that area is in the interior parts and it was a risky affair to visit there due to naxalites and there was apprehension of kidnapping of businesspersons. Therefore, only Harshad Pophali was sent to Hazaribagh. This threat of naxalites is also not a true picture because in any case, according to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Ashok Prasad had gone to Hazaribagh with KB Singh for handing over the money to Harshad Pophali. What is startling is that DW 3 Ashok Prasad had stated that he had business of supplying coke from Hazaribagh and therefore, he used to frequently visit Hazaribagh. It showed that there was no threat of naxalites to Ashok Prasad at Hazaribagh as he was a frequent visitor to Hazaribagh and was doing the business of coke from there.
429. DW 4 Prakash Jayaswal has stated that in the year 2004 one person named Ashok had come with cash Rs. 1.5 lakh and a transit letter mentioning the transfer of money from AIPL Nagpur to AIPL Bhillai office for purchase of land at Hazaribagh through Ashok Prasad. After 5-7 days, Ashok Prasad took this money, as well as the transit letter from him. After 2-3 months of the first transaction, another transaction took place and a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs were sent in cash along with a CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 157 of 210 transit letter. Again, Ashok Prasad was handed over the cash and transit letter by this witness. He stated that in the year 2008 there was a division in Jayaswal Neco Group and all the offices/assets of that group at Bhillai to Jayaswal Neco group. The other group was Abhijeet group.
430. The statement of DW 4 Prakash Jayaswal is also unbelievable. He has stated that he was reporting to one Ashok Jayaswal who was the General Manager and was controlling the entire office at Bhilai and looking after the work of all the three companies namely AIL, CIAL and AMR. If it is so, it is beyond logic that BL Shaw would have directed Ashok Patro to hand over the money to a junior person at Bhilai rather than to Ashok Jayaswal, who was looking after the work of all the three companies at Bhilai and to whom Prakash Jayaswal was reporting. DW 4 had not received any instructions from BL Shaw to receive the money from Ashok Patro for handing over to Ashok Prasad. DW 4 has deposed that cash was also available at Bhilai office under control of Ashok Jayaswal. If it is so, there was no need to send this sum of Rs. 21.50 lakhs from Nagpur office of Neco Limited which was already facing financial crunch being under Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) and could have been straight away given at Bhilai as M/s AIPL was cash rich being flagship company of Abhijeet Group.
431. DW 6 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was shown letter dated 23.07.2004 along with its annexures, Exhibit P-231/PW-29, D-6, Page 333 and he stated that he was not aware about this letter or its enclosures. He was not looking after any work relating to any correspondence with MoS CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 158 of 210 or for allocation of Coal blocks. When the attention of the witness was drawn to letter dated 15.04.2004, Exhibit P-190/PW-27 (Colly), Part of D-6, he stated that he was not looking after any work relating to any correspondence with Land Acquisition Officer. When his attention was drawn to letter dated 23.05.2004, Exhibit P-233/PW-29 (Colly), Part of D-6, he stated that he was not looking after any work relating to correspondence in respect of manufacture or supply of any kilns or allocation of Coal blocks. When the attention of the witness was drawn to letter dated 13.05.2004, Exhibit P-235/PW-29 and Exhibit P- 236/PW-29, Part of D-6, he stated that the banking work was looked after by SK Moitra of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd and it was his conspiracy to get loan in 2005 in the name of Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. He stated that at times, if any document was sent to him for his signatures, he used to 'sahi' the same on the instructions of his father BL Shaw without bothering about the contents of the same and he never used to understand contents of such letters. When the attention of the witness was drawn to letter dated 16.09.2004, Exhibit P-241/PW-29 (Colly), Part of D-6, addressed to D.Kashiva, Joint Industrial Adviser, MoS, he stated that he was not looking after any work relating to correspondence with MoS or in respect of allocation of Coal blocks and he has no knowledge about this letter and its enclosures. He stated that during the year 2020 he came to know that relating to land matters, sale deeds have been forged and Harshad Pophali stated in his statement that he had forged those sale deeds on the asking of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He stated that in various documents there were nearly 300 forged signatures and only the signatures of Harshad Pophali are genuine signatures on the agreement CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 159 of 210 to sell. The witness stated that he had informed his father BL Shaw that it is a serious matter and can lead to his conviction because of forgery but his father told him that he, BL Shaw was involved in the purchase of land in the name of AIPL. BL Shaw told the witness that Harshad Pophali was looking after the purchase of land and was reporting to Shri Moghe. BL Shaw told the witness that he had given the money to Ashok Patro through the cashier. Ashok Patro had given this money to Prakash Jayaswal at Bhilai. The witness was told by his father that from Bhilai, his brother-in-law Ashok Prasad will take the money to Hazaribagh in the presence of KB Singh. He stated that his father BL Shaw told him that BL Shaw wrongly believed Harshad Pophali. When the witness showed forged documents to his father, he told the witness that Harshad Pophali had given the forged documents to the cashier and has swindled them of the sale consideration. He had also volunteered during his cross-examination that he had told his father to lodge a case against Harshad Pophali but BL Shaw told that Harshad Pophali has many information about the companies and it is not advisable to file any case against him.
432. The version given by DW 6 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is also false that during investigation of this case, it came to their knowledge that Harshad Pophali has swindled the company in the name of purchasing land by submitting forged and fabricated agreements to sell and sale deeds.
433. The so called sale deeds were of the year 2004. The Coal block was allocated to Accused No. 3 company in the year 2005. It is unbelievable that all these years, nobody came to know that there is no CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 160 of 210 land in the name of M/s AIPL at Jharkhand. It is difficult to believe that the forgery by Harshad Pophali remained in dark all these years. These are all desperate attempts of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal to create a defence where none exists.
434. It shows that Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has led totally false defence that Rs. 21.50 lakhs were given to Harshad Pophali for purchasing the land but he cheated the company by supplying forged agreements to sell and forged sale deeds.
435. The witnesses have deposed that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after the affairs of M/s AIPL including allocation of Coal block in its favour. He was leading Abhijeet Group since 2002. During 2004, in AIPL with his son and two brothers-in-law (besides his nephew) comprised board of Directors of AIPL. The company was totally under his control. The defence of payment in cash to buy land is rejected. Without sale consideration, no land could have been purchased which shows knowledge to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that the Agreements to Sell and Sale Deeds are false. Therefore, it shows that he had the knowledge that the agreements to sell and sale deeds are forged and the company M/s AIPL has not spent a single penny for the purchase of any land.
436. Besides these seven forged and fabricated agreements to sell and sale deeds, letter dated 23.07.2004 bearing forged signatures of DY Moghe, forged letter of UCO Bank dated 13.05.2004, forged letter of J&K Bank dated 21.05.2004, forged purchase order dated 12.05.2004 placed upon M/s BeeKay Engineering Corporation, forged letter dated 23.05.2004 addressed to M/s BeeKay Engineering Corporation CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 161 of 210 enclosing therewith cheque for Rs. 80 lakhs, forged receipt dated 01.06.2004 issued by M/s BeeKay Engineering Corporation, three forged letters dated 15.04.2004 purportedly written by M/s AIPL to Land Acquisition Officer, letter dated 16.09.2004 under forged signatures of DY Moghe and three forged letters dated 03.09.2004 addressed to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms) were also submitted to Ministry of Steel by M/s AIPL.
437. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has not adduced any evidence in respect of those forged documents. When these documents were put to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal u/s 313 Cr. PC, he stated that he has no personal knowledge in that regard.
438. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was leading the Abhijeet Group in which M/s AIPL was the flagship company. The other Directors in the company were his brothers-in-law Ashok Prasad and Radhey Shayam Prasad (brothers of his wife) and Abhishek Jayaswal, his son. The fifth Director was Anand Jayaswal, son of Arbind Kumar Jayaswal.
439. PW 9 BK Agarwal has stated that there was a separation of the business in the family and Abhijeet Group was looked after and controlled by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The presence of Anand Jayaswal, son of Sh. Arbind Jayaswal was only as per Vyawastha Patrak to show that the assets belonged to the family members equally till there was partition of assets in the family.
440. The witnesses have deposed that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was looking after Coal block allocation matters. The forged letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 were sent in response to the letters of CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 162 of 210 Ministry of Steel dated 28.05.2004 and 14.09.2004 respectively. When the evidence in respect of letters dated 28.05.2004 and 14.09.2004 was put to the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC, he stated that he had no personal knowledge in this regard.
441. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had been writing to the State of Jharkhand from the Bhilai address of the company which is evident from letter dated 17.09.2003 which he had sent to the Deputy Director (Industries) Ranchi. Each and every correspondence in this case was received and sent by M/s AIPL from Bhilai address of the company. The final allocation letter dated 26.05.2005 was also received by the company at its Bhilai office. It shows that the company would have also received the earlier two letters from Ministry of Steel dated 28.05.2004 and 14.09.2004. In response to these letters, forged letters dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 with the forged documents were sent to Ministry of Steel. Therefore, there is no evidence that a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- were given to M/s. Beekay Engineering Corporation Ltd for purchase of plant and machinery, as advance. The evidence on record shows beyond doubt that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had the knowledge that letter dated 23.07.2004 and documents enclosed therewith are forged. He also had the knowledge that letter dated 16.09.2004 along with its documents is also forged.
442. Therefore, Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC. These forged letters and documents were sent on behalf of M/s AIPL, Accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal being the Director of Accused No. 3 M/s AIPL was the alter CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 163 of 210 ego of Accused No. 3 M/s AIPL, which is also therefore convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
443. 16th Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 420 IPC framed against all the three accused persons?
444. The correspondence exchanged between Accused No. 3 company M/s.
AIPL and Ministry of Steel/Ministry of Coal, resulting in allocation of a Coal block has been noted in detail in earlier paragraphs of this judgement.
445. The Ministry of Steel, while dealing with the request of Accused No. 3 to recommend its name for allocation of a Coal block to Ministry of Coal, vide letter dated 26.0.2004, PDF 931, had asked the Company to furnish details of effective steps taken by it for implementation of the revised projects and detailed TEFR.
446. The Accused No. 3 Company had responded to the said letter of Ministry of Steel vide its letter dated 21.04.2004, PDF 322.
447. The Ministry of Steel had found the letter of the Accused No. 3 company dated 21.04.2004 to be "sketchy", PDF 585. Therefore, the Ministry of Steel had written letter dated 03.06.2004 to the Company to furnish details of effective steps taken for implementation of the revised project and to submit a detailed techno-economic feasibility report for the complete project with financial analysis, PDF 942.
448. The Accused No. 3 Company had nothing to show by way of acquisition of land, purchase of kilns and financial closure.
449. Its readiness in this regard was just Zero.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 164 of 210450. If it had conveyed the true state of affairs in respect of availability of land, kilns and financial closure, its case would have ended there itself.
451. Therefore, Accused No. 3 company submitted letter dated 23.07.2004, Exhibit P-231/PW-29, enclosing therewith forged documents which has been dealt with in earlier points for determination. Along with the letter, "A Brief Write-Up on Effective Steps Taken for Implementation of APIL's Sponge Iron Project," was also submitted. The note had concluded that land is available for start of project activity. The other aspects like water, power and raw materials are lined up. Financial closure is taking place very shortly. Order for P&M for the 1st phase has already been placed.
452. It is already noted in earlier points for determination that all these submissions are false.
453. Since forged documents were being submitted to the Ministry of Steel, the letter dated 23.07.2004 was sent by forging the signatures of DY Moghe so that in the event of any investigation in this regard, there should not be any direct evidence.
454. On behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, it is pointed out that DY Moghe vide letter dated 31.08.2004, PDF 403, had furnished false information on the purchase of land, order for supply of two sponge iron kilns to be supplied in December 2005 and final closure by term loan from UCO Bank and J&K Bank to MoC. It was submitted on behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that it is not the case of CBI that signatures of DY Moghe on this letter are forged and that is why the letter was not CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 165 of 210 sent to CFSL.
455. This is an important letter in as much as it falsely speaks about private land, financial closure and purchase of plant and machinery. It is a fact that DY Moghe had died in the year 2017. That perhaps explains no investigation in respect of that letter. Had DY Moghe been alive, he would have certainly been examined either as prosecution witness or defence witness or as a court summoned witness or may be as an accused. Today it is a matter of conjectures and surmises what reply he might have given for writing this letter had he been alive today. With his death in 2017, nothing can be said in respect of this letter. Whether he would have named the person who had provided him this information for giving to Ministry of Coal remains unresolved due to his death.
456. The Ministry of Steel noticed that the applicant company has only sent Agreements to Sell but not the sale deeds, PDF 587. Therefore, the said Ministry probed deeper and sent letter dated 14.09.2004, PDF 986, requesting the company to furnish the documentary evidences in respect of land, power, water and pollution clearance.
457. The Accused No. 3 company persisted with using forged documents as genuine and sent letter dated 16.09.2004, PDF 364 under the forged signatures of DY Moghe. With this letter, three forged sale deeds and three forged letters purportedly sent to the Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Jharkhand State, Ranchi for sending the agreement to be completed and submitted as per Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act towards necessary administrative approval for acquisition process for acquiring 272.42 acres of land were enclosed.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 166 of 210458. The response of Accused No. 3 Company impressed Ministry of Steel and vide letter dated 17.11.2004, PDF 1050, it forwarded, Department of Coal for consideration of allocation of a suitable non-coking Coal block/sub block commensurate with the company's washed/prime coking Coal requirement, subject to certain conditions.
459. The letter of MoS specifically noted that the company was asked to furnish the documentary evidences regarding the effective steps taken by them.
460. The letter of MoS specifically noted that to implement the proposed project, the company has furnished information that it has applied for acquiring 272.42 acres of land (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
461. The Ministry noted that out of 272.42 acres of land, 42.14 acres non-
tribal land has been directly purchased (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
462. The Ministry mentioned in the letter that the company has placed order for 2 sets of 350 TPD kilns to M/s. Beekay engineering Corporation and paid Rs.80 lakhs as advance money (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
463. The Ministry mentioned in the letter that UCO Bank, Bombay has agreed in principle to finance 50% of total debt requirement and 50% of the working capital requirement (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
464. The Ministry also mentioned in the letter that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd has agreed in principle to part fund their debt and working CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 167 of 210 capital to the extent of Rs. 55 crores and Rs. 10 crores respectively (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
465. The fact that the Ministry of Steel was induced by the Accused No. 3 company to believe the misrepresentations and forged documents as genuine, for securing its recommendation of allocation of a Coal block to Ministry of Coal is writ large from the records.
466. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the inducement of MoS stands proved from documents itself even in the absence of evidence of author of letter dated 17.11.2004, Deepak Anurag, Director, MoS.
467. It is already held in the earlier paragraphs of this judgement that both the forged letters enclosing with them forged documents were got sent by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who was leading the Abhijeet group and was looking after all matters pertaining to Coal block allocations.
468. The Screening Committee was also deceived to believe the misrepresentations made on behalf of Accused No. 3 company during the meeting, which is evident from the minutes of the said meeting, PDF 859.
469. The minutes record that the company has acquired part of the land (that belonging to private parties) and the rest is under acquisition (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
470. The minutes record that the company has achieved financial closure for phase 1 (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
471. The minutes record that first kiln will be commissioned in December CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 168 of 210 2005 (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
472. The minutes also recorded that Ministry of Steel have found their project viable and has recommended it.
473. It is already recorded earlier that due to misrepresentations made and due to forged letters submitted by Accused No. 3 Company to Ministry of Steel, the said Ministry was induced to make recommendations to recommend allocation of a Coal block in favour of Accused No. 3 company to the Ministry of Coal. Therefore, MoC was also induced to rely on the recommendations of MoS, which were obtained by misrepresentations and by knowingly using forged documents as genuine.
474. The minutes of the Screening Committee also recorded that the company is at an advanced stage of project implementation (this was a misrepresentation by Accused No. 3 company).
475. The minutes also recorded that Accused No. 3 company had a good track record. It was also recorded in the minutes that the other competitors had not yet given the required details to Ministry of Steel, who were consequently in no position to comment on the project.
476. Therefore, while the competitors of the Accused No. 3 company had not given the required details to Ministry of Steel, but this company had given forged documents and had misrepresented Ministry of Steel and therefore stole a march over other competitor companies.
477. The minutes clearly show that the Screening Committee heavily relied on misrepresentations made by Accused No. 3 company during 24th meeting of the Screening Committee. It is evident that in case the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 169 of 210 company had not misrepresented about availability of private land, financial closure for phase 1, commissioning of first kiln in December 2005, the Screening Committee would not have recommended allocation of Coal blocks in favour of Accused No. 3.
478. The minutes are so clear that no witness is required from the Screening Committee to depose that in case these deceptions were not made, they would not have recommended allocation of Coal block in favour of Accused No. 3 company.
479. It is very clear from these minutes that in case M/s. AIPL had not secured the recommendation of Ministry of Steel (which is obtained by this company by misrepresentations and knowingly using forged documents as genuine), the Screening Committee would not have taken up its case for consideration as it had not considered application of M/s Pawanjay as the said company had not given the required details to Ministry of Steel.
480. On the basis of recommendations of the Screening Committee, the Government of India, vide letter dated 26.05.2005 issued allocation letter in favour of Accused No. 3 company, allocating Brinda, Sisai and Meral blocks in the state of Jharkhand for captive mining of Coal by M/s. AIPL, PDF 1054.
481. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma versus Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532 that:
63...It is argued by the learned Attorney General that the allocation letter does not by itself confer the right to work mines and the identification of the Coal block does not impinge upon the rights of the State Government under the 1957 Act. Learned Attorney General argues that allocation of Coal block is essentially an identification exercise where Coal blocks selected by the CIL CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 170 of 210 for captive mining were identified by the Screening Committee for development by an allocatee, after considering the suitability of the Coal block (in terms of exercise and quality of reserve) vis-à-vis the requirements of the end-use plan of the applicant. It is submitted by the Attorney General that a letter of allocation is the first step. It entitles the allocatee to apply to the State Government for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the 1957 Act. The right to apply for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease does not imply that with the issuance of allocation letter the allocatee automatically gets the clearances and approval required under the 1957 Act, the 1960 Rules, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, etc.
65...There seems to be no doubt to us that allocation letter is not merely an identification exercise as is sought to be made out by the learned Attorney General. From the position explained by the concerned State Governments, it is clear that the allocation letter by the Central Government creates and confers a very valuable right upon the allottee. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Attorney General that allocation letter is not bankable. As a matter of fact, the allocation letter by the Central Government leaves practically or apparently nothing for the State Government to decide save and except to carry out the formality of processing the application and for execution of the lease deed with the beneficiary selected by the Central Government. Though, the legal regime under the 1957 Act imposes responsibility and statutory obligation upon the State Government to recommend or not to recommend to the Central Government grant of prospecting licence or mining lease for the Coal mines, but once the letter allocating a Coal block is issued by the Central Government, the statutory role of the State Government is reduced to completion of processual formalities only.
68...The allocation of Coal block is not simply identification of the Coal block or the allocatee as contended by the learned Attorney General but it is in fact selection of beneficiary. As a matter of fact, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the interveners, has taken a definite position that allocation letter may not by itself confer purported rights in the minerals but such allocation has legal consequences and confers private rights to the allocatees for obtaining the Coal mining leases for their end-use plants.
73...Assuming that the Central Government has competence to make allocation of Coal blocks, the next question is, whether such allocation confers any valuable right amounting to grant of largesse?
74... The Learned Attorney General argues that allocation of Coal blocks does not amount to grant of largesse since it is only the first statutory step.
According to him, the question whether the allocation amounts to grant of largesse must be appreciated not from the perspective whether allocation confers any rights upon the allocatee but whether allocation amounts to conferment of largesse upon the allocatee.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 171 of 21075... We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Attorney General that allocation of Coal block does not amount to grant of largesse. It is true that allocation letter by itself does not authorize the allottee to win or mine the Coal but nevertheless the allocation letter does confer a very important right upon the allottee to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease. As a matter of fact, it is admitted by the interveners that allocation letter issued by the Central Government provides rights to the allottees for obtaining the Coal mines leases for their end-use plants. The banks, financial institutions, land acquisition authorities, revenue authorities and various other entities and so also the State Governments, who ultimately grant prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, act on the basis of the letter of allocation issued by the Central Government. As noticed earlier, the allocation of Coal block by the Central Government results in the selection of beneficiary which entitles the beneficiary to get the prospecting licence and/or mining lease from the State Government. Obviously, allocation of a Coal block amounts to grant of largesse.
76. Learned Attorney General accepted the position that in the absence of allocation letter, even the eligible person under Section 3(3) of the CMN Act cannot apply to the State Government for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease. The right to obtain prospecting licence or mining lease of the Coal mine admittedly is dependent upon the allocation letter. The allocation letter, therefore, confers a valuable right in favour of the allottee.
482. Therefore, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), allocation letter is a property for the purposes of Section 415/420 of IPC.
483. First, this court is considering the case of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal. In the order on charge dated 30.05.2022, allegations against him are recorded as under:
"So far as the submissions of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal are concerned, he has to explain his presence during the Screening Committee meeting and has to explain during the trial, the recordings in the minutes "... The applicant stated that their application was more than 4 years old and a way brief background of the case. They stated that they have a sound financial basis (Rs. 140 crores net worth) and have been in the business of iron and Steel for a long period. They have an MOU with government of Jharkhand. They have acquired a part of the land (that belonging to private parties) and the rest is under acquisition, financial closure has been achieved (four phase 1), consultant has been appointed and they have taken steps to construct a dam for water. Jharkhand CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 172 of 210 State Electricity Board has approved their power requirement. The State government have recommended allocation of iron ore mines, 1 st kiln will be commissioned in December 2005; government of Jharkhand supports the project and have written to the Ministry of Coal. Ministry of Steel have found their project viable and have recommended it..." which clearly show misrepresentations made before the Screening Committee for securing allocation of Coal block. Considering the statements of the two witnesses were present on behalf of AIPL namely, AK Srivastava and VS Garg, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal has to show during trial that the recordings in the minutes are not on the basis of submissions made by him during that meeting. Resultantly, charged for criminal conspiracy and cheating is to be framed against Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal as well."
484. PW-14 A.K. Shrivastava has stated that during the 24th Screening Committee meeting DY Moghe, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, VS Garg, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and this witness were present and queries with regard to Accused No. 3 were answered by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal.
485. Both the brothers i.e., Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal have interpreted the minutes of the Screening Committee differently to support/belie the statement of this witness.
486. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal has relied on the minutes where it is recorded that:
"At this stage, the Chairman invited the applicant's present to offer their views on the issue. While generally accepting the logic and the rational put forward in the proposal the applicants were of the view that where larger investments and huge capacities are being created, especially in the Steel making, and the project would last beyond 30 years, comfort level of the project proponents would be much higher if the blocks were given with commensurate with 30 years requirement or even more. Tata Steel stated that they were pursuing with the Ministry of mines to increase the period of lease from 30 years to 50 years. The matter was further discussed in the committee and it was decided that this proposal be given a fair chance and wherever there are more applicants seeking the blocks, the blocks could be spread over a large number of applicants, though not to thinly and on insistence on meeting the full 30 years requirement may not be taken rigidly.CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 173 of 210
Chairman proposed that middlings generated during beneficiation, to the extent possible, should not be allowed to be sold by the captive Coal Block allocatees. They should set up approved end use projects i.e., power generation capacity is with appropriate technology for consuming the middlings and in case of surplus, the same could be marketed through the local CIL subsidiary to whom the middlings could be transferred at an administratively determined price just like in case of disposal of Coal produced during the development phase of captive mines. The proposal was generally agreed to after a short discussion in the Screening Committee."
487. On the basis of these notings in the minutes, the argument on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is that in the beginning of the meeting, the representatives of all the applicant companies were present before the Screening Committee and some discussions took place between the Chairman and the representatives of the applicant companies.
488. Once these discussions ended, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Dr VS Garg, AK Srivastava and DY Moghe continued to sit in the meeting hall.
489. It was submitted that after these discussions, the first company whose case was taken up for consideration was M/s. Abhijeet Iron Processors Private Ltd, which makes it possible that when the case of AIPL was taken up for consideration, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was present before the Screening Committee and answered the queries raised during the meeting.
490. The submission on behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is that after the discussions between Chairman of the Screening Committee and the representatives of the applicant companies were over, the case of M/s AIPL was not taken soon thereafter, but Agenda Item No. 1 i.e., approval of the minutes of the 23 rd meeting was taken up for consideration by the committee.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 174 of 210491. The minutes, in respect of Agenda Item No.1 record as under:
"Agenda Item No.1 After general discussion, agenda item No. i.e., approval of the minutes of the 23rd meeting were taken up. It was decided that, in view of the paucity of time available to the members, the minutes be taken up for approval in the next meeting and till such time, instances of letters of allocation pursuant to the decision taken in the 23rd meeting would have to wait (PDF 8258)."
492. It is submitted on behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that no version has been put forward and this point has been skipped to prevent false defence from breaking down. During the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee for confirmation of minutes of the earlier meeting (23rd meeting) the government officials needed no input from any private party as secrecy had to be maintained to those proceedings and such discussions could not have taken place in the presence of private parties.
493. Reliance is also placed on statement of PW 18 P.R. Mandal, who has stated that all the applicant companies invited to attend the Screening Committee meeting were not sitting in a big hall together in the presence of Screening Committee and the question-answer with one company was not made known to other applicant company.
494. Reliance is also placed on evidence of PW 22 Gurjit Singh Bhatia, who has stated that the applicant companies were being called one by one before the Screening Committee and others, used to wait outside.
495. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has also submitted that there was no allegation against him of having appeared before the Screening Committee on behalf of AIPL either at the time of the 24 th Screening Committee meeting or at any time before that in the investigation carried out by CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 175 of 210 CBI, which had begun on 26.09.2012 with the registration of Preliminary Enquiry till 29.10.2020, the date of filing of the chargesheet.
496. He has submitted that none of the witnesses relied upon by CBI in the chargesheet (including AK Srivastava, VS Garg or any government officer who was part of the Screening Committee or Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal himself) had stated that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had appeared for AIPL or answered any query for that company.
497. It is submitted that during trial an attempt has been made by making improvements and contradictory statements to shift the burden of this allegation on Manoj Kumar Jayaswal so that entire burden of the case falls upon him.
498. It is submitted that AK Srivastava was not even able to recollect venue of 24th meeting of Screening Committee. The meeting had taken place at FICCI House, but according to the witness, the meeting had taken place at Scope Minar, Delhi.
499. This Court has considered the submissions of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as well as Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and is of the opinion that AK Srivastava has certainly made improvements in his statement and has shifted the burden on Manoj Kumar Jayaswal by alleging that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had answered the queries on behalf of AIPL.
500. This is a major improvement and cannot be merely considered as clarifications sought by prosecution.
501. The way the minutes are framed also negates the submission of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal that after general discussions, the five CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 176 of 210 persons named above had continued to remain seated in the meeting hall because after general discussion, Agenda Item No. 1 i.e., Approval of the Minutes of the 23 rd Meeting was taken up which would not have been possible in the presence of all the applicant companies.
502. The Chargesheet only alleged that Accused No. 1 Manoj Jayaswal was present in most of the meetings of the Screening Committee when the matter of M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was discussed though he himself showed his presence on behalf of M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. (Para 16.61) but this witness has deposed even beyond that which is difficult to accept.
503. Even Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal has not stated in his written statement under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C that queries in respect of AIPL were answered by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. He has only stated that:
"The Screening Committee was having its internal deliberations about the application of M/s AIPL. All five of us i.e., Shri Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Shri DY Moghe, Shri VS Garg and myself continued to sit in the said hall while other persons left the room. The Screening Committee was having its internal deliberations about the application of M/s AIPL. During this, they raised certain queries and asked for a few clarifications. All response(s) were given by others. I did not participate in these discussions/deliberations."
504. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal did not name anyone who gave responses during the 24th Meeting of the Screening Committee on behalf of M/s. AIPL.
505. No effort was made on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal to elicit favourable response from PW 18 PR Mandal and PW 22 GS Bhatia that when case of AIPL was taken by Screening Committee, the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 177 of 210 representative of AIPL and Jayaswal Neco Ltd were present together and queries were answered by representative of the Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
506. Therefore, the evidence of AK Srivastava that Manoj Kumar Jayaswal had answered queries during the 24th Screening Committee meeting is rejected.
507. Once it is held that wherever the minutes of the Screening Committee record "the applicant stated...", the reference was to Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, it was for Accused No. 2 to explain the falsity of the contentions on behalf of M/s AIPL imputed to him in the Minutes.
508. Therefore, the second defence of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is that the prosecution has not proved that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal had the knowledge that these averments in respect of M/s AIPL were false or the knowledge that the documents were forged.
509. On behalf of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, reliance is placed on Srinivas D. Sridhar (supra). The respondent in this case was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Central Bank of India. The allegation against him was that he had sanctioned the proposal of the company speedily. The proposal of the borrower had passed through the Loan Advisory Committee, which recommended the same. The proposal was approved by the Bank's Chief General Manager (Credit). The loan was sanctioned by 14 Public Sector Banks, apart from an international private sector bank. When the proposal was placed before him, he directed the same to be placed before the Management Committee as the credit proposal was beyond his sanctioning CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 178 of 210 authority. The role of respondent was confined to signing the memorandum prepared by the senior officers and participating in the management committee meeting, which approved the proposal. There was no material to show that any of the accused other than bank officials ever met the respondent before the sanction of the proposal by the Management Committee. Only because the entire proposal was processed and cleared within a short span of time, it was held that no offence is made out against the respondent.
510. In the opinion of this court, this judgement is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
511. The second judgement relied upon by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is Abdul Fazal Siddiqui (supra).
512. In this case, the complainant had alleged that one Kochi Mia and the appellant met him and requested him to advance money against the stock in trade of business of the Calcutta Café of which one Fazlur Rahman was stated to be the proprietor. All these three persons represented to the complainant that Calcutta Cafe was free from all encumbrances and that the money could be advanced against hypothecation. Therefore, a certain sum was advanced to Fazlur Rahman. Deed of hypothecation was signed by Fazlur Rahman in which it was mentioned that the business in question was free from all encumbrances and charges etc. Later on, it transpired that the property in question was an encumbered property and in a suit filed in the Calcutta High Court, joint receivers had been appointed regarding Calcutta Café. No charge was framed against Kochi Mia and Fazlur Rahman died during the pendency of the trial. The case therefore CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 179 of 210 proceeded only against the appellant who was convicted for the offence under Section 420/34 IPC. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. It was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was no mention of any representation having been made by the appellant that the property was free from all encumbrances. When the hypothecation deed was drafted, the appellant was not present. The Solicitor who drafted the hypothecation deed stated that it was Fazlur Rahman, who on being asked by him had disclosed that Calcutta Café was not encumbered in any way. Neither there was any averment nor any evidence that appellant knew that the stock in trade stood hypothecated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence on record does not show that the appellant made any statement to the complainant, which he knew to be a false statement. Section 415 IPC was cited, which is as under:
"415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'.
Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is as deception within the meaning of this Section."
513. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also quoted Section 24 of IPC defining 'dishonestly' which is "whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'". 'Fraudulently' has been defined in Section 25 as "a Person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise". It was CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 180 of 210 held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appellant had no knowledge about the Calcutta Café being an encumbered property or about the appointment of the Joint Receivers by the Calcutta High Court in a suit in respect of that property. There was no evidence to show that the appellant, knowingly did any false representation, much less, dishonestly or fraudulently. It was held that the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating are, therefore, missing in the case. It was held that the evidence on the record does not connect the appellant with the crime alleged against him at all. A mere representation, which is neither claimed or alleged to be dishonest and fraudulent would not attract the charge of cheating only because the complainant parts with his money on the basis thereof. In this case, it was held that orally as well as in the deed of hypothecation dishonest representation was made by proprietor of Calcutta Café, Fazlur Rahman. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against the appellant were set aside.
514. The third judgement relied upon by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is Sudhdeo Jha Utpal (supra).
515. In this case, the Director and Managing Agent of a transport company was prosecuted with the appellant for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of IPC. Both were convicted by the trial court and conviction was upheld in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Hon'ble High Court in a revision before it acquitted both the appellant and the other co-convict of the offence of conspiracy. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 420 and 193 of IPC were confirmed. The allegation against the appellant was that he had entered into a conspiracy with the Director and manager for the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 181 of 210 purpose of cheating the government by procuring petrol coupons when petrol rationing was in operation in the state of Bihar. The modus operandi attributed to the accused persons was that in the application for coupons for petrol a number of trucks and buses which were not in a roadworthy condition and for which taxes had not been paid, were included as being in running condition and on that misrepresentation, the rationing authorities were induced to part with petrol coupons which they would not have done if they were apprised of the real state of circumstances. The case of the appellant was that being the General Manager, he had signed the coupons which were not filled by him or on his directions following the usual practice of depending upon the office staff who made the necessary entries and the documents before him for signatures. It was argued that the company being a fairly big one, the General Manager could not be expected to know the accurate details of what had happened but would have to depend upon his office staff for the correctness of the statements contained in the applications. Therefore, the appellant did not consciously make a false representation, but in accordance with the practice obtaining in his office signed the documents placed before him by the subordinate staff as a matter of routine. It was argued that in such circumstances, no culpability should be attached to the action of the appellant because he has not done anything with a criminal intent. He did not act fraudulently or dishonestly as defined in Sections 24 and 25 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not proved that the appellant has in any way benefited by getting the petrol coupons nor is it suggested that he utilised them in the black market or otherwise in order to get a profit. In the absence of any evidence on that point, it is CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 182 of 210 difficult to conclude that, especially when the conspiracy is not proved that the appellant would have knowingly or willfully made a false representation in the coupons to the effect that taxes had been paid in respect of all the vehicles mentioned therein, or that they were in a roadworthy condition. It was held that there was no fraudulent representation which had the effect of inducing the petrol rationing authority to part with the coupons which it would not have otherwise done in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of Isaac Schama and Jacob Abramovitch delivered by the Court of criminal appeal in England where it was held that in the case of a person prosecuted for possession of recently stolen property, the burden of proof is never shifted to the accused and that if a reasonable explanation is given by the accused, the jury will have to take that into consideration and if the jury think that the explanation may reasonably be true, though they are not convinced about the truth, they should acquit the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the explanation offered by the appellant for his having put his signatures on the applications for petrol coupons is a reasonable one. The company was a big concern with a large fleet of motor buses and trucks, paying a huge sum of money as taxes every year. It had a number of branches in various towns in the state of Bihar. It employed a large number of servants and presumably must have different departments dealing with different branches. The appellant as the General Manager cannot in the very nature of things be expected to know the minute details of all the business that would have been going on in various places. He cannot be expected to know the exact conditions of each of the buses or the trucks, nor can he be expected to CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 183 of 210 be conversant with the fact as to whether taxes have been paid regularly and properly of all these vehicles. It was held that had the question of conspiracy been proved, the case against the appellant might have been stronger, but that having been found against the prosecution, on the remaining evidence, the appellant cannot be imputed with any knowledge of the falsity of the allegations made in the applications for petrol coupons. It was held that the explanation offered by him, though he has not been able to prove it conclusively, is a reasonable one. It was held that taking into consideration the fact of the ordinary run of official business in concerns like the one in which the appellant is the General Manager, it cannot be held that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant appended his signature to the applications for petrol coupons knowing or having reason to believe that the contents contained therein are false. It is held that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the appellant knew that the representations made are false and in the absence of circumstances from which it can be gathered that any such knowledge can be imputed to the appellant, the benefit of reasonable doubt should be given to the appellant. If the court is not satisfied that the appellant affixed his signatures, knowing or having reason to believe that the statements contained in applications for petrol coupons are false, then he has not committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC, in which case he is entitled to the benefit of doubt which was given to him by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once the conviction under Section 420 of IPC was held not maintainable, then the certificate given that the statements are true, could also not have been made subject of a charge, and therefore, the conviction under Section CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 184 of 210 193 IPC was also set aside.
516. During trial, it transpired that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal was the promoter Director of M/s. AIPL when it was incorporated in the year 1984.
517. As per the admitted case of Accused 1 and 2, the Directorship details of the said company, since inception till 02.06.2016 (as provided by the Accused No.1 during investigation to the IO, are as under:
Incorporation As on 28.04.1986 As on 01.05.1986 As on 20.02.2000 As on 20.02.2001 (19/07/1984) Ramesh Kumar Ramesh Kumar Ramesh Kumar Ramesh Kumar Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal Jayaswal Jayaswal Jayaswal Jayaswal Usha Jayaswal Usha Jayaswal Usha Jayaswal Nisha Jayaswal Arbind Jayaswal Nisha Jayaswal Nisha Jayaswal Nisha Jayaswal Manisha Jayaswal Nisha Jayaswal Manisha Jayaswal Manisha Jayaswal Manisha Jayaswal Rita Jayaswal Manisha Jayaswal N.M. Sarkar Rita Jayaswal Rita Jayaswal As on 01.06.2001 As on 01.09.2001 As on 01.01.2002 As on 30.08.2002 As on 20.03.2003 Ramesh Kumar Ramesh Kumar Anand Jayaswal Anand Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Jayaswal Jayaswal Arbind Jayaswal Arbind Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Ashok Prasad Anand Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Ashok Prasad Radheshyam Prasad Radheshyam Prasad Anand Jayaswal Radheshyam Prasad Ashok Prasad Abhishek Jayaswal As on 22.04.2004 As on 01.10.2004 As on 01.04.2006 As on 19.05.2007 As on 25.08.2008 Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Anand Jayaswal Anand Jayaswal Anand Jayaswal Anand Jayaswal Anand Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Radheshyam P.N. Krishnan P.N. Krishnan Jayaswal Ashok Prasad A.K. Srivastava As on 07.04.2009 As on 08.01.2010 As on 03.07.2010 As on 15.09.2010 As on 27.02.2012 Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal P.N. Krishnan P.N. Krishnan P.N. Krishnan P.N. Krishnan P.N. Krishnan A.K. Shrivastava A.K. Shrivastava A.K. Shrivastava A.K. Shrivastava A.K. Shrivastava Prasanta Kumar Neeraj Aggarwal Ram Krishna Dash Samayatuta As on 31.12.2012 As on 30.03.2014 As on 02.06.2016 Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Manoj Jayaswal Abhishek Jayaswal Ram Krishna Samayatuta Ram Krishna Samayatuta A.K. Shrivastava Vidyasagar Prasad Vidyasagar Prasad Ram Krishna Samayatuta CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 185 of 210
518. Since 30.10.2003, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal was the authorised signatory of Accused No. 3 company.
519. As on 15.07.2003, he was yet to be made authorised signatory of the company but Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal addressed letter dated 15.07.2003 to MoC with a copy to MoS and others, PDF 1163, and PDF 856. By way of this letter, Accused No. 3 had submitted revised application which had become necessary due to change in the captive Coal blocks and suitability of location of the sponge iron plant in Jharkhand itself. Now, the location of the plant was decided to be near Chandwa, District Latehar. This is an exhaustive letter written by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal in which the details of the application given by Accused No.3 company AIPL for allocation of Coal blocks to meet its requirement of 0.70 Million Tons Per Annum Capacity Sponge Iron Plant are given. This letter mentions in detail the proceedings that took place during the 18th Screening Committee Meeting held on 05.05.2003. It also mentioned in detail the proceedings of the 20 th Meeting of the Screening Committee held on 06.06.2003. It also mentioned that the awaited reconsidered recommendation from MoS for AIPL has now been received by MoC. It also mentioned that the remaining two blocks viz. Lohari and Meral are not enough to supply the required quantity of Coal for sponge iron plant of AIPL. Therefore, the letter mentioned that AIPL is submitting revised application for Brinda, Sisai and Dumri underground non-coking Coal blocks in addition to the earlier applied Lohari and Meral blocks in Daltongunj Coalfield. Application in relevant pro forma was also enclosed with the request to reopen the case of AIPL. It was mentioned in the letter CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 186 of 210 that there are no other applicants for the above blocks. The letter gave the details that the combined reserves of all the above five full blocks will be above 91.50 million tons, only about 30 million tons of extractable reserves are expected to be available from all the above blocks for various reasons mentioned in that letter. It was also mentioned by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal in the letter that applications have already been made to the Director of Industries as well as Ministry of Mines and Geology of Jharkhand State seeking state support regarding land and other necessary aspects. It went on to mention that progress of these is being actively pursued. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal had also written another exhaustive letter dated 30.08.2003, D-8, Page 97-98, PDF 1184, Exhibit P-14 to the Chairman, Screening Committee in connection with allocation of Coal blocks to the company. The said letter is as under:
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 187 of 210 CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 188 of 210520. From a reading of aforesaid two letters written by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal shows that he had deep knowledge about the affairs of AIPL.
He has signed both these letters as the authorised signatory whereas he had become authorised signatory of AIPL later on.
521. Neither during cross examination of DW 6 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal nor in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor in the written statement under Section 313 (5) Cr.P.C. given by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal it was stated by him that he was briefed about the information submitted with Ministry of Steel vide letter dated 23.07.2004 and 16.09.2004 before the Screening Committee meeting which he bonafidely believed to be true. He did not say that before coming for this meeting, he was shown both of these letters along with their annexures and he bonafidely believed them to be reflecting the true state of affairs in respect of M/s. AIPL. In fact, nothing has been spoken about the submissions which are attributed to the 'applicant' in the minutes of the Screening Committee.
522. His only defence is that by chance he was in Delhi at the time of the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee and at the last minute on the asking of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal he attended the meeting and represented M/s. AIPL and queries of the committee were answered by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. That defence is not accepted by this court. For the second defence i.e., lack of knowledge that the information given by him to the Screening Committee was false, there is no supporting evidence even for probablizing that he bonafidely believed the said information given to him to be correct.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 189 of 210523. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal was the promoter Director of M/s AIPL at the time of its incorporation in the year 1984. At the time of 24 th meeting of the Screening Committee, M/s AIPL being the flagship company of Abhijeet group was under the control of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as the business in Abhijeet group was being carried out under his leadership. However, the assets were not yet separated. On separation of assets in the year 2008, BL Shaw, Arbind Jayaswal, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal got equal shares. It shows that though the company M/s. AIPL was under the control of Accused No.1 but all four persons in the family named above were benefited at the time of partition of assets by allocation of Coal blocks in favour of the company.
524. In the case of Abdul Fazal Siddiqui (supra), there was no mention of any representation having been made by the appellant that the property was free from all encumbrances. When the hypothecation deed was drafted, the appellant was not present and therefore the appellant had not disclosed that the property was not encumbered in any manner. Neither there was any averment nor any evidence that he knew that the stock in trade was hypothecated. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant had not made any statement to the complainant which he knew to be a false statement.
525. However, in the case in hand, the facts are different.
526. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal knew about the affairs of M/s AIPL which is evident from revised application given by him for allocation of Coal block, PDF 1646 and another application dated 30.08.2003, PDF 1184 mentioning the detailed background of the discussions held in the 21 st CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 190 of 210 Meeting of Screening Committee and also about the application of the company and Coal blocks sought for. Therefore, he knew the progress of the company and subsequent developments.
527. Moreover, as per PW-14 A.K. Srivastava, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal misrepresented before the 24th Screening Committee meeting that he was the Director of AIPL. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal misrepresented before the 24th Screening Committee meeting that he was the Joint Managing Director of Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
528. The submission on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is that he was Director in so many companies that by oversight, he presented himself as Director of AIPL before the 24th Screening Committee meeting.
529. It is unbelievable for this court that when a person attends a meeting called by senior government officials for an important purpose of allocation of a Coal block, a person will wrongly mention himself as Director of the applicant company by oversight.
530. Not only during 24th Screening Committee Meeting, but during 18th Screening Committee Meeting held on 05.05.2003, 21st Screening Committee Meeting held on 19.08.2003 and 22 nd Screening Committee Meeting held on 04.11.2003, Accused No.2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal had appeared as Director of AIPL, whereas he was no more the Director of the said company during those dates. (These facts were not denied by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal during arguments. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the case titled as CBI vs. M/s Domco & Ors., at D-47, Page 94 is the attendance sheet of the 18th Screening Committee Meeting where Ramesh Kumar mentioned CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 191 of 210 himself as Director of AIPL, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. In the case titled as CBI vs. Gondwana Ispat, is the attendance sheet of the 21 st Screening Committee Meeting where Ramesh Kumar mentioned himself as Director of AIPL, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. In the case titled as CBI vs. M/s Top Worth, at D-39 is the attendance sheet of the 22 nd Screening Committee Meeting where Ramesh Kumar mentioned himself as Joint Managing Director of AIPL, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh.)
531. As per Section 15 of the Evidence Act, when there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
532. The allegations that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal attended 18 th, 21st and 22nd Screening Committee Meetings as Director of AIPL have come to the notice of this Court during final arguments addressed on behalf of Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumr Jayaswal, therefore, this Court had specifically put this material to Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal on 21.11.2024 when final arguments were concluded and case was reserved for orders to know his explanation in this regard as this material was not put up to Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal u/s 313 Cr. PC.
533. The explanation given on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is that in all these three earlier Screening Committee Meetings, no misrepresentation was made by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and no forged document was given to the Screening Committee during these meetings and therefore, his attendance in the 18th, 21st and 22nd Screening Committee meetings for AIPL is not incriminatory material CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 192 of 210 against him.
534. This Court has considered the explanation given on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal for his appearance as Director of AIPL before the 18th, 21st and 22nd meetings of the Screening Committee.
535. Irrespective of the fact that except in 24 th meeting of Screening Committee, no misrepresentation was made by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal to the Screening Committee in earlier three meetings, it remains a fact that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal, not once but four times appeared before Screening Committee meeting as Director/Joint Managing Director of AIPL which shows a particular knowledge/intention in appearing as Director of AIPL.
536. Since this matter was specifically put to the accused Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal during final arguments and he has given his explanation so he has suffered no prejudice by not putting this matter to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
537. This is a deliberate design on behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal as well as Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal which shows criminal conspiracy so that in case ever falsehoods and forgeries in their applications come to notice, they can wash off their hands taking the plea that they were not the Director in the applicant company and had no knowledge that the facts were being misrepresented or that forged documents were filed by the applicant companies before MoS/MoC/Screening Committee.
538. It is apparent that the modus operandi was that, if in future the forgeries and misrepresentations made to the MoS or Screening Committee come to light, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal can take the plea CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 193 of 210 (which he has taken now) that because he was not the Director in the company, he was not knowing that the information which he gave to the Screening Committee was false. This guilty mind and conspiracy with Manoj Kumar Jayaswal show that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal had all the knowledge that the information being given on behalf of M/s. AIPL to the Screening Committee was false. Considering the fact that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal has been writing letters giving in detail information about M/s. AIPL to Ministry of Coal, considering that he had been regularly attending the meetings of the Screening Committee for representing M/s AIPL being the Director/Joint Managing Director whereas he had resigned from the Directorship in this company in the year 2002 on creation of separate group, i.e., Abhijeet group and considering that he has not helped himself in any manner by putting forth how he came to know the information pertaining to M/s AIPL quoted in the minutes of the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee shows that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal had all the information about misrepresentations and forged documents and persisted with those misrepresentations before the 24th Screening Committee inducing the said committee to recommend allocation of Coal block in favour of M/s AIPL.
539. This distinguishes this case from the case of Abdul Fazal Siddiqui (supra) where the appellant had made no misrepresentation that the property was free from encumbrance.
540. On the recommendations of the Screening Committee, Government of India issued allocation letter in favour of M/s AIPL allocating Coal blocks in its favour. Allocation letter is a property in terms of the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 194 of 210 judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), and therefore Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is guilty of committing the offence of cheating the Screening Committee as well as Government of India/public at large. The judgement in the case of Sudhdeo Jha Uttpal (supra) is also not helpful to Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal because in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant has not in any way benefited by getting the petrol coupons. The charge of conspiracy with the other co-accused, who was the Director and managing agent of the transport company was not proved. Therefore, it was held that it is not proved that appellant would have knowingly or willfully made a false representation that taxes had been paid in respect of all the vehicles mentioned therein or they are in a roadworthy condition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the explanation given by the appellant was that neither he had filled the coupons nor they were filled on his directions and had followed the usual practice of depending upon the office staff who made the necessary entries and brought the documents before him for signatures, he had signed.
541. The facts of the case in hand are different. In the case in hand, Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal also got benefited at the time of distribution of the assets of the family in the year 2008 by allocation of Coal blocks in favour of M/s AIPL. Conspiracy between the Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal is evident in this case. Unlike the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the appellant had given the explanation that he had signed the coupons following the usual practice of depending upon the office staff, no such explanation has CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 195 of 210 been given by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal. It is again reiterated that there is nothing on record to show that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal was briefed about these facts or was shown these letters which he believed to be genuine and conveyed those facts to the Screening Committee bonafidely. On the other hand, the evidence has shown his keen participation before the Screening Committee falsely representing himself as the Director/Joint Managing Director though he was only made a authorised signatory later on. He has been writing detailed letters on behalf of M/s. AIPL which shows that he knew about all the progress made by M/s. AIPL for setting up the EUP, including lack of financial closure, lack of availability of private land and lack of availability of kilns with M/s. AIPL. Therefore, Accused No.2 is convicted for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
542. So far as Manoj Kumar Jayaswal is concerned, reliance is placed by him on Vipin Sahni (supra). In this case, the appellants had established an educational institution and registered it under the Societies Registration Act in the year 2004. In the year 2006, the society was granted lease of a parcel of land by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for setting up educational institutions. The society filed application in 2007, seeking approval of the All India Council for Technical Education to establish Business School of Delhi offering a Postgraduate Diploma Course in Business Management on the leased land. It also mentioned that a loan/mortgage had been raised against the land, by taking the 'Yes' box. However, in the tabular form in the first page, against the query-Mortgaged with Bank-Yes/No, the answer was stated as 'No'. There was, thus, an apparent contradiction CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 196 of 210 in the application itself. The approval was recorded by AICTE in the year 2007 to start the Business School of Delhi. After receiving the approval, the society submitted another application to establish Business School for Women. The next day, the society filed another application seeking approval to start a third institute namely International Business School of Delhi. In the two later applications, the society failed to mention that the leased the land was mortgaged, but it disclosed the fact that it had already been granted approval in the year 2007 to operate another institute from the same premises. AICTE granted approval for starting the Business School for Women and also granted approval to commence the International Business School of Delhi in the leased land. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner received an anonymous complaint that officials of AICTE had shown undue favour to the society. The matter was referred to CBI for investigation. The Regional Officer of the CBI, addressed a letter to Station in Charge, Police Station, Greater Noida to register a case for investigation, but the said police station opined that the complaint did not justify registering of a fir and or proceeding with investigation as no cognizable offence was made out. However, a case was registered by CBI under Sections 420 and 120 B IPC along with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The case was registered against appellants and unnamed officials of AICTE alleging that appellant had obtained approval by deceitful means from AICTE in violation of Section 4.2 (iii) of the AICTE Approval Process 2006. As per this provision, the land approved for starting an educational institution ought not to be encumbered. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed only against appellants and no CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 197 of 210 official of the AICTE was charged with criminality in granting approval to the society's institutions. Those proceedings were quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. However, CBI approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad was set aside with the liberty to the trial court to go into the merits of the issue raised at the stage of framing of charges. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI court, Ghaziabad directed the matter to be listed for framing of charges rejecting the application of the accused for discharge. In revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, the order passed by the learned special judicial Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded for hearing afresh, in the light of observations made in the Revisional order. The learned Mag referred the matter and is charged the accused of the offence under Section 420 and 120 B IPC. The order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad and accused filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the sine qua non to make out an offence under Section 420 IPC, insofar as the present case is concerned , is an act on the part of the appellants to 'cheat and thereby the dishonestly induced the person so deceived, viz., the AICTE, to deliver any property'. Therefore, the appellants, while applying for and on behalf of the society, should have either suppressed material information or projected incorrect information so as to induce the AICTE, by such dishonest means, to grant approval for its educational institutions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that in the first application, the appellants had disclosed about the loan raised from the Corporation Bank. AICTE deemed it fit to grant approval despite the AICTE's CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 198 of 210 'Approval Process 2006' providing that the land should have been registered in the name of the applicant's society free from any encumbrances. It was noted that no official of AICTE has been implicated in any wrongdoing. In the second and third application, the society had failed to mention about the loan. It was also noted that it was not the AICTE that claimed that it was deceived and dishonestly induced to grant approval owing to suppression of material information by the appellants acting on behalf of the society. It was a third party who choose to remain anonymous that initiated the investigation. By not implicating any official of the AICTE in the chargesheet and by dropping the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the CBI found that the AICTE's officials were not complicit at all and they were given a clean chit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the finding of the Hon'ble High Court as to deliberate withholding of information by the appellants cannot be accepted on the given facts. The first application of the society had disclosed about the bank loan. This was followed by scrutiny and verification by the officials of the AICTE, including a spot inspection, following which, approval for setting the 'Business School of Delhi' was recorded. No wrongdoing was attributed to the officials of AICTE in that regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that whereas in the second and third application, the society had not mentioned about the loan, but the first application had disclosed subsistence of the loan and the encumbrance on the land. It was noted that even the case of the AICTE was not that it was under any illusions, thereby it was dishonestly induced to grant approval for establishment of the colleges in question. The only party who can speak of being 'dishonestly CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 199 of 210 induced to do or not to do something' is that party itself and when the AICTE made no such complaint, it was not for others to insinuate that the AICTE was dishonestly induced to do something. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Referred to Its Earlier Judgement in the Case of Ram Jas versus State of UP, (1970) 2 SCC 740 where the ingredients of offence of cheating were summed up as under:
"(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
(ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived; and
(iii) in case is covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
543. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decision in the case of V.P.Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd, (2010) 10 SCC 361 where it is held that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise, and such a culpable intention should be there at the time of entering into the agreement. On facts, it was found that the party alleged to have been cheated was fully conscious of the situation at the time we decided to enter into the contract and there was no dishonest inducement.
544. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in hand that there was disclosure of the fact that the subject land was mortgaged to secure the bank loan. But despite the same, the AICTE granted CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 200 of 210 approval for the 'Business School of Delhi'and it never complained that it was under any misinformation in that regard. Thus, the essential requisite to make out an offence of cheating was lacking. Mere carelessness on the part of the appellants in filling up the second and third applications and a part of the first application was not considered as motivated by deliberate deception, on the admitted factual position, so as to invite criminal charges. There was no evidence of the appellants consciously agreeing or conspiring to deliberately furnish false information to the AICTE so as to garner its approval for their colleges. In the first application, the appellants had diverged the relevant details of the bank loan and the mortgaged over the lease land, but failed to do so in the second and third application, but there is no evidence of the appellants resorting to deception in that regard, wilfully and in connivance with each other. Therefore, it was held that the charge under Section 120 B IPC also does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Hon'ble High Court had adopted a rather technical approach and practically concluded that the appellants are guilty of deliberately withholding relevant information so as to secure the approvals by deceitful means. However, the facts indicated disclosure of the mortgaged at the outset when the first application was made, and therefore there is no possibility of inferring that the appellants conspired in terms of Section 120 B IPC to commit an illegal act of suppression so as to secure the approvals. Further, the AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approval is and that essential link is altogether missing, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the appellants. Resultantly, the CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 201 of 210 impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was set aside and order of discharge passed by the trial court was restored.
545. Relying on this judgement, it is submitted on behalf of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal that only witnesses from Ministry of Steel/Ministry of Coal could have spoken of being dishonestly induced to do or not to do something and when they have made no such complaint, it was not for others to insinuate that the ministries were dishonestly induced to do something.
546. In the earlier paragraphs of this judgement it is noted that it is vividly clear from the recommendation letter of the Ministry of Steel and minutes of the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee that both of them heavily relied on misrepresentations made before Ministry of Steel as well as the Screening Committee. The misrepresentations are quoted in the recommendation of Ministry of Steel as well as in the recommendations of the 24th meeting of the Screening Committee. It is therefore clear that even in the absence of any witness from Ministry of Steel or Screening Committee, there is no doubt that Ministry of Steel as well as Screening Committee were induced to believe the misrepresentations to be true. In the judgement relied upon by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, there were no minutes of the AICTE recording that the society had not encumbered piece of land on which institutions were to run. This is a distinguishing fact between the facts of the case relied upon by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, inducement of Ministry of Steel/Screening Committee/Government of India is apparent from records in as much as the recommendation letter of Ministry of Steel and CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 202 of 210 recommendations of Screening Committee have reproduced misrepresentations made to them for deciding in favour of M/s. AIPL which clearly establishes cheating.
547. Moreover, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vipin Sahni (supra) is essentially confined to its own facts. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether AICTE, which granted the approval was cheated by false representations? The Hon'ble Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that there was no misrepresentation by the appellants. It was noted that AICTE had granted approval despite the violation of approval process and no official of AICTE was implicated.
548. In the case in hand, recommendations by the Ministry of Steel, the recommendations of Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal and allocation of a Coal block in favour of M/s AIPL by government of India were not in violation of any rules or guidelines. It is not the case that in spite of such violation, no public servant was chargesheeted. This indicates that the judgement in the case of Vipin Sahni (supra) is confined to its own facts.
549. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted that in the second and third application, the appellants had not furnished their requisite information, though the same was furnished earlier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration that AICTE never claimed that it was deceived and it was dishonestly induced because a third party who had remained behind the scenes had initiated the investigation by filing anonymous complaint. As this party had remained anonymous, there was no way of ascertaining the deception. It is important to note CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 203 of 210 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the findings of the Hon'ble High Court with regard to withholding of information by the appellants therein. Hence, on facts a clear finding was recorded that there was no misrepresentation. The judgement had only decided that on facts, no misrepresentation was made to the AICTE.
550. On the contrary, in this case in hand, the allocation of Coal blocks was judicially examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a clear finding was returned of a huge loss to public exchequer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) in its order dated 17.12.2013, though on the finding of criminality had refrained from encroaching upon the area of investigation in paragraph 37, held that "... The allocation of Coal blocks is alleged to suffer from favouritism, nepotism and pick and choose. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in its performance audit on allocation of Coal blocks and augmentation of Coal production has estimated loss to the public exchequer to the tune of about Rs. 1.86 lakh crores as on 31-3- 2011 for open-cast mine/open-cast reserves of mixed mines while pointing out inadequacies and shortcoming in the allocation."
551. The aforesaid passage establishes that ultimately loss was caused to public exchequer and by extension to the public at large.
552. Therefore, the question that no one particular public servant was deceived is immaterial when it is the Government of India, which has suffered a wrongful loss. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled the allocations, it was conscious, as is evident from paragraph 80, that private parties had indeed made misrepresentations. The relevant part of paragraph 80 of the judgement is reproduced below:
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 204 of 210"The determination of the Screening Committee is apparently subjective. It is no coincidence that a large number of allottees are either powerful corporate groups or shady companies linked with politicians and ministers or those who came with high-profile recommendations. Most of these allottees were in fact ineligible for allocation; they had misrepresented the facts and were not more meritorious than others whose claims have been rejected, and by serious manipulation and abuse, they were able to get the Coal blocks."
553. In the case in hand, there is a clear finding that misrepresentations have been made in the process of allocation of Coal blocks resulting in the dishonest obtainment of Coal block where the ultimate loss is caused to the Government of India and the public at large.
554. Both of these aspects are critically absent from the judgement in the case of Vipin Sahni (supra), hence, the said judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.
555. Further, in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja versus CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, it is held that Coal block cases, form a distinct category from other cases, "since they have had a massive impact on public interest and there have been large-scale illegalities".
556. In law, it is well established that a deception in an application made to an authority is really a deception made to the Government. It is not necessary to prove that any particular person from the Screening Committee was deceived. All that is necessary is that the representations made are found to be false, and those false representations were acted upon by the Ministry of Steel/Screening Committee/Government of India for allocating coal blocks in favour of M/s AIPL.
557. In the case of Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy versus State of A.P., 1964 CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 205 of 210 SCC Online SC 268, it is held that "There have been cases in which servants or agents of an authority have been deceived but the loss has been suffered by the authority concerned. In such cases, the person deceiving the servants or agents has been held to have deceived the authority concerned, though no direct question was raised about the deception being made not to the authority, but to its servant."
558. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal was controlling the affairs of M/s. AIPL when forged letters and forged documents were submitted with MoS. In the earlier paragraphs, it is held that it is he who got forged documents submitted to Ministry of Steel. False information in these letters led to recommendation of Ministry of Steel in favour of M/s AIPL. On the basis of recommendations of Ministry of Steel, the Screening Committee was also induced to believe false facts to be true and recommended allocation of Coal blocks in favour of M/s AIPL. In case, M/s. AIPL had not secured recommendation of Ministry of Steel by cheating the said Ministry, the Screening Committee would not have taken up its case for considering allocating a Coal block. On the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the Government of India issued allocation letter in favour of M/s AIPL which is property for the purposes of Section 415/420 IPC in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra). Manoj Kumar Jayaswal being the Director and Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal being the authorised signatory of M/s. AIPL were the alter ego of M/s. AIPL. Therefore, Accused No. 1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 are convicted for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 206 of 210559. 17th Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has proved the charge framed against all the three accused persons under Section 120- B, 120-B read with 420 IPC and 471 IPC?
560. In most of the cases, the charge of conspiracy is proved by circumstantial evidence as it is often said that conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available.
561. Same is the position of case in hand.
562. After having dealt with all the points for determination in this case, now it is clear that BL Shaw, his three sons were doing business under the name of Neco group.
563. In the year 2002, Abhijeet group was carved out of the Neco-group and several companies of the Neco group came under the fold of Abhijeet group. Abhijeet group was doing business under the leadership of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal. The business of Abhijeet group and Neco group was being conducted separately though the assets of the family were yet to be partitioned.
564. During 2004, there were five Directors of M/s. AIPL. They were Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, his son Abhishek Jayaswal, Ashok Prasad, Radheshyam Prasad (brothers in law of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal) and Anand Jayaswal (nephew of Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, because there were cross shareholdings between the two groups as they were in the process of separation).
565. This court has held that forged letters and documents in support of financial closure, availability of land and kilns were submitted by M/s AIPL to the Ministry of Steel to seek its recommendation.
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 207 of 210566. It is already held that these forged letters and documents were got sent by Manoj Kumar Jayaswal knowing that they are false documents. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal has been convicted for the offence of Section 471 IPC.
567. The recommendations of the Ministry of Steel and misrepresentations made before it by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal during 24 th meeting were relied on by the Screening Committee to recommend allocation of a Coal block in favour of M/s AIPL. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, the Director of M/s AIPL did not attend the screening meeting to represent AIPL. He was attending the Screening Committee meetings but to represent Jayaswal Neco Ltd. This is despite the fact that he had resigned from the board of Directors of Jayaswal Neco Ltd in the year 2002. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal who had ceased to be the Director of M/s. AIPL since the year 2002, appeared in the Screening Committee on four occasions as its Director/Joint Managing Director. The misrepresentations made in forged letters and documents which were given on behalf of M/s AIPL to Ministry of Steel were reiterated before the Screening Committee by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal. The representation of M/s AIPL by Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal as Director/Joint Managing Director of the company before the Screening Committee on four occasions, including during the 24 th meeting of the Screening Committee when the Screening Committee was deceived by misrepresentations made before it was as a result of criminal conspiracy amongst of the accused. The conspiracy was that by the attendance/misrepresentations of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal made before the Screening Committee on the basis of forged CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 208 of 210 documents, a cover will be provided to Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who otherwise was the Director in the company and running its affairs, from prosecution in case the forgeries and misrepresentations ever came to light. Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal represented M/s AIPL before the Screening Committee as Director/Joint Managing Director whereas he was only authorised signatory, so that in case the misrepresentations and forgeries come to light, he can take a plea that he was not a Director in M/s. AIPL and was unaware about forgeries and misrepresentations being made. In the earlier parts of this judgement, all the accused have been convicted under Section 420 IPC for cheating, Government of India for seeking allocation of a Coal block, property as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra). The fact that the Director of the company, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal evaded appearing before the Screening Committee to represent M/s. AIPL and the fact that Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal who appeared before the Screening Committee as its Director/Joint Managing Director and repeated misrepresentations which were made before the Ministry of Steel by M/s. AIPL and procured allocation of a Coal block in favour of M/s AIPL shows that all the accused were in criminal conspiracy with each other and the objective of the conspiracy was to secure allocation of a Coal block from Government of India in favour of M/s AIPL whereas the said company was unfit for allocation of a Coal block in as much as it had neither achieved financial closure, nor it had any land nor it had taken steps to set up End Use Project, such as ordering purchase of kilns. In the opinion of this court, the above shows criminal conspiracy amongst all the three accused. Therefore, all the three accused persons CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 209 of 210 are convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B and 120-B read with 471 IPC and 420 IPC.
568. Conclusion:
(i) Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Accused No. 3 M/s.
AIPL are convicted for the offence under Section 471 IPC.
(ii) Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and Accused No. 3 M/s. AIPL are convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
(iii) Accused No. 1 Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Accused No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal and Accused No. 3 M/s. AIPL are convicted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and 120-B read with Section 471 IPC and Section 420 IPC.
Announced in the open Court Arun Bhardwaj
on this 09th day of December, 2024 Special Judge, CBI (PC Act),
Coal Block Cases-01,
Digitally signed by
ARUN RADC, New Delhi
ARUN BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ Date: 2024.12.09
13:25:11 +0530
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors Judgment dated 09.12.2024 Page 210 of 210