Delhi District Court
Cbi vs M/S Topworth Urja And Metals Ltd. And Ors on 5 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI) (COAL BLOCK CASES)-02:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CC No. 98/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004122019
RC NO. 221/2014/E0009
Branch: CBI/EO-III/New Delhi
CBI Vs. M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. & Ors.
U/s. 120-B, 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC
and Section 420/468/471 IPC
Date of order on cognizance : 23.02.2019
Date of framing of charge : 28.09.2020
Date on which judgment
was reserved : 18.12.2023
Date of judgment : 05.01.2024
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Vs.
(1) M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.
(Formerly Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.)
Registered Office at No. 4 Raheja Centre,
Ground Floor, 2214, Free Press Journal Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021
Corporate Office at 126-128,
Shriram Tower, 1st Floor, Kingsway,
Sadar (Near NIT Office), Nagpur. (Convicted)
(5) Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena
S/o Late P. S. Saxena
504, Kacham Pearl Apartment,
5th Floor, Laxmi Ganga Enclave,
Pipe Line Road, Hyderabad.
Permanent: B-28, Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad. (Convicted)
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 1 of 269
(6) Manoj Maheshwari
S/o Late Srikrishna Maheshwari
Plot No. 05, Shaikh Colony,
Raj Nagar, Nagpur-440013. (Convicted)
(7) Anand Nandkishore Sarda
S/o Sh. Nandkishore Sarda
Sarda House, 32 Shivaji Nagar,
Nagpur - 440010. (Convicted)
[Accused no. 2 Surendra Champalal Lodha @ Surendra C.
Lodha, Accused no. 3 Anil Kumar Omprakash Nevatia and
Accused no. 4 Swapan Kumar Mittra @ S.K. Mitra have been
discharged vide order on charge dated 04.09.2020.]
APPEARANCES
Present : Ld. Special PP Sh. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate
alongwith Advocate Sh. Akshay Nagrajan
for CBI (through VC).
Ld. ALA Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. DLA Sh. A.P.
Singh, Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh. N.P. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. PP
Sh. V.K. Pathak.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Pankaj Kapoor for A-5, Ld.
Counsels Sh. Ashim Vachher, Sh. Vikram Panwar
and Sh. Pawash Piyush for A-6 and Ld. Counsels
Sh. Pankaj Kapoor, Sh. Anurag Andley and
Sh. Aditya Andley for A-7.
Ld. Sr. Advocate Sh. P.K. Dubey for A-7 and Ld.
Counsel Ms. Ritika Vohra for RP Sh. Avil Jerome
Menzes for A-1 company M/s TUML (through
VC).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 2 of 269
J U D G M E N T:
TAB L E O F C O N T E N T S PARTI C U L A R S PAR A G R A P H PAG E S NUMBERS PART-A 1 to 6 4 to 16 THE ALLEGATIONS PART-B 7 to 13 16 to 43 THE CHARGE PART-C 14 to 403 43 to 155 THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE PART-D STATEMENTS OF 404 155 to 156 ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CRPC PART-E 405 to 446 156 to 165 THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE PART-F 447 to 535 165 to 195 THE ARGUMENTS PART-G THE ANALYSIS AND 536 to 726 196 to 269 DECISION OF THE COURT CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 3 of 269 PART - A THE ALLEGATIONS
1. The present case pertains to allocation of 'Marki Mangli II, III and IV' coal blocks situated in the State of Maharashtra in favour of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. ("SVSL"). The said company later on was taken over by M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. ("TUML") after amalgamation. Hence prosecution was launched in the name of TUML. However, for the sake of convenience, for most of the times, the name SVSL has been used in this judgment.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered vide FIR No. 221 2014 (E) 0009 dated 08.05.2014 pursuant to the findings of Preliminary Enquiry No. 219 2012 E 0004 dated 26.09.2012 which was initiated by the CBI on the reference of Central Vigilance Commission.
3. The allegations, in brief, and as per the Final Report, are as under:
3.1. It was revealed that M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. vide its application dated 15.01.2004 had applied to the Ministry of Coal ("MoC") for allocation of captive coal mining blocks for its proposed 3 LTPA Sponge Iron Plant, Captive Power Plant ("CPP") and Steel Melt Shop and followed it up with subsequent letters. The said proposal of the company was discussed in 23 rd CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 4 of 269 meeting of Screening Committee and finally in its 28 th meeting, the Screening Committee decided to allocate Marki Mangli-Il, Ill & IV Coal Blocks to the company.
3.2. Accordingly, Marki Mangli II, III and IV coal blocks were allocated to M/s SVSL by MoC vide allocation letter dated 06.09.2005 for its 3 LTPA Sponge Iron Plant at Umred in Maharashtra. As per the allocation letter, the middlings/rejects during beneficiation were to be used captively for power generation in their own plant. However, the original promoters of the company disposed of their equity in the company in 2006-08 to persons/entities belonging to Topworth Group and subsequently on 29.06.2010, the name of the company was changed to M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.
3.3. Allegations against the company regarding misrepresentation in respect of in-principle financial tie-up with Power Finance Corporation ("PFC") and its claim mentioning that the CPP was under construction while applying for allocation also cropped up and were also investigated.
3.4. During the course of investigation it was revealed that initially name of the company was M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd., and it was incorporated on 05.11.1993 vide certificate of incorporation issued from ROC, Mumbai. The name of company was changed to M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. on 19.11.2001. The company was initially promoted by Sh.
Shrikrishna Maheshwari, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari and Sh. Ram CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 5 of 269 Niwas Daga.
3.5. It was further revealed that in the application dated 15.01.2004 submitted to MoC, it was mentioned that first phase of 75000 MT per annum capacity Sponge Iron Plant had already been set-up, installed and commissioned recently and they were in the process of setting up of a Captive Power Plant and Steel Melt shop. It was also mentioned that the existing capacity of Sponge Iron Plant was to be increased to Three Lac Tonnes per annum Sponge Iron in second phase and the same was to be augmented suitably by addition of further capacity in the captive power plant and the steel melt shop. In its application, the company stated the raw coal requirement of 1.2 to 1.5 MTPA for captive use and that it would set up a coal washery at mine site to wash the coal for using it in the steel plant. The company requested for Bellora Takli Jena North, Kosar Dongargaon and Nerad Malegaon coal blocks having extractable reserves of 40 MT. The said application was signed by Sh. A.K. Saxena, President, on behalf of the company (an employee of the company) who was authorized to sign on behalf of the company vide a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company on 12.01.2004. Further representations were made by the company vide letters dated 02.05.2004, 10.06.2004, 02.07.2004, 23.11.2004, 04.12.2004, 08.01.2005 and 31.01.2005 requesting allocation of captive coal blocks. Vide its letter dated 31.01.2005 the company finally requested for allocation of Nerad Malegaon, Marki Mangli-II, Marki Mangli-III and Marki-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 6 of 269 Mangli-IV coal blocks.
3.6. It was also revealed that the company in its applications dated 15.01.04 and 02.07.04 for allocation of captive coal blocks and during Screening Committee Meeting till preparation of the Agenda Form of 28th Screening Committee Meeting, misrepresented about its existing capacity of 75000 TPA whereas actual capacity was 60000 TPA.
3.7. It was also found that M/s SVSL vide its subsequent application dated 02.05.2004, 10.06.2004 and 02.07.2004, submitted a letter dated 24.05.2004 of Sh. V.S. Dhumal, Principal Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra, which was addressed to Secretary (MoC) mentioning that the CPP was under
construction. The said fact was not true as there was no investment made by the company towards the project of CPP till that time.
3.8. The Annual Financial Statement/balance sheet of the relevant period of the company did not support the said claim.
During the investigation, the concerned file of Govt. of Maharashtra could not be traced but the signatory to the said letter claimed that the fact of CPP under construction during the relevant time was mentioned on the basis of information provided by the company.
3.9. It was revealed that company misrepresented in its application dated 23.11.04 and also before the 28th Screening CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 7 of 269 Committee that they had obtained in principle clearance from the PFC. However, no such in principle clearance was granted to the company by PFC. Though the proposal of the company was examined at PFC for further consideration, but no in principle approval was given. The company did not furnish further requisite information sought by PFC for processing their request. Further, it was found that the company submitted application dated 02.08.2004 to PFC for part finance of CPP as a long term loan signed by Sh. Shiv Kumar Aggarwal, Director of the company. The company also submitted other documents/information besides certificate dated 02.08.04 issued by Kothari Rathi & Associates CA and signed by Sanjay Kothari. In this certificate total expenditure towards CPP was shown as Rs. 217.68 Lacs. The claims made by the company in this CA certificate dated 02.08.04 does not tally with its financial/balance sheets. During this period M/s Bang Gupta & Co. was the Chartered Accountant at the company and a self contained note was sent to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ("ICAI") for taking necessary action against Sh. Sanjay Kothari.
3.10. It was further revealed that the financial closure thus shown achieved by the company and that the CPP was under
construction, showed the preparedness and seriousness as well as the effective steps taken by the company towards the EUP. Such advanced stage of preparedness and seriousness for the project as per the extant guidelines strengthened the case for allocation of a captive coal block to an applicant company. The aforesaid CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 8 of 269 misrepresentations were purposefully made by the company to impress upon the Screening Committee about its credibility and to reflect its preparedness in order to seek favourable order of allocation of coal block.
3.11. It was also revealed that in the letter dated 15.01.2004, A.K. Saxena misrepresented that the company was having sponge iron capacity of 75000 MTPA. However, the actual capacity of Sponge Iron Plant was 60000 MTPA. He had attended 23rd Screening Committee meeting held on 29.11.2004 in which also the same information qua Sponge iron was given as 75000 MTPA. He had also attended the 28 th Screening Committee meeting along with Manoj Maheshwari where it was presented that the company had obtained in principle clearance from PFC which was also not correct.
3.12. Investigation has also revealed that Manoj Maheshwari issued a letter dated 30.10.2004 to MoC through which he forwarded the letter of State Govt. of Maharashtra dated 24.05.2004 in which incorrect information about CPP under construction was mentioned. It was also mentioned in the letter that financial tie-up was complete for CPP. He had also attended 28th Screening Committee meeting along with A.K. Saxena where it was informed that the company was having in principle clearance from PFC which was also not correct. CFSL, New Delhi has confirmed the signature of Manoj Maheswari on the letter dated 30.10.2004 as well as the writing/ signature of Anil CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 9 of 269 Kumar Saxena on the attendance sheet of the Executives participating in 28th Meeting of Screening Committee dated 15.04.2005 in respect of the entry which pertains to Sh. A.K. Saxena and Manoj Maheshwari. At that time, Manoj Maheshwari was working as CEO of the said company.
3.13. It was found that vide letter dated 02.07.2004 sent to MoC, Anand Nandkishore Sarda pretending himself as Director of M/s SVSL mentioned that company had capacity of 75000 MTPA and also mentioning the letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt.
of Maharashtra containing incorrect information that the CPP was under construction. He also forged the signature of Vimal Kumar Aggarwal in letter dated 23.11.2004 and that of Shiv Kumar Aggarwal in letter dated 21.10.2004. Letter dated 23.11.2004 referred the letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra of having incorrect information about CPP and letter dated 21.10.2004 communicated misrepresentation regarding implementation of CPP. Anand Nandkishore Sarda was not appointed Director yet he issued letter dated 02.07.2004 as Director of the company. CFSL, New Delhi vide opinion dated 31.10.2017 has confirmed that the signatures on letters dated 02.07.2004, 23.11.2004 and 21.10.2004 were made by Anand Nandkishore Sarda. In their statements u/s 164 CrPC Sh. Vimal Kumar Agarwal and Sh. Shiv Kumar Agarwal denied their respective signatures on the aforesaid letters.
3.14. It was also found that the company did not augment its CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 10 of 269 existing Sponge Iron Plant capacity to 3 LTPA as claimed in its application dated 15.01.04 and consumed the coal in the existing Sponge Iron Plant and its Captive Power Plant of 30 MW.
3.15. The Department of Industries, Energy & Labour, Govt. of Maharashtra recommended for allocation of the coal blocks to the company vide its letter dated 24.05.2004 to the MoC. The MoS vide letter dated 10.08.2004 and Ministry of Power vide letter dated 24.11.2004 recommended allocation of the coal blocks for meeting the coal requirement expressed by it.
3.16. It was revealed that the application of the company was considered in 23rd Screening Committee held on 29.11.2004. Though the case was discussed in the meeting but no allocation was made in that meeting. The matter of allocation of the coal blocks was discussed in 28th meeting of the Screening Committee held on 15.04.2005. On the request of the Chairman of the Screening Committee about the priority of the blocks, the representative of the company stated that the priority would be Marki Mangli-II, III and IV followed by Nerad Malegaon. Accordingly, the committee decided to allocate Marki Mangli-ll, IIl and IV coal blocks to M/s Virangana Steels Ltd. Investigation has revealed that the company was issued an allocation letter dated 06.09.2005 by MoC, putting following conditions:
i) The allocation of the Marki-Mangli-II, Marki-Mangli-III & Marki Mangli-lV blocks to M/s. Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. has been made to meet the sponge iron grade coal requirement of 0.48 million tonne per CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 11 of 269 annum for their 3 Itpa capacity sponge iron production at Umred in Nagpur of Maharashtra State. The coal produced from the blocks shall not replace any coal linkage given to M/s. Shree Virangana Steels Ltd., by the Coal India Limited/its subsidiary companies and/or by the Singareni Colleries Company Limited, without prior permission of this Ministry.
ii) The block is meant for captive use in their own specified end use projects i.e. sponge iron and power generation.
iii) The middling generated in the process of washing shall be used for power generation in their own power plant i.e. the useable middlings/rejects generated during beneficiation shall be used captively by the allocattee. The modalities of disposal of surplus coal/middlings/rejects if any, would be as per prevailing policy/instruction of the Govt at the relevant point in time and could also include handing over such surplus coal/middilngs/rejects to the local CIL subsidiary or to any person designated by it at a transfer price to be determined by the Govt.
iii) The coal production from the captive blocks shall commence within 36 months (42 months in case the area in forest land) of the date of this letter in OC mine and in 18 months (54 months in case the area falls under forest land) from the date of this letter in UG mine. The end use project schedule and the coal mine development schedule should be modified accordingly and submitted to the Ministry within 3 months from the date of this letter.
iv) The company shall buy the Geological report from CMPDIL within 6 weeks of the date of this letter.
v) The company shall submit a bank guarantee for Rs. 4.8 crore (equal to one year's royalty amount based on mine capacity of 0.565 mtpa as per assessed requirement, average D grade coal and the weighted average royalty being @ Rs. 85/- per tonne) within 3 months of the date of this letter.
Subsequently, upon approval of the mining plan the Bank Guarantee amount will be modified based on the final peak/rated capacities of the CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 12 of 269 mines.
vi) The company shall submit a plan for approval by the competent authority under the Central Government within six months from the date of this letter.
vii) The progress of the mine will be monitored annually with respect to the approved mining plan, which will mention the zero date. In case of any lag in the production of coal, a percentage of the bank guarantee amount will be deducted for the year. This percentage will be equal to the percentage of deficit in production for the year with respect to the rated/peak capacity of the mine, e.g., if rated/peak capacity is 100, production as per the approved mining plan for the relevant year is 50 and actual production is 35, then (50-35)/100x100=15% will lead to deduction of 15% of the original bank guarantee amount for the year. Upon exhaustion of the Bank Guarantee amount the block shall be liable for de-allocation/cancellation of mining lease. M/s. Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. Shall ensure that the Bank Guarantee remains valid at all times till the mine reaches its rated capacity or till the Bank Guarantee is exhausted.
viii) No coal shall be sold, delivered, transferred or dispose of except for the stated captive mining purpose except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
ix) Mining of coal from the allocated captive coal block shall be carried out in accordance with the applicable Statutes/Rules/Orders/Directions governing the mining of coal in the country.
x) Those of the above conditions relevant at the time of grant of mining lease shall be included as additional conditions in the mining lease in addition to any further conditions imposed by or agreed to by the Central Govt.
xi) The state Govt. at the time of seeking previous approval for the grant of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 13 of 269 mining lease shall submit a draft of the mining lease containing the above relevant conditions for vetting by the Central Govt. The final mining lease shall be as vetted/modified by the Central Govt. Any deviation from the vetted/modified draft shall render the mining lease deed ab initio null and void and without effect.
2. Allocation/mining lease of the coal block may be cancelled, inter-alia, on the following grounds:
(a) Unsatisfactory progress of implementation of their end use sponge -iron plant/power plant.
(b) Unsatisfactory progress in the development of coal mining project.
(c) For breach of any of the conditions of allocation mentioned at (i) to (xi) above.
The de-allocation/cancellation of mining lease shall be without any liability to the Government or its agencies, whatsoever. Any expense incurred by the allocattee or any right or liability arising on the allocattee out of the measures taken by him shall solely be to his account and in no way be transferred to or borne by the Government or its agencies.
3. The company may approach CMPDIL for the geological report and contact the State Government authorities concerned for the necessary permissions/clearances etc. for attaining mining rights and related matters. The arrangement of transport of coal will have to be worked out by the company."
3.17. It is worth mentioning here that there are, post allocation of coal blocks, various acts described in the chargesheet relating to how the mining lease was obtained and how the coal was mined and extracted and how the company made profit illegally.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 14 of 269 3.18. However, my Learned Predecessor vide order on charge dt. 04.09.2020 (mentioned in detail a little later in this judgment) had discharged some of the accused persons namely A-2 Surendra Champalal Lodha @ Surendra C. Lodha, A-3 Anil Kumar Omprakash Nevatia and A-4 Swapan Kumar Mittra @ S.K. Mitra. After discharge of these accused persons, those allegations, in my considered view, have become redundant. It will be useless to burden the judgment with narration of those allegations. Thus the same are not being mentioned herein.
4. Final report was filed on 17.04.2018. Vide order dated 23.02.2019, my Ld. Predecessor took cognizance of the offences u/s 120-B r/w Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and u/s 420 IPC against accused all the accused persons i.e. company (A-1) M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (M/s TUML) [Formerly known as Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.], its Director (A-2) Surendra Champalal Lodha @ Surendra C. Lodha, its President (A-3) Anil Kumar Omprakash Nevatia, (A-4) Swapan Kumar Mittra @ S.K. Mitra, (A-5) Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena, (A-6) Manoj Maheshwari and (A-7) Anand Nanad Kishore Sarda. Cognizance for the offences u/s 120-B/465/468/471 IPC was also taken against accused company (A-1) M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (M/s TUML) [Formerly Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.], its Director (A-2) Surendra Champalal Lodha @ Surendra C. Lodha, its President (A-3) Anil Kumar Omprakash Nevatia, (A-4) Swapan Kumar Mittra @ S.K. Mitra. Summons were issued accordingly.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 15 of 269
5. All the accused persons appeared and were admitted to bail. On 31.05.2019 one Sh. Pankaj Srivastava, Assistant Official Liquidator appointed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay appeared on behalf of Sh. V.P. Kaytkar, Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay as company M/s TUML was under liquidation.
6. Copies of the chargesheet were supplied to the accused persons as per Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC").
PART - B THE CHARGE
7. Thereafter my Ld. Predecessor heard parties on the point of charge and vide detailed order dated 04.09.2020, three accused persons i.e. A-2 Surendra Champalal Lodha @ Surendra C. Lodha, A-3 Anil Kumar Omprakash Nevatia and A-4 Swapan Kumar Mittra @ S.K. Mitra were discharged for all the offences and formal charges were ordered to be framed against other remaining accused persons i.e. A-1 M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd., A-5 Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda for the offence u/s 120-B IPC and offence u/s 120-B/420 IPC alongwith substantive offences thereof. As regard A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda, charge for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC was made out. Charge for the offence u/s 120-B/468/471 IPC was also made out CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 16 of 269 against A-1 M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd., A-5 Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda.
8. Accordingly, on 28.09.2020, charges for the offence u/s 120-B IPC and 120-B r/w Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC were framed against A-1 M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd., A-5 Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda. Charge for the substantive offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC was also framed against A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda. Charge for the substantive offence u/s 420 IPC was also framed against A-1 M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd., A-5 Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena and A-6 Manoj Maheshwari.
9. All these four accused persons pleaded not guilty to all the charges so framed against them and claimed trial.
10. Ld. Counsel Sh. Kunal Sharma for Official Liquidator of A-1 company signed the charge dated 28.09.2021 framed against A-1 company.
11. The charges so framed against the accused persons are being reproduced here for ready reference, as follows:
"CHARGE I, Bharat Parashar, Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi do hereby charge all of you as under : -
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 17 of 269
1. M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.(Formarly Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.)
2. Shri Anil Kumar Saxena @ A. K. Saxena, the then president - Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.
3. Shri Manoj Maheshwari, Director/CEO, - Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.
4. Shri Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Representative - Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.
Firstly, that during the period between the year 2004 to 2009 at Maharashtra, Delhi and other places, All of you, the above-named accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to cheat Ministry of Coal, Screening Committee (MoC), MoS, Ministry of Power, Government of India and Govt. of Maharashtra, and thereby to procure allocation of Coal Blocks" in favour of Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. (Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.), by making false submissions about capacity, construction of Captive Power Plant and clearance from Power Finance Corporation etc. and as discussed in detail in the Order on charge dated 04.09.2020 and thereby all of you 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 the aforesaid common object of the criminal conspiracy as described above, all of you did various acts of cheating and forgery (as described in detail in the substantive charges framed separately) and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC and within my cognizance."
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 18 of 269 "CHARGE I, Bharat Parashar, Special Judge, (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi do hereby charge you M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (Formerly Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.) through Official Liquidator as under : -
Firstly, that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you vide application dated 15.01.2004 submitted false information to the Ministry of Coal claiming the sponge iron capacity of the company to be 75,000 MTPA whereas the actual capacity of the Company was 60,000 MTPA. The same false information was also provided by you to the 23rd Screening Committee held on 29.11.2004 with a view to dishonestly induce Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks and during the said period itself you vide application dated 15.01.2004 also submitted false information to the MoS claiming the sponge iron capacity of the company to be 75,000 MTPA whereas the actual capacity of the Company was 60,000 MTPA and thereby you dishonestly induced MoS to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 19 of 269 Secondly, that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you vide letter dated 25.10.2004 to the Ministry of Power submitted letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP is under construction and financial tie up is complete for CPP whereas it was not so and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Power to recommend Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, That during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you alongwith your co-accused persons namely Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena @ A. K. Saxena and Sh. Manoj Maheshwari provided false information to the 28th Screening Committee claiming that you (A-1) has obtained in principle clearance from Power Finance Corporation whereas it was not so and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. (Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 20 of 269 furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you vide letter dated 30.10.2004 to the Ministry of Coal submitted letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP under construction and financial tie up is complete for CPP whereas it was no so and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance."
"CHARGE I, Bharat Parashar, Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi do hereby charge you Shri Anil Kumar Saxena @ A. K. Saxena, the then president Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) as under : -
Firstly, that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you vide application dated 15.01.2004 submitted false information to the Ministry of Coal claiming the sponge iron capacity of the company to be 75,000 MTPA whereas the actual capacity of the Company was 60,000 MTPA. The same false information was also provided by you to the 23rd Screening Committee held on CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 21 of 269 29.11.2004 with a view to dishonestly induce Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks and during the said period itself you vide application dated 15.01.2004 also submitted false information to the MoS claiming the sponge iron capacity of the company to be 75,000 MTPA whereas the actual capacity of the Company was 60,000 MTPA and thereby you dishonestly induced MoS to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, That during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you alongwith your co-accused namely Sh. Manoj Maheshwari provided false information to the 28th Screening Committee claiming that company (A-1) has obtained in principle clearance from Power Finance Corporation whereas it was not so and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance."
"CHARGE CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 22 of 269 I, Bharat Parashar, Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi do hereby charge you Shri Manoj Maheshwari, then Director/CEO,
- Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. (Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) as under : -
Firstly, that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you vide letter dated 30.10.2004 to the Ministry of Coal submitted letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP is under construction and financial tie up is complete for CPP whereas it was not so and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, That during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you alongwith your co-accused namely Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena @ A.K. Saxena provided false information to the 28th Screening Committee claiming that company (A-1) has obtained in principle clearance from Power Finance Corporation whereas it was not so and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 23 of 269 Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance."
"CHARGE I, Bharat Parashar, Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi do hereby charge you Shri Anand Nandkishore Sarda, as under : -
(i) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you dishonestly/fraudulently submitted letter dated 02.07.2004 falsely pretending to be a Director of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. and therey also submitted false information to MoS claiming the sponge iron capacity of the company(A-1) to be 75,000 MTPA whereas the actual capacity of the Company was 60,000 MTPA and you also furnished copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP was under construction, whereas it was not so, and thereby intending to use the said letter for the purpose of cheating MoS so as to induce it to make a recommendation to MOC in favour of Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. (Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, and you thereby committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
(ii) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 24 of 269 furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you forged letter dated 02.07.2004 for the purpose of cheating and used it as genuine in the manner described above under charge head (i), and you thereby committed the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC and of using a forged document as genuine punishable u/s 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
(iii) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you dishonestly/fraudulently submitted letter dated 02.07.2004 falsely pretending to be a Director of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. and thereby also submitted false information to Ministry of Coal claiming the sponge iron capacity of the company(A-1) to be 75,000 MTPA whereas the actual capacity of the Company was 60,000 MTPA and you also furnished copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP was under construction, whereas it was not so, and thereby intending to use the said letter for the purpose of cheating Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee so as to induce it to recommend Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks. By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
(iv) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 25 of 269 furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you forged letter dated 02.07.2004 for the purpose of cheating and used it as genuine in the manner described above under charge head (iii),, and you thereby committed the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC and that of using a forged document as genuine punishable u/s 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
(v) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you dishonestly/fradulantly submitted letter dated 21.10.2004 to the Ministry of Coal for the purpose cheating Ministry of Coal/Screening Committee by forging the signatures of Sh. Shiv Kumar Aggarwal, Director of M/s SVSL upon the said letter dated 21.10.2004 and also mentioned false information therein regarding implementation of CPP. Alongwith the above letter you also furnished copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP is under construction whereas it was not so, and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks and thereby you committed the offence of cheating punishable under section - 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
(vi) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 26 of 269 furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you forged letter dated 21.10.2004 for the purpose cheating and used it as genuine in the manner described above under charge head (v),, and you thereby committed the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC and that of using a forged document as genuine punishable u/s 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
(vii) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you dishonestly/fradulantly submitted letter dated 23.11.2004 to the Ministry of coal by forging the signatures of Sh. Vimal Kumar Aggarwal, Director of M/s SVSL upon the said letter dated 23.11.2004 for the purpose cheating Ministry of Coal/Screening Committee and also mentioned false information therein that site work for Captive Power Plant has commenced and that there is financial tie-up with Power Finance Corporation. You also relied upon the copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP is under construction whereas it was not so, and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Coal/ Screening Committee to recommend Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) for allocation of coal blocks and thereby you committed the offence of cheating punishable under section - 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 27 of 269
(viii) That during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you forged letter dated 23.11.2004 for the purpose cheating and used it as genuine in the manner described above under charge head (vii),, and you thereby committed the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC and that of using a forged document as genuine punishable u/s 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
(ix) that during the period from 2004 to 2006, in furtherance of the common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you dishonestly/fraudulently submitted the letter dated 25.10.2004 to the Ministry of Power by forging the signatures of your co-accused Manoj Maheshwari on the said letter dated 25.10.2004 for the purpose of cheating the Ministry of Power while also enclosing letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by the Govt. of Maharashtra wherein it was mentioned that CPP is under construction whereas it was not so, and thereby you dishonestly induced Ministry of Power to give no objection to the allotment of coal blocks to Shri Virangana Steels Ltd.(Now Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.) By doing so, you committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of IPC.
(x) that during the period from 2004 to 2006 (corrected vide order dated 19.11.2020) in furtherance of common object of the criminal conspiracy hatched by you with CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 28 of 269 your co-accused persons, (details of which are described in the charge of conspiracy framed separately), you forged letter dated 25.10.2004 for the purpose cheating and used it as genuine in the manner described above under charge head (ix), and you thereby committed the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC and that of using a forged document as genuine punishable u/s 471 IPC and within my cognizance."
12. Thereafter admission/denial of the documents u/s 294 CrPC was carried out by the accused persons and various documents were admitted and marked/exhibited during the said proceedings. The details of the admitted and exhibited documents are as under:
D. No. Details of Documents Page Nos. Admitted Partly Exhibit No. by admitted by accused accused D-1 Original FIR dated A-5, A-6, Ex. P-1 08.05.2014 in RC A-7 221/2014/E/0009.
(Total sheets-01 to10) D-5 One file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F. No. 13016/9/2004-CA/CAI (Vol-I), SUBJECT Application for Captive Coal Mining Block for Sponge Iron & Steel Plant by M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.
(Containing sheets 1 to
238)
(M-1527/14, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 29 of 269
Application of SVSL 36/c to 140/c (CD A-6 Ex. P-2
dated : 15.01.2004 to the Page No.367 to (Colly.)
Ministry of Coal for 494)
allocation of Captive Coal
mining block.
Letter dated : 24.05.2004 154/c-15/c A-6 Ex. P-3
issued by Shri V. S.
Dhumal to the Secretary, CD Page 508-
MOC. 509.
Letter dated 30.10.2004 to 232-233/C A-6 Ex. P-4
the Secretary, MOC.
CD Page 591 to
593.
Application dated : 165-166/C A-7 Ex. P-5
02.07.2004
D-7 One file captioned Govt. of
India, Ministry of Coal and
marked F. No.
13016/9/2004-CA-I (Vol-
IV), SUBJECT Allocation
for Captive Coal Mining
Blocks for Sponge Iron
Plant by M/s Shree
Virangana Steel Ltd.-Marki
Mangli-II, III, & IV Coal
Blocks
(Note sheet 1 to 77)
(Correspondence sheets 1
to 320)
(M- 1529/14, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
The Coal Mines 267-319/C A-7 Ex. P-6
(Nationalization) Act, 1973 (Colly.)
D-11 Clarification on the A-5 Ex. P-7
observations made by the
Technical Members of the
Standing Committee of
Ministry of Coal on Mining
Plan of December, 2006 for
Marki Mangli-II of M/s
Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.
(May, 2007 Text & Plates)
(Containing sheets 1 to 15)
(M-1533/14, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 30 of 269
D-29 One Statutory Register of 8 A-7 Ex. P-8
TUML
(3290 PDF)
(pages 1-75)
(M-1262/14, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
D-64 One file of the Directorate
of Geology & Mining,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Nagpur No.
Project/43/Prospecting-
charges / 2005 in respect of
Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.
(Note Sheet pages 1 to 11)
(Correspondence pages 1 to
49.) (M-614/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
Allocation Letter dated : 1/c-3/c A-6 Ex. P-9
06.09.2005 issued by MoC
to Shri Virangana Steels CD page 444 to
Ltd. 446.
D-86 One folder of Power
Finance Corporation, New
Delhi containing Note
Sheet in respect of
Preliminary Appraisal Note
for loan proposal,
Preliminary Appraisal Note
for consideration of
Screening committee , both
in respect of Shree
Virangana Steels Limited
and Minutes of 75th meeting
of Loan Proposal Screening
Committee held on 29-10-
2004, Print-out of System
Data Base records along
with Certificate U/s 65
B(4) (C) of the Evidence
Act 1872.
(Pages from 01 to 25.)
(M-343/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
Preliminary Appraisal Note 4-17 A-6 Ex. P-10
(Colly.)
CD page no. 2931
to 2944
Minutes of 75th meeting of 18-25 A-6 Ex. P-11
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 31 of 269
Loan Proposals Screening CD page no. 2945 (Colly.)
Committee dated : to 2952
29.10.2004.
D-87 File No 561-544 A-7 Ex. P-12
02:13/MH:SVSL/01.Vol I (Colly.)
of Power Finance
Corporation Limited, New
Delhi relating to Entity
Appraisal of M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Limited.
(Pages 1 to 561.)
(M-344/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
Amended Memorandum of 557-544 A-6, Ex. P-13
Agreement dated (Colly.)
12.03.2004. CD Page 2958 to
2971.
Minutes of the Meeting 561 to 558. A-7. Ex. P-14
held between SVSL and M. (Colly.)
N. Dastur and Co. CD Page 2954 to
2957
Amendment to 557 to 544. A-7 Ex. P-15
Memorandum of (Colly.)
Agreement dated 15 May CD Page 2958 to
2002. 2971
D-88 File No:
02:13/MH:SVSL/01.vol.II/
Oct,03 of Power Finance
Corporation Limited ,New
Delhi ,relating to Entity
Appraisal of M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Limited.
(Pages 1 to 461.)
(M-345/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
Balance Sheet dated : A-6 Ex. P-16
15.07.2004 (Page No.149)
(CD page No.3823)
D-90 Order dated 05.06.2017 of Both pages A-7 Ex. P- 17
the Hon'ble Court of Sh.
Bharat Parashar, Special
Judge (PC Act), (CBI)-07,
NDD/PHC in respect of
release of the original
relevant page no. 219 (as
prayed) in file no.
47011/10/2005-CB-CA-I
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 32 of 269
i.e. D-7 of CC No. 07/5
M/s Adhunik Corporation
Ltd. and others.
(Total 02 sheets)
D-91 Photocopy of Original A-5 Ex. P-18
Sheet (Attendance Sheet of
Executives participating in (Colly.)
28th Meeting of Screening
Committee dated
15.04.2005) page 219
bearing entry from Sl No.
35 to 41, entry at Sl No. 36
in respect of Sh. A.K.
Saxena + CEO M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Ltd.
(Original page no. 219 is
contained in D7 (Original
Agenda Note File of 28th
Screening Committee
Meeting) filed in RC 219
2014 (E) 0025 against M/s
Adhunik Corporation Ltd.
and others).
(02 sheets).
D-98 Specimen signatures of Sh. A-5 Ex. P-19
A.K. Saxena S/o Late Sh.
P.S. Saxena, the then (Colly.)
President M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Ltd.
marked as S-23 to S-29 &
S-131 to S-139.
(16 sheets).
D-99 Specimen initial of Sh. A-5 Ex. P-20
A.K. Saxena S/o Late Sh.
P.S. Saxena, the then (Colly.)
President M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Ltd.
marked as S-43 to S-47 &
S-165 to S-171.
(12 sheets).
D-100 Specimen writing of Sh. A-5 Ex. P-21
Anil Kumar Saxena (A.K.
Saxena) S/o Late Sh. P.S. (Colly.)
Saxena, R/o (Permanent) :
B-28, Chandar Nagar,
Ghaziabad, the then
President M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Ltd.,
Nagpur, presently working
as CEO, M/s Cauvery Iron
& Steels (India) Ltd.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 33 of 269
Hyderabad marked as S-
140 to S-164.
(25 sheets).
D-
101 Specimen signatures of Sh. A-7 Ex. P-22
Anand Nandkishore Sarda
S/o Sh. Nandkishore Sarda (Colly.)
marked as S-54 to S-58 &
S-172 to S-185.
(19 sheets).
D-102 Specimen writing of Sh. A-7 Ex. P-23
Anand Nandkishore Sarda
S/o Sh. Nandkishore Sarda (Colly.)
marked as S-59 to S-72
(14 sheets).
D-103 Specimen signature/ A-7 Ex. P-24
writing of Sh. Anand
Nandkishore Sarda S/o Sh. (Colly.)
Nandkishore Sarda, R/o
(Present/Permanent): Sarda
House, 32 Shivaji Nagar,
Nagpur-440010, working as
Director, Indigo Denim Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur, T-67, MIDC,
Butibori, Nagpur marked as
S-186 to S-228
(43 sheets).
D-104 Specimen signatures of Sh. A-6 Ex. P-25
Manoj Maheswari S/o Late
Krishana Maheswari (Colly.)
marked as S-73 to S-80
(8 sheets).
D-108 Original Account Opening 1 to 16 A-7 Ex. P-26
Form of savings Bank
Account No. 32152735387 (Colly.)
in the name of Sh. Anand
Nandkishore Sarda, State
Bank of India, Industrial
Finance Branch, Nagpur
containing admitted
signatures of Sh. Anand
Nandkishore Sarda (pages1
to 16) marked as A-1 to A-
8, along with forwarding
letter dated 02.08.2017 in
respect of above document
from AGM, SBI, Industrial
Finance Branch, Nagpur to
Addl. Superintendent of
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 34 of 269
Police, CBI, EO-III, New
Delhi.
(01 Page forwarding letter)
(Pages-1 to 16).
(M-1403/17, RC-
09/E/2014, EO-III)
D-109 Nine numbers of original A-7 Ex. P-27
Cheques bearing cheque
No. 135305 dated to
28.07.2010 for Rs.
15,200/-, No. 128932 Ex. P-35
dated 31.03.2010 for Rs.
256/-, No. 128930 dated
31.03.2010 for Rs.
10,000/-, No. 130901 dated
19.04.2010 for Rs. 120/-,
No. 136701 dated
28.08.2010 for Rs.
19,607/-, No. 136703 dated
02.09.2010 for Rs. 4000/-,
No. 136708 dated
20.09.2010 for Rs.
30,000/-, No. 136712 dated
29.09.2010 for Rs. 11,346/-
and 136715 dated
14.10.2010 for Rs. 40,000/-
all in respect of savings
Account No. 4986
maintained at Nagpur
Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Kamptee Road Branch,
Nagpur containing
admitted signatures of Sh.
Anand Nandkishore Sarda,
marked A-9 to A-17, (M-
1404/17-(iii), RC-
09/E/2014, EO-III, Pages
1 to 9)
(Total 09 sheets.).
D-110 Specimen Signature Form A-7 Ex. P-36
of Account No. 4986 in the
name of Sh. Anand
Nandkishore Sarda, Nagpur
Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Kamptee Road Branch,
Nagpur, containing
admitted signature of
Anand Nandkishore Sarda
marked as A-18, (M-
1404/17/(ii), RC-
09/E/2014, EO-III, Pages
1)
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 35 of 269
(Total sheets -01).
D-111 Original Account Opening A-7 Ex. P-37
Form (with other related
papers) in respect of (Colly.)
Savings Account No. 4986
in the name of Sh. Anand
Nandkishore Sarda, Nagpur
Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Kamptee Road Branch,
Nagpur (Pages 1 to 6)
marked as A-19, A-19/1, A-
20 to A-22, along with
forwarding letter dated
02.08.2017 from Branch
Manager to the Addl.
Supdt. of Police, CBI/EO-
III, New Delhi. (M-
1404/17 (i), RC 09/E/2014,
EO-III, Pages 1 to 6 and
02 pages of forwarding
letter),
(Total No. of sheets: 08.).
D-112 Original Account Opening A-7 Ex. P-38
Form-Capital Gain
Account, Specimen (Colly.)
Signature Card and other
related documents like
Form-C, Form-G, Form-
DA-1, Account Opening
Form for term deposit etc.
attached with the Account
Opening Form, all in
respect of Account No.
32453179904 in the name
of Sh. Anand Nandkishore
Sarda maintained at State
Bank of India, Seva Sadan
Chowk Branch, Nagpur
marked as A-23 to A-38,
(marked pages 1 to 21)
along with forwarding
letter No. BR/17-18/ dated
01.08.2017 of Branch
Manager , State Bank of
India, Seva Sadan Chowk
Branch, addressed to Addl.
Supdt. of Police, CBI, EO-
III, New Delhi. (M-
1405/17, RC-09/E/2014,
EO-III, Page 1 to 21, and
01 page forwarding
letter),
(Total No. of sheets 22).
D-130 Original letter of Power 2 A-6 Ex. P-39
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 36 of 269
Finance Corporation Ltd.
vide No.
03/IPP/SVS/160/VOL-I
dated 04.11.2004. (M-
619/17, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(03 pages)
D-183 One File Captioned Govt.
of India, Ministry of Coal
and marked F. No.
47011/1(13)/99-
CPAM/CA(Vol-I),
SUBJECT Captive mining
block (Sub Block 6 Gare
Palma-IV) for Washery -
Cum Sponge Iron Steel
Plant- M/s Central Utilities
& Investment Limited/ M/s
Madhya Utilities &
Investment Limited
containing sheets 1 to 263.
(Page 4 in soiled, partly
worn condition on right
margin) (M-391/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(Pages 1 to 263)
Certificate dated : 236 A-7 Ex. P-40
16.05.2003 issues by
Manish Pande.
D-184 One File Captioned Govt.
of India, Ministry of Coal
and Mines and marked F.
No. 47011/1(13)/99-
CPAM/CA (Vol-II),
SUBJECT Captive mining
block (Sub Block 6 Gare
Palma-IV) for Washery -
Cum Sponge Iron Steel
Plant- M/s Central Utilities
& Investment Limited/ M/s
Madhya Utilities &
Investment Limited
containing Note sheets 1 to
26 and other sheets 1 to
440. (M-392/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(Note sheet pages 1 to 26)
(Correspondence Pages 1 to
440)
Letter dated :03.05.2002 5/C A-7 Ex. P-41
issued by Papuri Engg. &
Consultancy Services.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 37 of 269
D-186 One file captioned Govt. of
India, Ministry of Coal and
Marked file no. 47011 /
6/2004-CB-CA, Subject-
Meeting of the 24th
Screening Committee for
Screening proposal relating
to Captive Mining of
coal/Lignite by Power
Generating Companies and
Companies engaged in
manufacturing of Iron &
Steel and Cement (Agenda
Note for 23rd Screening
Committee meeting)
containing of note sheet
pages 1 to 3 and other
sheets 1 to 114. (M-611/16,
RC-221/2014/E/0009).
(Note sheet pages 1 to 3)
(Correspondence pages 1 to
114.)
(Note sheet page No. 3) CD Page A-6 Ex. P-42
Note dated 07.12.2004 of 2769
Shri Sujit Gulati, Director,
MOC.
D-221 Original MOA A-6 Ex. P-43
(Memorandum of
Association) of Shree (Colly.)
Virangana Steels Ltd.,
Annexure-1 (26 sheets)
(M-105/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(26 sheets)
D-222 Consent to Operate issued A-5 Ex. P-44
to M/s Shree Virangana
Steels Ltd. (SVSL) by
Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board, Mumbai
vide Consent No.
BO/RONR/ Nagpur
44/O/50-03/CC-76 dated
08.04.2003, in original,
Annexure-2 (5 sheets) (M-
106/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(5 sheets)
D-224 Copy of Letter No. 410 A-6 Ex. P-45
dated 29.01.2004 issued by
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 38 of 269
Central bank of India, Main
Branch, Nagpur to SVSL
regarding proposal of loan,,
Annexure-4 (2 sheets) (M-
108/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(2 sheets)
D-227 Original approval letter A-5 Ex. P-46
dated 07.03.2003 of
Directorate of Industrial
Safety & Health, Govt. of
Maharashtra, Nagpur,
Annexure -7 (1 sheets) (M-
111/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(1 sheet)
D-234 Copy of the Agreement for A-6 Ex. P-47
supply of Iron Ore &
Manganese Ore dated (Colly.)
29.08.2003 held between
Mine Owner Sh. Subhamoy
Chatterjee and Shree
Virangana Steels Ltd.,
Annexure-14 (6 sheets)
(M-118/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(6 sheets)
D-239 Copy of recommendation CD Page A-6 Ex. P-48
letter of allocation of coal
blocks for captive coal 6477 to 6478
mining from Industries,
Energy & Labour
Department, Govt. of
Maharashtra, Mumbai
issued to the Secretary,
Govt. of India, Ministry of
Coal Delhi vide Ref. No.
MMN 2202/638/Ind-9
dated 24.05.2004,
Annexure-19 (2 sheets)
(M-123/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(2 sheets)
D-240 Copy of company's A-5 Ex. P-49
application to the MoS,
New Delhi vide Ref. No.
SVSL/03/365 dated 20th
March, 2003, Annexure-20
(2 sheets) (M-124/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 39 of 269
(2 sheets)
D-242 Copy of company's A-6 Ex. P-50
application to the MoS,
New Delhi vide No.
P1/SVSL/GP/2004/280
dated 7th April, 2004,
Annexure-22 (2 sheets).
(M-126/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(2 sheets)
D-249 Copy of Water allotment A-5 Ex. P-51
letter issued by Command
Area Development
Authority, Nagpur to SVSL
vide their letter No.
7334/TS2/19/04 dated
23.11.2004 ,Annexure-29
(1 sheet) (M-133/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(1 sheet)
D-252 Detailed Project for the A-5 Ex. P-52
Captive Power Plan Phase-
1 (Part-I & Part-II) (Colly.)
prepared by M/s M.N.
Dastur & Co. (P) Ltd. ,
Annexure-32 (169 sheets)
(M-136/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(169 sheets)
D-256 Original copy of Consent to A-6 Ex. P-53
Operate in respect to
Sponge Iron Plant obtained
from Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board vide
Consent No. BO/Nagpur-
83/CE/CC/134 dated
26.05.2005, Annexure-36
(5 pages) (M-140/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(5 pages)
D-259 Copy of recommendation A-5 Ex. P-54
for allocation of coal block
by Director, Directorate of
Geology and Mining,
Nagpur vide letter
No.1601/2004 dated
17.05.2004 addressed to the
Chief Secretary (Industry),
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
Annexure -39 (1 page) (M-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 40 of 269
143/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(1 page)
D-341 Original forwarding letter A-7 Ex. P-55
dated 03.09.2015 of
Director, Sharda Auto
Industries Ltd. addressed to
S.N. Khan, Addl. SP., CBI,
EO-III, New Delhi along
with enclosure (3 sheets)
(M-3929/15, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(3 sheets)
D-346 Original forwarding letter Pages 269 to 275. A-7 No.2018 dated 08.10.2015 from Joint Director of Industries, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, addressed to Sh.
S.N. Khan Addl. Supdt. of
Police Central Bureau of
Investigation (HQ)
Economic Offences -III,
New Delhi along with
original file of M/s
Virangana Steels Ltd. Page
No. 1 to 1254 (M-3727/15,
RC-221/2014/E/0009).
(Page No. 1 to 1254)
Measurement Report 269-272 A-7 Ex. P-56
Joint Measurement Report 273-274 A-7 Ex. P-57
Letter dated : 23.03.2011 275 A-7 Ex. P-58
D-357 Office Copy of Financial
statement of M/s Shree
Virangana Steels Ltd,
Nagpur for the year ended
31.03.2003, prepared/
Audited by M/s Bang
Gupta & Company,
Chartered Accountants,
containing Auditors Report,
Annexure, Balance Sheet,
Profit & Loss Account,
Schedules etc.(Marked
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 41 of 269
pages 01 to 25) (M-234/16,
RC-221/2014/E/0009).
(Pages 01 to 25)
Balance Sheet dated A-6 Ex. P-59
30.08.2003 (Page No.4)
(CD Page No.1313)
D-382 Original Cheque No. A-5 Ex. P-60
307265 dated 11.04.2017
for Rs. 250000/- favouring (Colly.)
'yourself for RTGS ' along
with RTGS payment
instruction slip dated
11.04.2017 both issued in
A/c No. 624201509626 of
Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena (2
sheets). (M-1989/17, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(2 sheets)
D-383 Original Cheque No. A-5 Ex. P-61
353273 dated 07.01.2017
for Rs. 10000/- favouring
Dr. Tanvi Saxena issued in
A/c No. 624201509626 of
Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena (1
sheet). (M-1990/17, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(1 sheet)
D-384 Original Cheque No. A-5 Ex. P-62
307253 dated 22.09.2016
for Rs. 30000/- favouring
Smt. Vandana Saxena
issued in A/c No.
624201509626 of Sh. Anil
Kumar Saxena (1 sheet).
(M-1991/17, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(1 sheet)
D-385 Original Cheque No. A-5 Ex. P-63
353270 dated 04.08.2016
for Rs. 15000/- favouring
Smt. Vandana Saxena
issued in A/c No.
624201509626 of Sh. Anil
Kumar Saxena (1 sheet).
(M-1992/17, RC-
221/2014/E/0009).
(1 sheet)
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 42 of 269
Ex. P-64
D-387 Copy of Agenda Form of A-5 (Colly.)
28th Screening Committee
in respect of Marki
Mangli-II, III & IV
Meeting (Page 135-143,
MR No.21/12 in PE-219
2012(E)0002)(In Malkhana
of EO-I).
(Page 135-143)
13. After completion of the proceedings u/s 294 CrPC, prosecution examined its witnesses.
PART - C THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
14. Prosecution, thereafter, in order to prove the charges, examined 17 witnesses. Out of these, examination-in-chief of one witness namely Sunit Kumar Pal was led by way of affidavit u/s 296 CrPC as his evidence was of formal character only. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
15. During the examination of most of the prosecution witnesses i.e. for the period 25.03.2022 to 27.09.2022 none appeared on behalf of A-1 company M/s TUML and accordingly the matter was proceeded further in terms of Section 305(4) CrPC during the said period. Thereafter on 07.12.2022 one Advocate Sh. Guneet Sidhu filed a status report qua A-1 company stating that vide order dated 12.08.2022, Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai has appointed Sh. Alok Kailash Saksena as CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 43 of 269 Insolvency Resolution Professional ("IRP") for A-1 company and he would be representing the company. Thereafter also, A-1 company appeared only intermittently. As such provision of Sec. 305(4) CrPC was resorted to whenever the company was absent.
16. For the purpose of clear understanding, the witnesses can be grouped as follows:
Witness(es) from: PW's Number & Name
Ministry of Coal PW-1 Sh. Rajender Singh Negi
Ministry of Power PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Vijay
MoS PW-3 Sh. Deependra Kashiva
Govt. of Maharashtra PW-4 Sh. Vishwas Shankarrao Dhumal
Power Finance PW-5 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Jha
Corporation ("PFC")
Central Excise & PW-6 Sh. Deepak Salodkar
Service Tax, Nagpur
Sales Tax Department, PW-9 Sh. Maruti Dhondu Upare
Govt. of Maharashtra.
Central Bank of India PW-11 Sh. Purushottam Madavi
M/s SVSL PW-7 Sh. Dilip Kumar Jain, CA
PW-8 Sh. Balkisan Bang, CA
PW-10 Sh. Vishal Vimal Agrawal, CEO
PW-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Director
M/s TUML PW-13 Sh. Jai Thomas
CFSL PW-12 Ms. Lavang Lata
CBI PW-15 Inspector Rajbir Singh (Initial IO)
PW-16 Sh. Shah Nawaz Khan (Main IO)
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 44 of 269
17. PW-1 is Sh. Rajender Singh Negi. He was posted in MoC throughout his service. He joined in the year 1981 and retired from service on 31.10.2020.
18. He claims to know various officials of MoC and identified their signatures on various notings, files, letters, OM's etc.
19. He deposed that in the year 1993, Govt. of India had opened allocation of coal blocks to private sector companies for their captive use.
20. He proved office memorandum dated 14.07.92 (page 2/C in document D-30 i.e. MoC file bearing No. 13011/3/92-CA). Vide this office memorandum, a Screening Committee headed by Additional Secretary, MoC, was constituted to consider proposals received from private power generating companies for allocation of captive coal blocks. The office memorandum is Ex. P- 65/PW-1(D-30).
21. He also proved another memorandum dated 05.08.93 (page 3/C of D-30) vide which the Screening Committee was reconstituted. The office memorandum is Ex. P-66/PW-1(D-30). He proved file No. F.No.13011/5/2003-CA (D-31), as he had dealt with it and it is Ex. P-67/PW-1 (Colly.). Another O.M. dated 10.01.2000 [Page 7/C in file Ex. P-67/PW-1 (Colly.)], vide which Screening Committee was again reconstituted is Ex. P- 68/PW-1.
22. Another office memorandum dated 17.04.2003 [page 8-9 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 45 of 269 in file Ex. P-67/PW1(Colly.)(D-31)] vide which the Screening Committee was reconstituted with Secretary (Coal) as Chairman thereof and Joint Secretary (Coal) as Member Convener is Ex. P- 69/PW-1. One corrigendum dated 07.05.2003 [page 22 in file Ex. P-67/PW1(Colly.)], vide which the representatives of concerned State Governments were substituted as Members of Screening Committee in place of representatives of concerned State Governments (Revenue Department) is Ex. P-70/PW-1 (D-
31).
23. He had also dealt with file of MoC bearing No. 47011/13/99-CPAM (Vol. II) (D-37). The file is Ex. P-71/PW-1 (colly).
24. He proved office memorandum dated 30.07.1999 [page 131/C in file is Ex. P-71/PW1(colly)] vide which copy of the minutes of 14th Screening Committee meetings as were held on 18/19.06.1999 were forwarded to various members of Screening Committee (available from page 133-164) and is Ex. P-72/PW-1 (colly.)(D-37). He deposed that in the said 14th Screening Committee meeting the following decisions were also taken:
"After deliberations, the following was decided:
The Administrative Ministries will assess the soundness of the proposals in consultation with the State Govt. before sending their comments, recommendations to the Screening Committee for consideration of allotment of a captive mining block.
The Administrative Ministries should consult State Govts. as well as use their own agencies for assessing the progress of the implementation of end use plants for which blocks have already been allotted by the Screening CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 46 of 269 Committee and send a report to the Screening Committee for further action."
25. He had also dealt with file of MoC No. F.No.47011/5/2002/CPAM (D-35), and proved the same as Ex. P-73/PW-1 (colly).
26. The draft record note of discussion of 18th Screening Committee meeting held on 05.05.2003 [as available from page 110-160/C in file Ex. P-73/PW-1(colly)(D-35)] is Ex. P-74/PW- 1 (colly)(D-35).
27. The finally approved minutes of 18th Screening Committee meeting are available in file Ex. P-73/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-35) from page 161-190. The final approved minutes are Ex. P-75/PW-1 (colly)(D-35).
28. He deposed that in the 18th Screening Committee meeting while welcoming the participants to the meeting i.e. Secretary Coal Sh. P.K. Misra put before the house a few general guidelines/ground rules for their consideration as under:
"The blocks in the captive list should be allocated to an applicant party only after the same have been put in the public domain for a reasonable time and not immediately upon their inclusion in the list of blocks identified for captive mining, this would give an opportunity to the interested parties to apply for the same and make the process that much more transparent. He also emphasized the need for giving very cogent and detailed reasoning before withdrawal of any block from the captive list by CIL.
The Administrative Ministries were requested to appraise CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 47 of 269 the projects from the point of view of the genuineness of the applicant, techno-economic viability of the project and the state of preparedness / progress in the project while indicating the quantity and quality of coal requirement of the project and recommending allocation of captive block to the applicant. In case there were more than one applicant for the same block the Administrative Ministry should rank them based on the project appraisal and the past/track record of the applicant without necessarily naming the block to be allotted. This would facilitate the Screening Committee in allotting a suitable block to the applicant more objectively.
Only those power projects would be considered for allocation which are included in the Xth Plan period."
29. He deposed that in the year 2004, Additional Guidelines as approved by the Hon'ble Minister of Coal in 2003 were applicable to the allocation of coal blocks.
30. He also proved another MoC file (D-38) as Ex. P-76/PW- 1 (Colly.) (D-38).
31. Notesheet of file Ex. P-76/PW1 (Colly.) (D-38), containing note dated 23.10.2003 vide which additional guidelines were put up for approval and approved by the Minister of Coal on 28.10.2003 is Ex. P-77/PW-1(D-38).
32. Notesheet of file Ex. P-76/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-38), containing note dt. 03.11.2003 vide which it was approved that the guidelines would apply prospectively to all allocations made on or after 04.11.2003 is Ex. P-78/PW-1(D-38).
33. The additional guidelines [page 18 to 22/C in Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 48 of 269 75/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-38)], providing that in case of difference from initial guidelines, the additional guidelines would have overriding effect on them are Ex. P-79/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-38).
34. PW-1 also proved MoC file (D-39) as Ex. P-80/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-39).
35. Draft minutes of 22nd Meeting of the Screening Committee held on 04th November 2003 [page 12/C to 121/C in file Ex. P-80/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-39)], are Ex. P-81/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-39).
36. PW-1 further proved MoC file (D-78), as Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78).
37. The forwarding letter dated 10/14th December 2004 [page 137/C in file Ex. P-82/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78)], vide which draft minutes of 23rd meeting of the Screening Committee held on 29.11.2004 [page 138/C to 156/C] were forwarded to the addressees is Ex. P-83/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78).
38. PW-1 further proved file of MoC (D-5) as Ex. P-84/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5). The Note-sheet portion of this file is photocopy.
39. PW-1 identified signatures of various officials of MoC on application dated 15.01.2004 of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. addressed to the Secretary, MoC, already Ex. P-2 (Colly.) from Page 1 to 106. This application is available in File Ex. P-84/PW1 (Colly.). After seeing the application Ex. P-2 (Colly.), witness CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 49 of 269 stated that the company M/s SVSL had claimed its Sponge Iron Plant capacity to be of 75000 MTPA. This application has been signed by Sh. A.K. Saxena, President of the Company.
40. He deposed that in the application, company had claimed that they were in the process of setting up of Captive Power Plant and Steel Melt Shop. With regard to financial closure, it was mentioned in the application that financial closure had been achieved.
41. He further proved MoC File (D-7) as Ex. P-85/PW1 (Colly.) (D-7).
42. He deposed that application/letter dated 02.07.2004, received from M/s SVSL [available from Page No. 165 to 207 in File Ex. P-84/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5)], was marked to him for processing. This application/letter is already exhibited as Ex. P-5 (Colly.) (D-5).
43. He told that in application Ex. P-5 (Colly.) (D-5), the Company had mentioned its Sponge Iron Capacity to be of 75000 MTPA. He told that the company had also enclosed copy of letter dt. 24.05.2004 from Govt. of Maharashtra to Secretary, Govt. of India, MoC as Annexure IV (A). He told that in the letter dated 24.05.2004 which was written by Sh. V.S. Dhumal, Principal Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra to the Secretary, MoC, it was mentioned that Captive Power Plant of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. was under construction.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 50 of 269
44. He deposed that application dt. 21.10.2004 [available from Page No.213 to 214/C in File Ex. P-84/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5)], was received from M/s SVSL bearing the signatures of Sh. Shiv Aggarwal, Director. This application was addressed to the Director, MoC. This application is Ex. P-86/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5). He told that in this application/letter Company has mentioned that Captive Power Plant and Steel Plant were under implementation.
45. He referred to Page No.213 & 214, part of application dt. 21.10.2004 (Ex. P-86/PW1) (Colly.) (D-5), and told that this is the copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 from Sh. V.S. Dhumal, Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, addressed to the MoC and it was mentioned in this letter that Captive Power Plant of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. was under construction.
46. Another application/letter dt. 30.10.2004 from M/s SVSL addressed to the Secretary, MoC, [available at Page No.232 to 234 in File Ex. P-84/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5)] is Ex. P-4 (D-5). After seeing application/letter Ex. P-4 (D-5), witness stated that vide this application it was informed by the Company that financial tie up for the Captive Power Plant and Steel Plant had already been completed and site work had commenced. It was also mentioned in this application/letter that they had already submitted copies of letters confirming the financial tie up with the Central Bank of India and the Power Finance Corporation in this regard. In this letter/application, the Company had also intimated that Govt. of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 51 of 269 Maharashtra had recommended their application for grant of Coal Block. The Company had referred to Govt. of Maharashtra letter dt. 24.05.2004.
47. He deposed that all the applications/letters received were processed and put up to the Senior Officers for consideration.
48. He proved another file of MoC (D-3) as Ex. P-87/PW1 (Colly.) (D-3).
49. He deposed about application/letter dated 23.11.2004, [available at Page No. 1 & 2 in File Ex. P-87/PW1 (Colly.) (D-
3)], which was received from M/s SVSL and is Ex. P-88/PW1 (Colly.) (D-3). He deposed that vide this application MoC was informed by the Company that financial tie up for the Captive Power Plant and the Steel Plant had already been completed and the site work had commenced. Further vide this application/letter, it was also informed that they had already submitted copies of letters confirming financial tie up with the Central Bank of India and the Power Finance Corporation. In this letter/application, the Company had also intimated that Govt. of Maharashtra had recommended their application for grant of Coal Block. The Company had referred to Govt. of Maharashtra letter dt. 24.05.2004.
50. The letter dt. 24.05.2004 addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India, MoC from Sh. V.S. Dhumal, Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, [available at Page No.146/C in File Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 52 of 269 84/PW1 (Colly.)(D-5)], is Ex. P-89/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5).
51. The Office Memorandum dt. 10.08.2004 addressed to Sh. Sujit Gulati, Director, MoC received from Sh. D. Kashiva, Joint Industrial Advisor, MoS, is available from Page No. 208 to 210 in File Ex. P-84/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5) and is Ex. P-90/PW1 (D-5). Vide this OM, MoS had recommended name of M/s SVSL for consideration of allocation of a suitable non-coking coal block subject to certain conditions.
52. Another OM dated 24.11.2004 available at Page No.235to 238/C [in File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5)], was received from Sh. Ashok Kumar Vijay, Section Officer, MoP, Investment Promotion Cell and it was addressed to Sh. S.K. Kakkar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Mines. This OM is Ex. P- 91/PW1 (Colly.) (D-5). Vide this OM, it was informed by MoP that they had examined the proposal of M/s SVSL and MoP had no objection to the allotment of suitable coal blocks to M/s SVSL. Alongwith this OM, MoP had enclosed copy of application/letter dt. 25.10.2004 addressed to the Secretary, MoP.
53. Another OM dt. 01.11.2004 [available from Page 5 to 7/C in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78)], is Ex. P-92/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78). vide which MoP was requested to send its recommendations on the cases mentioned in the enclosed list at an early date so that these cases could be taken up before the Screening Committee. The name of M/s SVSL appears at Srl. No.41 twice in the enclosed list of proposals pending with the CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 53 of 269 Ministry of Power.
54. The OM dt. 19.11.2004 [available from Page 17/C & 18/C in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78)], issued to the members of the Screening Committee for holding of 23rd Meeting of the Screening Committee on 29.11.2004 is Ex. P-93/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78).
55. Another OM dt. 23.11.2004 [available from Page 44/C to 50/C in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 ((Colly.) (D-78)], through which the companies were requested to depute their authorized representatives for presenting their case before 23rd Screening Committee to be held on 29.11.2004 is Ex. P-94/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78).
56. Meeting Notice dt. 23.11.2004 [available at Page No.61in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78)], is Ex. P-96/PW1 (D-78).
57. He deposed that in the year 2004, he was posted in CA Section of MoC and during the 23rd Meeting of the Screening Committee, he was present to make the administrative arrangements for the meeting which included taking of attendance of representatives of the company and members of the Screening Committee.
58. The attendance sheets [available at Page No.77 & 78 in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78)], with regard to the attendance of the Officers and Executives participating in 23 rd Screening Committee Meeting scheduled for 29.11.2004 are Ex.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 54 of 269 P-97/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78).
59. The Note-sheet Page No.7 of File Ex. P-82/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78), vide which drafts minutes of 23 rd Meeting of the Screening Committee held under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Coal on 29.11.2004 were approved is Ex. P-98/PW1 (D-78).
60. The draft minutes of 23rd meeting of the Screening Committee [available from page 79-107 in file Ex. P-82/PW-1 (colly)] are Ex. P-99/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78). The approved minutes of 23rd meeting of the Screening Committee [available from page 108-128/c in file Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78)], are Ex. P-100/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78).
61. He told that it is mentioned at page No. 120/C (internal page 11) of the above approved minutes Ex. P-100/PW1 (Colly.) (D-78) that the representative of SVSL stated that they were already in the business of sponge iron and had commissioned a capacity of 0.75 lakh tonnes per annum.
62. He clarified that there was a typographical error. The sponge iron plant had been wrongly referred to as power plant.
63. He deposed that as per these minutes, SVSL had applied for Takli Jena Bellora (North) coal block. He further told that since no clear consensus emerged regarding Takli Jena Bellora (North) coal block, therefore, the Chairman decided to take a view subsequently if the block should be given for power generation or for sponge iron.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 55 of 269
64. He had dealt with another file of MoC (D-41). The File is Ex. P-101/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41).
65. He proved OM dt. 07.04.2005 [available at Page 139/C in File Ex. P-101/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41)] issued to the members of the Screening Committee for attending the 28th Screening Committee Meeting to be held on 15.04.2005 as Ex. P-102/PW1 (D-41).
66. The Meeting Notice dt. 07.04.2005 [available at Page No.192 in File Ex. P-101/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41)] is Ex. P- 103/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41).
67. The 28th meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 15.04.2005. The attendance sheet [available from Page No. 215 to 219 in File Ex. P-101/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41)] is Ex. P-104/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41). As per this attendance sheet, 'Sh. A.K. Saxena + CEO' attended the meeting on behalf of M/s SVSL.
68. The attendance sheet with regard to the attendance of Officers participating in the 28th meeting of the Screening Committee [available from Page 220 to 221 in File Ex. P- 101/PW1 (Colly.)(D-41)] is Ex. P-105/PW1 (Colly.) (D-41).
69. Another file of MoC (D-40) is Ex. P-106/PW1 (Colly.) (D-40). The minutes of 28th meeting of Screening Committee held on 15.04.2005 [available from Page 1/C to 26/C in File Ex. P-106/PW1 (Colly.) (D-40)] are Ex. P-107/PW1 (Colly.) (D-40).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 56 of 269
70. As per these minutes (internal page 11), the representative of the company had informed the Screening Committee that M/s SVSL had a triple A rating and had obtained in principle clearance from the PFC.
71. He also proved the office copy of the allocation letter dt. 06.09.2005 [available from Page 14 to 16 in MoC File Ex. P- 87/PW1 (Colly.) (D-3)] as Ex. P-108/PW1 (Colly.) (D-3).
72. He told that for the purpose of organisation of meetings of the Screening Committee, MoC used to prepare the agenda and on the date of meetings, they used to take all the files/documents/applications received from the applicant companies to the venue of meeting for consideration by the members of the Screening Committee and after due consideration of all the documents, applications received from the applicant companies as well as the presentations made by the applicant companies, the Screening Committee used to make the final recommendations for allocation of coal blocks.
73. He deposed that the minutes of 28th Screening Committee Meeting were finally approved by Sh. Dasari Narayan Rao, the then Minister of State for Coal & Mines. The Note-sheet Pages 1 & 2 are Ex. P-109/PW1 (Colly.) (D-40).
74. In cross-examination, it has come that there was no requirement of minimum capacity of 75000 MTPA for applying for coal block, as per Ex. P-79/PW-1. It has also come that an CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 57 of 269 applicant having capacity of 60000 MTPA was also entitled to apply for allocation of coal block.
75. It has also come that after coming into force of additional guidelines (Ex. P-79/PW-1), there was no requirement of securing financial closure before applying for allocation and it was required only at the time of approval of mining plan. The necessity for approval of mining plan would arise only after allocation of coal block. It has further come that vide Ex. P-42, it was decided by MoC that there was no requirement of financial closure even for approval of mining plan.
76. The witness was re-examined by Ld. DLA. In the said re- examination, PW-1 stated that there was requirement of securing financial closure at the time of application for coal block.
77. In cross-examination, however, he stated that the project of A-1 company was not a greenfield project.
78. PW-2 is Sh. Ashok Kumar Vijay. He is from Ministry of Power (MoP). He remained there from 1991 to 2005.
79. Regarding OM dt. 24.11.2004 Ex. P-91/PW1 (Colly.) (Page 235 to 238) (D-5) issued by him, he told that vide this OM no objection was given by MoP to the allotment of suitable coal blocks to M/s SVSL. He further told that the proposal of M/s SVSL was recommended by MoP on the basis of application/letter dt. 25.10.2004 received from the said company. Copy of this application/letter was enclosed with his OM [Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 58 of 269 91/PW-1(Colly.) (D-5)].
80. Vide this application/letter, M/s SVSL had informed the MoP that their case for allocation of coal blocks had been recommended by the Govt. of Maharashtra. The copy of recommendation from Govt. of Maharashtra is mentioned as Annexure-II in the index of Annexures enclosed with this letter/application.
81. He deposed that while making recommendation to MoC for allocation of coal blocks to M/s SVSL, MoP had mainly considered the information provided by the said company in Para 2 of their application/letter which showed their preparedness. In this application/letter, company had informed MoP that their Sponge Iron Plant had already been commissioned and was operational in Nagpur, Maharashtra and the same had been inspected by Sr. Officers of Govt. of Maharashtra, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Govt. of Maharashtra and by the MoS and that their application for grant of these coal blocks had been recommended by the Govt. of Maharashtra.
82. In cross-examination, it has come that the concerned file FU-123/2004-IPC had been weeded out as informed to the Court vide letter dated 23.03.2022 (Ex. C-1).
83. PW-3 is Sh. Deependra Kashiva. He is from Ministry of Steel (MoS). He retired from MoS in 2010.
84. He deposed that he knew various officers of MoS and CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 59 of 269 could identify their signatures and writings also.
85. He proved one file of MoS (D-13) as he had dealt with it. The file is Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13).
86. He identified the application dt. 15.01.2004 of M/s SVSL (from Page 1 to 106) [available in MoS File Ex. P- 110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13)]. The application is Ex. P-111/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13).
87. He told that with the approval of the Director, MoS letter dt. 09.03.2004 was issued by him to M/s SVSL requesting the company to provide the requisite information as mentioned in detail in this letter. This letter is available at Page No. 107 in File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13) and is Ex. P-112/PW-3 (D-13).
88. M/s SVSL responded through their reply dt. 02.05.2004 [available at Page No. 108 & 109 in File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13)] which is Ex. P-113/PW-3 (D-13).
89. Vide this reply, M/s SVSL had informed the MoS that their application had been recommended by Govt. of Maharashtra. The application/letter Ex. P-113/PW-3 (D-13) was received under the signature of Sh. A.K. Saxena, President of M/s SVSL.
90. He deposed about letter dt. 24.05.2004 [available at Page No. 110 in File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13)]. This letter was received from Sh. V.S. Dhumal, Principal Secretary, Govt. of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 60 of 269 Maharashtra and it was addressed to the Secretary, MoC and copy of the same was sent to Secretary, MoS. This letter is Ex. P- 114/PW-3 (D-13).
91. Vide this letter Ex. P-114/PW-3 (D-13), Govt. of Maharashtra had informed that Sponge Iron Plant of M/s SVSL was in operation and financial closure had been achieved by the company in respect of Steel Plant and the Captive Power Plant and that the Captive Power Plant was under construction. Vide this letter, Govt. of Maharshtra had requested that the case of M/s SVSL for allocation of captive coal blocks as well as for providing short term tapering linkage may be considered on priority basis.
92. One letter dt. 18.06.2004 [available at Page No.111/C in MoS File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13)] was issued to M/s SVSL which is Ex. P-115/PW-3 (D-13). Vide this letter, M/s SVSL was requested to provide details of financing of the project, documentary evidences of financial tie up with Central Bank of India and past performance-physical and financial of the company.
93. The company replied vide letter dt. 02.07.2004 [available from Page 112 to 152 in MoS File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-
13)] and the same is Ex. P-116/PW-3(Colly.) (D-13). Vide this letter, it was informed by the company that the first phase of Sponge Iron Plant had been partly implemented by setting up and commissioning a Sponge Iron Plant of capacity 75000 MTPA at a CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 61 of 269 capital outlay of Rs.15.70 Crore.
94. He deposed that with regard to financial tie up with Central Bank of India and issue of in-principle sanction letter following information was provided by M/s SVSL vide letter dt. 02.07.2004 (Ex. P-116/PW-3(Colly.), D-13):
"Our bankers, Central Bank of India have financed 1st phase of the project. Loan component of Rs.9.40 Lacs has been already disbursed and utilized in setting up the Sponge Iron Plant. A copy of Central Bank's letter no. G/03-04/69 dt.02.05.2003 is enclosed as annexure II (a). Our bankers have agreed to be principal lead banker for financing balance part of 1st phase and have already assured us in this regard and have given their consent for consortium finance. Our bankers have issued us "In- principal sanction letter" vide letter no.BR/CR/03-04/410 dt. 29.01.04 in this regard. This letter is enclosed for your perusal as annexure II (b)."
95. Vide this letter/application (Ex. P-116/PW-3 (Colly.), D-
13), it was informed by M/s SVSL that their application for grant of Captive Coal Blocks had been recommended by Govt. of Maharashtra. M/s SVSL had also enclosed copy of letter dt. 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra to the Secretary, MoC as Annexure-IV (A) with this application which is available at Page No. 149-150 with the above application. Vide this letter [available at Page 149-150 as Annexure IV (A)] Govt. of Maharashtra had informed that Sponge Iron Plant of M/s SVSL was in operation and financial closure had been achieved by the company in respect of Steel Plant and the Captive Power Plant and that the Captive Power Plant was under construction. Vide CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 62 of 269 this letter, Govt. of Maharshtra had requested that the case of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd. for allocation of captive coal blocks as well as for providing short term tapering linkage may be considered on priority basis.
96. Office copy of OM dated 10.08.2004 [available from Page 153 to 155 in MoS File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13)] is Ex. P-117/PW-3 (D-13). Original OM dt. 10.08.2004 [already Ex. P-90/PW-1] is available from Page 208 to 210 in MoC File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5).
97. The OM Ex. P-117/PW-3 (D-13) was issued as the case of M/s SVSL was forwarded by MoS to MoC for consideration of allocation of suitable non-coking coal block (s) under WCL, subject to certain conditions.
98. He deposed that for the purpose of issue of OM (Ex. P- 117/PW-3 (D-13)), MoS took into consideration the following effective steps taken by M/s SVSL:
(i) Part-A of Phase-I have already been completed and Part-B is reportedly under progress.
(ii) Financial tie up of Sponge Iron Plant has been done with the Central Bank of India who has further communicated its in-principle clearance for financing CPP and SMS.
(iii) Firm long term arrangement for iron ore has been made.
(iv) Govt. of Maharashtra have recommended for allocation of Captive Coal Blocks as well as for providing short term tapering linkage to them on priority basis.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 63 of 269
99. He deposed that the above effective steps showed the state of preparedness, genuineness and sincerity for implementing the project. He further told that from the application of the company, it was noticed that Sponge Iron Capacity of 75000 MTPA had already been set up and accordingly it was taken into consideration while making recommendation to MoC.
100. He told that neither he nor any MoS officials physically inspected the plant/site of M/s SVSL
101. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that 60000 MTPA was taken as Sponge Iron Capacity of the plant of M/s SVSL He clarified that this figure was mentioned with reference to their another application for coal linkage for the capacity of 60000 MTPA and had no relevance with their request for allocation of the coal blocks for their Phase-I capacity of 75000 MTPA and 2,25,000 MTPA for Phase-II. That is why their coal requirement was assessed for the capacity of 75000 MTPA + 2,25,000 MTPA.
102. He admitted that non-coking coal is available in 7 grades i.e. Grade A to Grade G. Grade A to C are considered suitable for making the Sponge Iron due to their suitable composition like Fixed Carbon and Ash. Other grades are not considered suitable for Sponge Iron due to their high content of Ash and Low Fixed Carbon.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 64 of 269
103. For better understanding, some of the question and answers recorded in the cross-examination are being reproduced:
"Ques: If we use non-coking coal of Grade A to C and Iron Ore of 65.5 Fe total and coal of Fixed Carbon, will the output of kiln increase?
Ans: The technology being used at that time was designed for the high grade of coal and iron ore. Considering this fact, we had formulated our internal norms of 1.6 tonnes of coal per ton of Sponge Iron. These norms apply to use of coal of Grade A to C. If we use inferior quality of coal and iron ore, the output of the kiln will be reduced. Ques: How the internal norms of 1.6 tonnes of coal per ton of Sponge Iron were formulated ?
Ans: I am not aware how these internal norms were formulated as the same were already formulated before my taking over this particular work."
104. He told that his basic job was to give comments which could be accepted or rejected by the senior officers.
105. He told that there were clear instructions from Secretary, MoS for not verifying the facts mentioned in the applications or the accompanying documents and to give comments only on the basis of the contents of the said applications and said documents. These instructions were in writing. IO never asked from him about these instructions nor he himself told him about these instructions.
106. He admitted that recommendation for allocation of coal block in favour of M/s SVSL was issued by MoS after following due procedure, rules and regulations.
107. He denied that the suggestion that output capacity of a kiln could be more than 100% depending upon feed rate.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 65 of 269 However, it could be more than 100% depending on the quality of the raw materials, adoption of the standard operating practices, pre heating of the basic raw materials, level of automation etc.
108. One article written by him for a magazine was also exhibited as Ex. P-171/PW-3.
109. He admitted that the recommendation dt. 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra (Ex. P-114/PW-3) was available with MoS as noted in the note dated 14.06.2004.
110. He admitted that recommendation of Govt. of Maharashtra dated 24.05.2004 (Ex. P-114/PW-3) though was considered by MoS but was not binding on MoS while making recommendation for allotment of coal block.
111. He further told that they had only considered the techno economic feasibility report of M/s SVSL
112. He was questioned regarding increasing the capacity of production by making suitable changes. He denied that number of days could be increased to more than 300 days.
113. One presentation dated 15.04.2005 of SVSL was marked as Mark X-1. It was brought by A-7. PW-3 did not remember whether this document was provided to him during meeting of the screening committee.
114. He was re-examined regarding increase in capacity. He CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 66 of 269 told that increase in the capacity referred to the present day period and during the relevant time i.e. 2004-05, it was not possible to increase the capacity.
115. PW-4 is Vishwas Shankarrao Dhumal. He was an IAS Officer of Maharashtra Cadre of 1973 batch. He retired in the year 2007. During 2002 to 2005, he was Principal Secretary (Industries, Energy & Labour), Govt. of Maharashtra.
116. He identified his signature on letter dt. 24.05.2004 addressed to the Secretary, MoC, Govt. of India, which is already Ex. P-89/PW-1 and he told that the said letter was issued by him as Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra. Copy of this letter is also available at Page No. 154 as Ex. P-3, at Page No. 162 which is Ex. P-118/PW-4 (D-5), at Page No. 204 to 205 which is is Ex. P-119/PW-4 (D-5) and at Page No. 149 to 150 in File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.)(D-13), which is Ex. P-120/PW-4 (D-13). Copy of this letter was also sent to the Secretary, MoS, Govt. of India, New Delhi and the said letter is available at Page No. 110 (already Ex. P-114/PW-3, D-13).
117. He told that vide letters as referred above, he had informed the Secretary, MoC and Secretary, MoS that M/s SVSL had set up a Sponge Iron Plant at Ukkerwahi, Tehsil Umred, District- Nagpur and that the Sponge Iron Plant was in operation and financial closure had been achieved by the company in respect of the Steel Plant and the Captive Power Plant and that the Captive Power Plant was under construction.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 67 of 269
118. Vide these above letters, he had requested the MoC as well as MoS to consider the case of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd. for allocation of captive coal blocks, as well as for providing short term tapering linkage on priority basis. Copy of this letter is also available as Ex. P-48 in D-239.
119. He deposed that the information as mentioned in para 1 regarding Sponge Iron Plant, financial closure in respect of Steel Plant and Captive Power Plant and in respect of construction of Captive Power Plant was provided by him to the MoC as well as to the MoS on the basis of representation made by M/s SVSL to his department.
120. Before issuance of the above referred recommendation letters to MoC and MoS, he had not personally visited the plant/site of M/s SVSL He did not personally verify the correctness of the information/representation made by M/s SVSL to his department.
121. He denied the suggestion that letter Ex. P-89/PW-1 (D-5) was issued after receiving verification reports from Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Irrigation Department etc.
122. He also told that whenever a private company approached Govt. of Maharashtra for issuance of recommendation letter for allocation of coal block, the Govt. of Maharashtra issued the letter after verification. He did not remember if the Department CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 68 of 269 of Industries had verified the information given by the M/s SVSL before issuing letter Ex. P-89/PW-1.
123. He denied the suggestion that letter Ex. P-89/PW-1 was not issued on the basis of representation given by M/s SVSL However, he was not aware whether the representation referred to above was on record or not.
124. PW-5 is Rajiv Ranjan Jha. He is from Power Finance Corporation (PFC).
125. He deposed that he knew various officers of PFC and he was also familiar with their signatures and writings and could identify the same.
126. He explained the procedure regarding approval of PFC for financial assistance/in principle approval for sanction of loan. He told that if private sector companies apply for financial assistance/in principle approval for sanction of loan from PFC, then there are two stages of appraisal carried out by PFC before sanction of financial assistance/in-principle approval of loan. First is preliminary appraisal and second is detailed appraisal. Only after conclusion of detailed appraisal and approval of the proposal by the competent authority, sanction of financial assistance or in principle approval is communicated.
127. Under preliminary appraisal, scrutiny of loan application submitted by the borrower is carried out both from promoter (entity) and project angle. After the combining of the report of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 69 of 269 both project and entity, the task force consisting of representative from project, entity and lending concurrence unit discuss to decide the recommendation. Such recommendation is put up to Director (Projects) through respective Head of Units. On his approval, the proposal with task force recommendation is put up to the loan proposal screening committee in PFC for their consideration. Loan proposal screening committee decides to either short list the proposal for detail appraisal or otherwise. This decision is then communicated to the borrower. Post which the detailed queries with respect to Project and promoter are sought from the borrower to carry out the detailed appraisal. Only after completion of detailed appraisal from both promoter and project site, appraisal report is prepared and combined and put up to the competent authority for consideration of sanction of financial assistance following the corporation's policies and procedures.
128. He proved production-cum-seizure memo dt. 01.02.2016 (available as D-85) Ex. P-121/PW-5 (D-85). Vide this memo, three files of PFC were provided by Sh. Surinder Arora to Sh. S.N. Khan, Addl. SP, CBI. The files so provided through the said memo are available as D-86, D-87 & D-88 which are Ex. P- 122/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-86), Ex. P-123/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-87) and Ex. P-124/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-88).
129. He deposed that he had dealt with these files. He identified his signature on the minutes of Task Force Meeting on CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 70 of 269 the proposal of M/s SVSL which was held on 19.10.2004 to consider the application of M/s SVSL for setting up of 12.8 MW Captive Power Project at Umred, Nagpur [available at Page No. 16 to 17 in File Ex. P-122/PW-5 (Colly.) (D-86)]. The same are Ex. P-125/PW-5 (D-86).
130. The Task Force Meeting vide minutes Ex. P-125/PW-5 (D-86) decided to recommend the project of M/s SVSL to be short listed for detailed appraisal.
131. He also proved minutes of 75th Meeting of the Loan Proposal Screening Committee held on 29.10.2004 [available from Page 18 to 23 in File Ex. P-122/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-86)] which are already Ex. P-11 (Colly.)(D-86).
132. He told that the 75th Meeting of the Loan Proposal Screening Committee as held on 29.10.2004, after discussion decided to short list the proposal of M/s SVSL for consideration of financial assistance up to 50% of project cost subject to detailed appraisal. The relevant observations in this regard are at Page 21 (internal Page 3) of Ex. P-11 (Colly.)(D-86).
133. He told that as per their record, the file of M/s SVSL was closed on 08.05.2006 due to no response from the company.
134. He proved the application/letter dt. 02.08.2004 of M/s SVSL [available at Page No. 60-1 and supporting documents available from Page No. 61 to 461 in File Ex. P-124/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-88) and supporting documents available in File Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 71 of 269 123/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-87)] as Ex. P-126/PW-5 (Colly.).
135. He also proved production-cum-seizure memo dt. 16.01.2017 [available as D-127] as Ex. P-127/PW-5 (D-127) vide which office copy of his letter dt. 04.11.2004, addressed to CEO M/s SVSL was provided by Sh. Surinder Arora to CBI. His letter dt. 04.11.2004 is available as D-128 and is Ex. P-128/PW- 5 (D-128). Copy of letter Ex. P-128/PW-5 (D-128) is also available as Ex. P-39 (D-130).
136. He specifically deposed that no in-principle approval for sanction of financial assistance was issued by PFC in favour of M/s SVSL There was no financial tie up done by PFC with M/s SVSL
137. After seeing the minutes of 28 th Meeting of the Screening Committee of MoC [already Ex. P-107/PW-1 (Colly.) in File Ex. P-106/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-40)], wherein it is mentioned at Page No.11 that M/s SVSL informed the Screening Committee that they had triple A Rating and had obtained in-principle clearance from PFC, he told that PFC does not issue triple A Rating or any kind of Rating. Triple A Rating etc. are issued by Credit Rating Agencies and PFC is a Non Banking Financial Company. PFC never issued any kind of rating in favour of M/s SVSL and there was no in-principle clearance from PFC in favour of M/s SVSL
138. After seeing letter Ex. P-88/PW-1 (Colly.) [available at CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 72 of 269 Page no.1 & 2 in File Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-3)] written by M/s SVSL to the Secretary, MoC mentioning in Para 5 that they had also submitted copies of letters confirming the financial tie up with the Central Bank of India and the PFC in this regard, he told that PFC never issued any letter to M/s SVSL confirming financial tie up with them.
139. Before issuance of letter dt. 04.11.2004 (Ex. P-128/PW-5 (D-128)) and (Ex. P-39 (D-130)), the officials of PFC did not visit the plant/site of M/s SVSL PFC did not verify the correctness of the information and documents furnished by M/s SVSL to PFC as detailed appraisal could not be started due to no response from the company.
140. Nothing substantial has come in cross-examination.
141. PW-6 is Deepak Salodkar. At the relevant time, he was posted in Central Excise Department. He claimed to know various officers of the Department and identified their signatures and writings. He told that their department mainly deals with collection of Central Excise Duty on clearance of excisable goods.
142. He told that ER-1 Form is used for the purpose of filing of monthly return of production, clearance and duty. This form is filed by the companies. He further told that ER-7 Form is used for the purpose of filing of annual production capacity of the company.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 73 of 269
143. He proved production-cum-seizure memo dt. 04.12.2015 (available as D-194) vide which he had provided certain documents relating to M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. to CBI. Details of such documents are mentioned in the memo. Alongwith this memo, he had also provided certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to the ER-1 Forms & ER-7 Forms provided to CBI. The production-cum-seizure memo is Ex. P-129/PW-6 (D-194). The certificate u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act is Ex. P-130/PW-6 (D-194).
144. He proved letter dt. 10.11.2015 (available as D-195). Vide this letter, details of monthly sponge iron production for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and details of annual sponge iron production for these years of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (formerly known as M/s SVSL) were provided to CBI. The letter dt. 10.11.2015 alongwith the details of production is Ex. P-131/PW-6 (Colly.) (D-195).
145. The Form ER-1 for the year April, 2009 to March, 2010 of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (available from Page 1 to 50 in D-196) is Ex. P-132/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-196); Form ER-1 for the year April, 2010 to March, 2011 (available from Page 1 to 52 in D-197) is Ex. P-133/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-197); Form ER-1 for the year April, 2011 to March, 2012 (available from Page 1 to 60 in D-198) is Ex. P-134/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-198); Form ER-1 for the year April, 2012 to March, 2013 (available from Page 1 to 59 in D-199) is Ex. P-135/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-199); Form ER-1 for CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 74 of 269 the year April, 2013 to March, 2014 (available from Page 1 to 71 in D-200) is Ex. P-136/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-200); Form ER-1 for the year April, 2014 to March, 2015 (available from Page 1 to 72 in D-201) is Ex. P-137/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-201).
146. He proved document D-202 which contains Form RC in respect of M/s TUML (Earlier known as M/s SVSL) and Form ER-7 for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The file is Ex. P-138/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-202).
147. As per Form ER-7, filed by M/s SVSL [available at Page No.8 in File Ex. P-138/PW-6 (Colly.) (D-202)], the annual installed capacity of M/s SVSL for the year 2009-10 was 60000 Metric Ton.
148. As per details provided at Page No.1 enclosed with letter [Ex. P-131/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-195)], the actual sponge iron production for the year 2009-10 of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (M/s SVSL) was 23777.660 Metric Ton.
149. PW-7 is Dilip Kumar Jain. He is a practicing Chartered Accountant under the name and style of Dilip Jain & Associates.
150. He deposed that vide production-cum-seizure memo dt. 25.01.2016 (available as D-348), he had provided office copies/certified copies of the financial statements of M/s SVSL for the year ended on 31.03.2006, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 to Sh. S.N. Khan, Addl. SP, CBI. This memo is Ex. P-139/PW-7 (D-348).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 75 of 269
151. He deposed that he had conducted the audit of the accounts of M/s SVSL from the year 2005-06 to 2008-09.
152. The financial statement of M/s SVSL (available as D-
349) for the year ended on 31.03.2006 from Page 1 to 26 is Ex. P-140/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-349).
153. The copy of financial statement of M/s SVSL (available as D-350) for the year ended on 31.03.2006 from Page 1 to 26 is Ex. P-141/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-350).
154. The office copy of financial statement of M/s SVSL (available as D-351) for the year ended on 31.03.2007 from Page 1 to 26 is Ex. P-142/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-351).
155. The office copy of financial statement of M/s SVSL (available as D-352) for the year ended on 31.03.2008 from Page 1 to 27 is Ex. P-143/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-352).
156. The office copy of financial statement of M/s SVSL (available as D-353) for the year ended on 31.03.2009 from Page 1 to 32 is Ex. P-144/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-353).
157. Form 23 AC in respect of M/s SVSL (available from Page 196 to 149 in D-133), filed with the Registrar of Companies, duly certified by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra containing financial statements of M/s SVSL as audited by him for the year ended on 31.03.2007 is Ex. P-145/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-133).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 76 of 269
158. Similarly, Form 23 AC in respect of M/s SVSL (available from Page 148 to 100 in D-133), filed with the Registrar of Companies, duly certified by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra containing financial balance sheets of M/s SVSL for the year ended on 31.03.2008 is Ex. P-146/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-
133).
159. Form 23 AC in respect of M/s SVSL (available from Page 99 to 60 in D-133), filed with the Registrar of Companies, duly certified by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra containing the financial statements of M/s SVSL as audited by him containing the financial balance sheets of M/s SVSL for the year ended on 31.03.2009 is Ex. P-147/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-133).
160. He deposed that there is no expenditure under the head of captive power plant in the financial statements of the year 2005-
06. There is also no expenditure under the head of captive power plant in the financial statement of the year 2006-07.
161. From the financial statement of M/s SVSL for the year 2007-08 (Ex. P-143/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-352)), he told that for the first time an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was incurred by the company in respect of captive power plant. This information is available at Page 22 under the head ''Capital Work in Progress'' at point A in financial statement (Ex. P-143/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-352)).
162. As per financial statement (Ex. P-143/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-
352)), the actual production of sponge iron by the company for CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 77 of 269 the year 2006-07 was 30258.99 MT and for the year 2007-08, it was 25715.49 MT. The installed capacity of sponge iron plant of the company for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 was 60000 MT. This information is available in the balance sheet at Page 23.
163. During cross-examination, he explained the meaning of ''Capital Work in Progress'' and told that it meant that the company had made some investment in captive power plant, mining coal development expenses etc. for the construction/development period but where production had not started. There was no production under captive power plant but production was continued in sponge iron plant.
164. He was shown Page 102 of Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) and he told that expenses occurred under the head of ''Capital Work in Progress'' is mentioned at point X to X1 in the balance sheet of financial year 2002-03. The same is Ex. P-148/PW-7 (Colly.)(D-
5).
165. Similarly, ''Capital Work in Progress'' is mentioned on Page 177 of Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.).
166. Further, "Capital Work in Progress" is also mentioned on page no.187 of Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.). He admitted that at Srl. No. G of Page No. 187, under Srl. No.10, a sum of Rs.7,16,100/- has been shown towards the expenses incurred under power project.
167. He told that as per balance sheet/annual report of the CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 78 of 269 company for the year ended 31.03.2005 (available at Page 310 to 261 of D-133), A-7 Anand N. Sarda was appointed as Addl. Director of the company w.e.f. 11.12.2004, however, due to pre- occupation, he had tendered resignation from directorship of the company w.e.f. 01.04.2005. This document is Ex. P-149/PW-7 (Page 308 of D-133).
168. List of Directors of SVSL for the period ending on 30.09.2005 (available at Page 638 of D-131) and the details of the shares/debentures held as on 30.09.2005 is part of Ex. P- 150/PW-7 (Page 638 to 636 of D-131).
169. He told that as per Ex. P-150/PW-7 (D-131) (Page No.638), as on 30.09.2005, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari was not a Director of M/s SVSL. However, as per annual return of M/s SVSL for the period ended 30.09.2006 (available from Page 632 to 610 in D-131), A-6 Manoj Maheshwari remained Director of M/s SVSL from 17.11.2005 till 27.03.2006 and thereafter, he ceased to be a Director. The same is Ex. P-151/PW-7 (Page 632 to 610 of D-131).
170. PW-8 is Sh. Balkisan Bang. He is also Chartered Accountant by profession under the name and style of Bang Gupta & Company.
171. He told that he was associated with the formation of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd. and had audited its balance sheets since its inception till 2005.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 79 of 269
172. He told that he knew Sh. Shiv Kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Vimal Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Manoj Maheshweri since they were the Directors of M/s SVSL and they used to come to him. He stated that usually Sh. Manoj Maheshwari used to come to meet him.
173. He had signed on production-cum-seizure memo dt. 25.01.2016 (available as D-354) which is Ex. P-152/PW-8 (D-
354) and vide which he had provided the office copies of financial statements of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s SVSL for the year ended on 31.03.2000, 31.03.2001, 31.03.2003, 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2005 to the IO.
174. The office copy of financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd. for the year ended on 31.03.2000 (available as D-355 from Page 1 to 14) bearing signature of Manoj Maheshwari on various pages is Ex. P-153/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-355); for the year ended on 31.03.2001 (available as D-356 from Page 1 to 14) bearing signature of Manoj Maheshwari on various pages is Ex. P-154/PW-8 (Colly.)(D-356); for the year ended on 31.03.2003 (available as D-357 from Page 1 to 25) bearing the signature of Sh. Shiv Kumar Aggarwal and of Sh. Vimal Kumar Aggarwal on various pages is Ex. P-155 /PW-8 (Colly.)(D-357); for the year ended on 31.03.2004 (available as D-358 from Page 1 to 22) bearing his signature is Ex. P-156 /PW-8 (Colly.)(D-358); for the year ended on 31.03.2005 (available as D-359 from Page 1 to 21) bearing his signature is CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 80 of 269 Ex. P-157 /PW-8 (Colly.)(D-359).
175. The certified copies of the financial statements of M/s SVSL for the year ended on 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2005, certified by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra are Ex. P-158/PW-8 (Colly.) and Ex. P-159/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-133) respectively.
176. He told that in the financial statements for the year ended on 31.03.2004 (Ex. P-156/PW-8 (Colly.), D-358) and financial statement for the year ended on 31.03.2005 (Ex. P-157/PW-8 (Colly.), D-359), no expenditure under the head ''Captive Power Plant'' had been shown by M/s SVSL As per the financial statement (Ex. P-156/PW-8 (Colly.), D-358) for the year ended on 31.03.2004, the installed capacity of sponge iron plant of M/s SVSL for the year 2002-03 was 30000 MT and for the year 2003- 04 it was 60000 MT. The actual production of sponge iron for year 2002-03 was 1423 MT and for the year 2003-04 it was 35400.950 MT.
177. He further told that in the financial statements from the period 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2003 [available from Page 69 to 120 in File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5)], there is no expenditure under the head ''Captive Power Plant''. However, there was expenditure of Rs.2,62,500/- under the head ''Capital Works in Progress'' and sub-head ''Power Project'' in the financial statement of 2003.
178. He also knew the difference between Captive Power CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 81 of 269 Plant and Power Plant. He told that Captive Power Plant is for own consumption only, whereas energy generated from Power Plant can be sold and can be consumed.
179. He identified signature of Sh. Shiv Aggarwal on Page No.121 in File Ex. P-84/Pw-1 (Colly.) (D-5) which is the certified true copy of the Board Resolution.
180. He identified signatures of Manoj Maheshwari on letter dt. 30.10.2004, addressed to the Secretary, MoC [available at Page No.232-233, already Ex. P-4, available in file Ex. P-84/PW- 1 (Colly.) (D-5)].
181. He could not identify signature on letter dt. 21.10.2004, addressed to the Director, MoC from M/s SVSL [available at Page No.213 which is already Ex. P-86/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-5)] and letter dated 25.10.2004, addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Power from M/s SVSL [available at Page No.236-237 (D-5)]. He told that he had not seen these signatures before.
182. He identified his signatures on Page No. 174 of balance sheet for the year ended on 31.03.2004 [available in file Ex. P- 84/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-5)]. He also identified signature of Sh. Shiv Aggarwal and Sh. Vimal Kumar Aggarwal. This page is Ex. P- 160/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-5).
183. He identified signatures of Manoj Maheshwari on letter dt. 04.12.2004, written by M/s SVSL to the Secratary, MoC [available at Page No.3/C in File Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-3)] CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 82 of 269 which is Ex. P-161/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-3).
184. He was also shown the same documents regarding mentioning of some expenditure on power project in the balance sheets i.e. Ex. P-156/PW-8 (Colly.) and Ex. P-157/PW-8 (Colly.)
185. Regarding the suggestion that the head ''Consultancy'' at Sr. No. F on Page No.17 was wrongly mentioned instead of head ''Power Project'', he stated that he could tell only after seeing the record whether the heading ''Consultancy'' was wrong or ''Power Project'' was wrong. He told that IO did not obtain any clarification from him regarding these two headings i.e. ''Consultancy'' and ''Power Project'' during investigation.
186. He told that the information mentioned in Ex. P-156/PW- 8 (Colly.) was correct.
187. PW-9 is Sh. Maruti Dhondu Upare. He is from Sales Tax Department. He had retired on 30.06.2004.
188. He claimed to identify signature and writing of Sh. G.R. Thombre, Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax.
189. He identified signatures of Sh. G.R. Thombre on certificate of entitlement issued in favour of M/s SVSL (available as D-45) and which is Ex. P-163/PW-9 (running into 4 pages). As per this certificate, the Sponge Iron Capacity of M/s SVSL was 60000 TPA. This certificate was valid for 15 years i.e. upto 31.03.2018.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 83 of 269
190. The office copy of this certificate is available in the File of Sales Tax Department (D-378) and is Ex. P-164/PW-9 (Objected to as to mode of proof).
191. PW-10 is Sh. Vishal Vimal Agrawal. He is son of Vimal Kumar Agrawal who was one of the directors of SVSL. He deposed that from the year 2003 to 2006, he worked as CEO in M/s SVSL.
192. He claimed to know Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Manoj Maheshwari, Shiv Kumar Agrawal and Anil Kumar Saxena as all of them were working in M/s SVSL in one capacity or the other. He claimed to identify the signatures and writings of his father Vimal Kumar Agrawal.
193. He told that there were four major share holders in M/s SVSL They were his father Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal having 25% of the shares, Sh. Shiv Kumar Aggarwal having 25% of shares, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari having 12.5% of shares, Sh. Ram Niwas Daga having 12.5% of shares and Sarda Group was holding 25% of shares. Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda and Sh. Nandkishore Sarda were members of Sarda Group.
194. He told that Anand Nandkishore Sarda was one of the Director in the company and later on he resigned from the Directorship. Manoj Maheshwari was CEO of the company. Anil Kumar Saxena was the President of M/s SVSL
195. He idenfitied signatures of Anil Kumar Saxena on various CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 84 of 269 pages of application dt. 15.01.2004 (available from 36 to 140), already Ex. P-2 (Colly.) (available in D-5).
196. He identified signatures of Anil Kumar Saxena on attendance sheet of the Executives who participated in the 23 rd Screening Committee Meeting held on 29.11.2004, already Ex. P-97/PW-1 (Colly.) [(available in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78)] at Q-254 and his writings at Srl. No.1 at Q-255.
197. Similarly, he identified signatures of Anil Kumar Saxena on copy of the attendance sheet of 28 th Screening Committee Meeting held on 15.04.2005 [available as D-91, already Ex. P-18 (Colly.) and also available in Ministry of Coal File, already Ex. P-101/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-41)]. The said attendance sheet is already Ex. P-104/PW-1 (Colly.). This attendance sheet bears the signature and writing of Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena at Srl. No.36 in Ex. P-18 (Colly.). His writings are Q-256/1 & Q-256/2 and his signatures are Q-256.
198. He told that in the year 2005, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari was CEO of the company. He had not attended the meeting of the Screening Committee alongwith Sh. A.K. Saxena on 15.04.2005.
199. After seeing letter dt. 08.01.2005 [available in Ministry of Coal File, already Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.) (available at Page No.4)], he told that the said letter does not bear the signature of Sh. A.K. Saxena at Point Q-254, and that the signature appears to be in the writing of Anand Sarda. The said letter is Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 85 of 269 165/PW-10.
200. He identified signatures of Manoj Maheshwari on letter dt. 04.12.2004 [available at Page no.3 in MoC File Ex. P- 87/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-3)]. This letter is already Ex. P-161/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-3).
201. He told that Manoj Maheshwari, Anand Nandkishore Sarda and Anil Kumar Saxena used to persue the matters relating to allocation of coal blocks with Ministry of Coal and MoS.
202. After seeing letter dt. 23.11.2004 [available at Page No.1& 2, already Ex. P-88/PW-1 (Colly.), available in MoC file Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-3)], he told that the said letter does not bear the genuine signature of his father Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal at Point Q-242 and the signature appears to be in the writing of Anand Nandkishore Sarda.
203. Similarly, regarding letter dt. 21.10.2004 [available at Page No.213, already Ex. P-86/PW-1 (Colly.), available in MoC File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.)], he told that the signature appearing at Point Q-239, is not the genuine signature of Sh. Shiv Agrawal and it appears to be in the writing of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda.
204. He also told that letter dt. 25.10.2004 [available at Page No. 236 & 237, part of Ex. P-91/Pw-1 (Colly.) [available in MoC File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5)] does not bear the genuine signature of Sh. Manoj Maheshwari and it appears to be CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 86 of 269 in the writing of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda.
205. He identified genuine signatures of his father from specimen signature card of Bank of Baroda [available as D-122]. The signature card is Ex. P-166/PW-10.
206. He identified specimen signature of his father [S-89 to S- 100, available as D-106] which are Ex. P-167/PW-10 (Colly.).
207. From balance sheet of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2004 [available from Page 174 to 203, already Ex. P-160/PW-8 (Colly.), also available in MoC File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-
5)], he told that expenditure of Rs.7,16,100/- on Power Project at Srl. No.10 was for consultancy for the purpose of Power Project.
208. He referred to the auditor's report of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2005, already Ex. P-157/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-359) and did not remember to whom an amount of Rs.7,16,100/- was paid by the company in the name of consultancy.
209. He proved purchase order dt. 19.07.2004 [available from Page 243 to 236 in File Ex. P-123/PW-5 (Colly.)]. This purchase order bears the signature of Sh. A.K. Saxena. The same is Ex. P- 168/PW-10 (Colly.).
210. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Power Project was prepared by M.N. Dastur & Company and an amount of Rs.1,31,375/- was paid to them. This detail is mentioned at Page No.93 of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2002. The same is now CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 87 of 269 marked as Ex. P-169/PW-10 (Colly.).
211. He also proved the revised project report for 12.8 MW Captive Power Plant for M/s SVSL submitted in the month of May, 2004 (available as D-253). This revised project report is Ex. P-170/PW-10 (Colly.).
212. He told that he remained in M/s SVSL till 2006 as CEO. Till such time he remained with M/s SVSL, construction for Captive Power Plant was not started.
213. In cross-examination, he told that he did not remember the period for which Anand Nandkishore Sarda was the Director of M/s SVSL He was aware that Board of Directors of M/s SVSL had authorized Officer A.K. Saxena to represent company M/s SVSL before MoC and other departments of the Govt. for allocation of the coal block.
214. He told that he was looking after day to day administration of the sponge iron plant of the M/s SVSL at Mauza Ukkarwahi, Umred Road, Nagpur.
215. He also told that he had not compared the signature of Sh. A.K. Saxena, Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Vimal Kumar Agrawal, Shiv Kumar Agrawal or Manoj Maheshwari, at the time of his examination-in-chief on 18.05.2022. He was not certain if Anand Nandkishore Sarda had ceased to be Director of M/s SVSL From 01.04.2005. But told that since the day Anand Nandkishore Sarda ceased to be Director of M/s SVSL, there had been no business CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 88 of 269 relations between him and Anand Nandkishore Sarda. He admitted that vide letter dt. 27.01.2003 (Page no. 135 of D-5) already Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.)) MSEB had given consent to install 10 MW CPP to M/s SVSL The letter is also Ex. P- 245/PW-10.
216. He admitted that on 29.11.2004 Sh. Manoj Maheshwari was not a Director of M/s SVSL.
217. One photocopy of letter dt. 23.10.2004 (also bearing Fax dt. 07.12.2005), Page 72 of D-192 was marked as Mark P- 246/PW-10.
218. One letter dt. 08.07.2005 (Page 81 to 83, in D-193)) was marked as Ex. P-247/PW-10 which is bearing signature of his father.
219. He denied the suggestion that he and his father were in charge of day to day affairs of M/s SVSL and were involved in the application made by the company for allocation of coal block.
220. PW-11 is Sh. Purushottam Madavi. He had retired as Chief Manager from Central Bank of India in January, 2020.
221. He claimed to identify the signatures and writings of Sh. Yogender Kumar Mochi, Sh. M.L. Sharma and Sh. Mardikar as he had worked with them in Central Bank of India. He had dealt with number of documents signed/written by them.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 89 of 269
222. He proved letter dt. 31.12.2002, written by Central Bank of India to M/s SVSL [available at Page No. 129 to 133 in MoC File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5)] as Ex. P-172/PW-11 (D-5).
223. As per this letter, M/s SVSL was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 940 Lacs, C/C (H) Rs.165 Lacs and Overdrafts against book debts Rs. 35 Lacs for their project to manufacture Sponge Iron.
224. He also proved copy of certificate dt. 20.05.2003 [available at Page No. 168 of File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5)] as Ex. P-173/PW-11. This was issued on the basis of Ex. P- 172/PW-11 (D-5).
225. He further proved sanction letter dt. 29.01.2004, issued by Central Bank of India in favour of M/s SVSL intimating in- principle sanction for their captive power and billet unit and enhanced working capital [available from Page 127 to 128 in File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5)] as Ex. P-174/PW-11 (D-5).
226. He told that M/s SVSL did not avail the facility of in- principle sanction for their captive power plant and billet units and enhanced working capital.
227. Referring to letter dt. 30.10.2004, written by M/s SVSL to the Secretary, MoC, already Ex. P-4 [available at Page No.232- 233 in File Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-5)], PW-11 told that it had been wrongly mentioned in the letter that there was a financial tie up for captive power plant with Central Bank of India. He deposed that on 30.10.2004, there was neither any in-principle CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 90 of 269 sanction nor any in-principle approval by the Central Bank of India for captive power plant of M/s SVSL.
228. He proved letter dt. 07.08.2004 issued by Central Bank of India to Power Finance Corporation in relation to the account of M/s SVSL [available as D-247] and is Ex. P-175/PW-11 (D-
247). In this letter it is mentioned that the account of M/s SVSL had A++ rating. During the year 2004, Central Bank of India was not issuing A+++ rating to any of the customers. There was no such provision for issuing A+++ rating.
229. In cross-examination, he admitted that there is no letter of the bank withdrawing the sanction letter dt. 29.01.2004 (Ex. P- 174/PW-11) on record.
230. PW-12 is Ms. Lavang Lata. She is CFSL expert. She had examined various documents in the present case. The documents were received in CFSL from CBI vide following letters:-
(1) Letter No.2270/RC-221/2014/E/0009/CBI/ EO-III/New Delhi dated 03.05.2017 sent by Shri P K Gautam, IPS, Superintendent of Police, CBI EO-III, New Delhi. (D-113) Ex. P-
176/PW12(Colly.).
(2) Letter No.3026/RC-221/2014/E/0009/CBI/ EO-III/New Delhi dated 07.06.2017 sent by Shri P K Gautam, IPS, Superintendent of Police, CBI EO-III, New Delhi. (D-114) Ex. P-177/PW12 (Colly.).
(3) Letter No.5356/RC-221/2014/E/0009/CBI/ CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 91 of 269 EO-III/New Delhi dated 15.09.2017 sent by Shri P K Gautam, IPS, Superintendent of Police, CBI EO-III, New Delhi. (D-115) Ex. P-178/PW12 (Colly.).
231. After comparison of questioned documents with specimen signatures/writings and admitted signatures, she submitted following two Handwriting Examination Reports:-
232. Report No. CFSL-2017/D-0554 dated 31.05.2017. This report was forwarded by Shri N. Ravi, I/C Director, CFSL to the SP CBI EO-III New Delhi vide forwarding letter dated :
07.11.2017. (D-116) Ex. P-179/PW12 (Colly.)
233. Report No. CFSL-2017/D-705 dated 31.10.2017. This report was forwarded by Shri N. Ravi, I/C Director, CFSL to the SP CBI New Delhi vide forwarding letter dated :07.11.2017. (D-117) Ex. P-181/PW12 (Colly.)
234. The forwarding letters dated 20.06.2017 are Ex. P- 180/PW12 (Colly.)(D-116) and Ex. P-182/PW12 (Colly.) (D-
117).
235. She deposed that her conclusion qua the questioned signatures and specimen signatures attributed to Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal as mentioned in her report Ex. P-179/PW12(Colly.)(D-
116) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen signatures marked S-81 to S-88 attributed to Shiv Kumar Agrawal being the person responsible for CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 92 of 269 writing the questioned signatures marked Q-190 and Q- 222 due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
236. The specimen Signatures S-81 to S-88 are Ex. P- 183/PW12(Colly.)(D-105) .
237. Q-190 is available on page 16 of document D-20 is Ex. P- 184/PW12 (D-20).
238. Q-222 is available on page 121 of document D-5 is Ex. P- 185/PW12 (D-5).
239. Her conclusion qua the questioned signatures and specimen signatures attributed to Sh. Manoj Maheshwari as mentioned in my report Ex. P-179/PW12(Colly.)(D-116) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen signatures marked S-73 to S-80 attributed to Manoj Maheshwari being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures marked Q-240, 243 and Q-246 to Q-248 due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
240. The Specimen signatures S-73 to S-80 are already exhibited as Ex. P-25(Colly.)(D-104).
241. Questioned signatures Q-246, Q-247 and Q-248 are available in Ex. P-4, Ex. P-161/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-3), Ex. P- 162/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-3), Ex. P-186/PW12(Colly.)(D-3) and Ex. P -187/PW12(Colly.)(D-3).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 93 of 269
242. Her conclusion qua the questioned signatures and specimen signatures attributed to Sh. A. K. Saxena as mentioned in her report Ex. P-179/PW12(Colly)(D-116) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen signatures marked S-23 to S-29 attributed to A K Saxena being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures marked Q-220, Q-221, Q-223 to Q- 235 and Q-249 to Q-252 due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
243. The Specimen signatures S-23 to S-29 are already exhibited as Ex. P-19(Colly.)(D-98). Questioned signatures Q- 220, Q-221, Q-223 to Q-235 and Q-249 to Q-252 are available in Ex. P-2 (Colly), Ex. P- 188/PW12 (Colly.)(D-3), Ex. P- 190/PW12(Colly.)(D-3), Ex. P-189/PW12(Colly.)(D-3) and Ex. P- 191/PW12(Colly.)(D-3).
244. Her conclusion qua the questioned English writings, initials and signatures and specimen English writings, initials and signatures attributed to Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena as mentioned in her report Ex. P-181/PW12(Colly)(D-117) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings, initials and signatures marked S-23 to S-29, S-43 to S-47 and S-131 to S-171 attributed to Anil Kumar Saxena being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings, initial and signatures marked Q-254 to Q-256, Q-256/1 and Q-256/2 due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
245. The Specimen signatures S-23 to S-29, Specimen initials CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 94 of 269 S-43 to S-47, Specimen signatures S-131 to S-139 , Specimen writings S-140 to S-164, Specimen initials S-165 to S-171 are Ex. P-19 (Colly.)(D-98), Ex. P-20 (Colly.)(D-99), Ex. P-19 (Colly.)(D-98), Ex. P-21 (Colly.)(D-100) and Ex. P-20 (Colly.) (D-99).
246. Q-254 to Q-254 are available on page 78 of D-78 which is already exhibited as Ex. P-97/PW1(Colly.)(D-78).
247. Q-256/1 and Q-256/2 are available on D-91(Already Exhibited as Ex. P-18 (Colly.) and on page 219 of D-41 already exhibited as Ex. P-104/PW1(Colly.)(D-41).
248. Her conclusion qua the questioned English signatures and the standard English signatures attributed to Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda as mentioned in her report Ex. P- 181/PW12(Colly.)(D-117) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the standard English signatures marked S-54 to S-58, S-172 to S-185, A- 1 to A-38 and A-19/1 attributed to Anand Nandkishore Sarda being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signatures marked Q-236 to Q-238, due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
249. The Specimen English signatures marked S-54 to S-58 and S-172 to S-185 are Ex. P-22 (Colly.)(D-101). The admitted signatures marked A-1 to A-8 are Ex. P-26(Colly.)(D-108). The admitted signatures marked A-9 to A-17 are Ex. P-27 to Ex. P-35 (D-109), the admitted signatures marked A-18 are Ex. P-36 (D-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 95 of 269
110). The admitted signatures marked A-19 to A-22 & A-19/1 are Ex. P-37(colly) (D-111). The admitted signatures marked A-23 to A-38 are Ex. P-27 to Ex. P-38(Colly.) (D-112).
250. Q-236, Q-237 and Q-238 are available in Ex. P- 192/PW12, Ex. P-193/PW12 and Ex. P-5.
251. Her conclusion qua the questioned English signature marked Q-242 and the admitted English signatures marked A-49 to A-54 attributed to Sh. Vimal Kumar P Agrawal as mentioned in her report Ex. P-181/PW12(Colly.)(D-117) is as under : -
"The Authorship of the questioned English signature marked Q-242 could not be connected with the writer of the admitted English signatures marked A-49 to A-54 attributed to Vimal Kumar P Agrawal, due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
252. Q-242 is available in Ex. P-88/PW1(Colly.)(D-3).
253. Admitted signatures A-49 to A-54 are available in document D-122 which is Ex. P-166/PW-10 (D-122).
254. Her conclusion qua the questioned English signature marked Q-242 and the specimen English writings marked S-59 to S-61 and S-197 to S-207 attributed to Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda as mentioned in her report Ex. P-181/PW12(Colly)(D-117) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S-59 to S-61 and S- 197 to S-207 attributed to Anand Nandkishore Sarda CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 96 of 269 being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signature marked Q-242, due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
255. The Specimen writings marked S-59 to S-61 are Ex. P- 23(Colly.)(D-102). The Specimen writings marked S-197 to S- 207 are Ex. P-24(Colly.)(D-103).
256. Q-242 is available in Ex. P-88/PW1(Colly.)(D-3).
257. Her conclusion qua the questioned English signature marked Q-241(reproduced signature) and the specimen English writings marked S-65 to S-67 and S-186 to S-196 attributed to Shri Anand Nandkishore Sarda signing as Manoj Maheswari as mentioned in her report Ex. P-181/PW12(Colly.)(D-117) is as under : -
"Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S-65 to S-67 and S- 186 to S-196 attributed to Anand Nandkishore Sarda signing as Manoj Maheswari being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signature marked Q- 241(reproduced signature), due to the reasons mentioned in my above report."
258. The Specimen writings marked S-65 to S-67 are Ex. P- 23(Colly.)(D-102). The Specimen writings marked S-186 to S- 196 are Ex. P-24(Colly.)(D-103).
259. Q-241 is available in Ex. P-91/PW1(Colly.)(D-5).
260. Her conclusion qua the questioned English signature CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 97 of 269 marked Q-239 and the specimen English writings marked S-62 to S-64 and S-208 to S-218 attributed to Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda signing as Shiv Agarwal as mentioned in her report Ex. P- 181/PW12(Colly.) is as under : -
Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S-62 to S-64 and S-208 to S-218 attributed to Anand Nandkishore Sarda signing as Shiv Agarwal being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signature marked Q-239, due to the reasons mentioned in my above report.
261. The Specimen writings marked S-62 to S-64 are Ex. P- 23(Colly.)(D-102). The Specimen writings marked S-208 to S- 218 are Ex. P-24(Colly.)(D-103).
262. Q-239 is available in Ex. P-86/PW1(Colly.)(D-5).
263. She deposed that detailed reasons for her opinion/conclusions are mentioned in her reports.
264. She was cross-examined regarding method used for comparing the handwriting and signatures in the case.
265. She told that every writer writes a letter with the particular slant. She further told that there occurs variation in handwriting owing to speed of dictation. However, she denied that grip of the writing instrument also leads to variation in handwriting. She, however, admitted that if the writer is suffering from Parkinson's disease, there would be variation in his writing i.e. normal writing and the writing during the disease.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 98 of 269
266. She denied the suggestion that her opinion given in the reports (Ex. P-179/PW-12 (Colly.) and Ex. P-181/PW-12 (Colly.)) is wrong.
267. PW-13 is Sh. Jai Thomas. He had joined Topworth Group in May, 2008 as General Manager. He told that the name of M/s SVSL was changed to M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. w.e.f. 29.06.2010. Mr. S.K. Mitra used to look after the work of Marki-Mangli-II, III & IV coal blocks allocated to M/s SVSL
268. He told that he knew Sh. Surendra Champalal Lodha, Sh. Abhay Lodha, Sh. Gunjan Poddar, Sh. Maninder Sharma, Sh. S.K. Mitra and Sh. Anil Nevatia and could identify their signatures and writings.
269. He proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 08.04.2015 (D-299) in respect of Seizure of documents by Shri S. N. Khan, Addl. SP CBI from him as Ex. P-194/PW13 (D-
299). The details of the documents seized through this memo (D-
299) are as under :-
(a) Original forwarding letter dated 08th April 2015 of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Limited issued by Sh. Surendra Lodha, Director addressed to the Addl. S.P. & Investigating Officer, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi (Total-02 Sheets)(D-300) which is Ex. P-195/PW13 (D-300).
(b) Details of the Directors of M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd. (formerly M/s SVSL) along with photocopy of Register of Directors, Managing Directors etc. duly certified/ authenticated by Sh.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 99 of 269 Surendra Lodha, Director, M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd (formerly M/s SVSL) and by him containing marked pages 1 to 8.(D-301). This document is Ex. P-196 /PW13 (Colly.)(D-301).
(c) One folder of Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd, containing photo copies of Financial Statements/Annual Reports duly certified/ authenticated by Sh. Surendra Lodha, Director, M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd. (formerly M/s SVSL) and by him containing marked pages 1 to 323 (D-302). This document is Ex. P-197/PW13 (Colly.)(D-302).
(d) One bunch of Sheets containing Details of Share Holdings of M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd (formerly M/s SVSL) for the year 2003-04 to 2013-14, duly authenticated by Sh. Surendra Lodha, Director, M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd. (formerly M/s SVSL) and by him containing marked pages 1 to 24.(D-303). This document is Ex. P-198/PW13(Colly.)(D-303).
(e) Office copy of letter bearing Ref No.TUML/NGP/2010-11/56 dated 15th October 2010 of Sh.S.K.Mittra,Vice President-Mining of M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd (formerly M/s SVSL) addressed to Sh. V.S.Rana, Under Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India along with photo copy of fresh certificate of Incorporation & photo copy Speed Post Slip dated 21.10.2010, No.SP EM 463316166IN (Total 03 Sheets)(D-304). This letter is Ex. P-199/PW13 (D-304).
(f) Photo copy of letter (said to be office copy) bearing Ref No.TUML/NGP/ MINE/ 2011/00111 dated 15th January 2011 of Sh. S.K.Mittra, Vice President-Mining of M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd. (formerly M/s SVSL) addressed to Sh. V.S. Kulkarni, Under Secretary, Industries CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 100 of 269 Energy and Labour Department, Govt. of Maharashtra along with photo copy of fresh certificate of Incorporation & Original Invoice of First Flight Couriers Ltd dated 31.01.2011 (Total 04 Sheets) (D-305). This letter is Ex. P-200/PW13 (D-305).
(g) Photo copy of letter (said to be office copy) bearing Ref No.TUML/NGP/ MINE/ 2011/00116 dated 18th January 2011 of Sh.S.K.Mittra, Vice President-Mining of M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd (formerly M/s SVSL) addressed to District Mining Officer, Yavatmal, along with photo copy of fresh certificate of Incorporation & consignor copy (carbon copy) of First Flight Couriers Ltd. dated 21.1.2011, bearing C.No.* M63453323* (Total 03 Sheets) (D-306). This letter is now marked as Ex. P-201/PW13. (D-
306).
270. He told that as per Ex. P-196/PW-13 (Colly.) (D-301) Sh. Manoj Maheshwari remained as Director in M/s SVSL w.e.f. 29.11.1993 to 17.08.2001 and again w.e.f. 17.11.2005 to 27.03.2006; Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda remained as Director w.e.f. 16.08.2001 to 21.05.2002 and again w.e.f. 11.12.2004 to 01.04.2005. As per Ex. P-198/PW-13 (Colly.) (D-303), Manoj Maheshwari was holding 3861 shares of the company as on 31.03.2005. As per this document, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari was having total 3510 shares of M/s SVSL in the year 2004 as on 01.04.2004 and as on 31.03.2005, he was holding 3861 shares of the company. During the year as on 01.04.2004, Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda was holding 9000 shares of the company. As on 04.02.2005, he was holding 9900 shares of M/s SVSL As per CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 101 of 269 this document, as on 01.04.2003, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari was holding 3510 shares of the company and Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda was holding 9000 shares of the company.
271. He deposed that vide letter dt. 15.10.2010 (Ex. P- 199/PW-13 (D-304)), Sh. V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, MoC was informed that name of SVSL had been changed to Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. w.e.f. 29.06.2010.
272. Vide letter dt. 15.01.2011 (Ex. P-200/PW-13 (D-305)), information about change of name of SVSL to Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. w.e.f. 29.06.2010 was provided to Govt. of Maharashtra.
273. Vide letter dt. 18.01.2011 (Ex. P-201/PW-13 (D-306)), information about change of name was provided to District Mining Officer, Yavatmal.
274. He proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 10.04.2015 (D-307) as Ex. P-202/PW 13(D-307). The details of the documents seized through this memo(D-307) are as under :-
(a) Forwarding letter dated 10th April 2015 of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Limited issued by him addressed to the Addl. S.P. & Investigating Officer, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi, forwarding a detailed one page statement of change of share holding patterns in M/s SVSL (now M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd). (1 sheet) (D-308).
This Letter is Ex. P-203/PW13 (D-308).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 102 of 269
(b) Statement showing changes of share holding pattern of different share holders of M/s SVSL (now M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd) during the period 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2014 (1 sheet) (D-309). This statement bears the signatures of Shri Surendra Lodha at point - A and is Ex. P-
204/PW13(D-309).
275. He also proved the original Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 24.04.2015 (D-310) as Ex. P-205/PW13 (D-310). The details of the documents seized through this memo (D-310) are as under :-
(a) One bunch of papers containing three acknowledged copies of letter bearing Ref:
TUML/NGP/2010/0903 dated 08th October 2010, on the subject: Execution of Mining Lease Deed of Marki Mangli-Block IV, letter bearing Ref:TUML/NGP/2010/ 0901 dated 08th October 2010, on the subject: Execution of Mining Lease Deed of Marki Mangli-Block II, letter bearing Ref: TUML/NGP/2010/0903 dated 08th October 2010, on the subject: Execution of Mining Lease Deed of Marki Mangli-Block III, all issued by authorized signatory M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. (formerly known as SVSL), addressed to the Collector Yavatmal, along with a set of enclosures, having marked sheets 1 to 66. (D-
311). This document is Ex. P-206/PW13 (Colly.) (D-311).
(b) Details showing receipt & consumption of Coal for the period December 2011 to March 2014 and details of coal despatch from mines-
Receipt & Despatch from washery and Receipt at EUP during the period December 2011 to March 2014 duly authenticated with company's seal & CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 103 of 269 his and Sh. Surendra Lodha's signature - total 2 sheets (D-312). This document is Ex. P-
207/PW13 (Colly.)(D-312).
(c) One bunch of paper containing acknowledged copy of letter dated 30.08.2013 of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. addressed to the Director, Ministry of Environment & Forest New Delhi, acknowledge copy of letter bearing Ref:
TUML/EAC/2014-15/12 dated 13.03.2015 addressed to the Member Secretary, Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry-I) Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of India, New Delhi both in respect of Environment Clearance of proposed Sponge Iron Plant Expansion and other Steel Units of Topworth Urja Metals Ltd. along with duly authenticated photocopy of communication dated 30th April 2015 and 5th November 2014 of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change to Sh. Parimal Vinzey, AVP (Project & Operations), M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. containing marked sheets 1 to 12.(D-313). This document is now marked as Ex. P-208/PW13 (Colly.)(D-313).
(d) One bunch of papers containing letter dated 14.07.2008 of M/s SVSL addressed to Director, Ministry of Environment and Forest CGO Complex, Paryavaran Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, letter dated 06.01.2009 of M/s SVSL addressed to the Member Secretary, State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Govt. of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai letter dated 05.10.2009 of M/s SVSL addressed to the Member Secretary State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai all in respect of Environment Clearance of Captive Power Plant & Induction Furnace/Billets Units and along with duly authenticated photocopies of Environment Clearance communicated vide letter CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 104 of 269 dated 27th July 2010 and letter dated 31st January 2011 to M/s SVSL, containing marked sheets 1 to
17. (D-314). This document is Ex. P-209/PW 13(Colly.)(D-314). This letter was written by Sh.
Anil Nevatia, President, SVSL to the Director, Ministry of Environment & Forest and through this letter, it was informed that SVSL was proposing to install 44000 TPA Ferro Alloys Plant with 30 MW Captive Power Plant and 160 TPD billets unit at Mouza-Ukkerwahi, Village Heti, Umred Road, Nagpur.
(e) One bunch of papers containing duly authenticated photocopy of letter bearing Ref:
SVSL/NGP/2008/0546 dated 8th September 2008 of SVSL addressed to Regional Officer, Regional Office Amravati, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Shrikrishna Peth Amavathi-444601 on the subject Environmental Clearance for 3 coal blocks- Marki Mangli Block-II, (0.30 MPTA in 261 Ha), Marki Mangli Block-III, (0.21 MPTA in 275 Ha) & Marki Mangli Block-IV, (0.20 MPTA in 163 Ha) and letter No. J-11015/425/2007-
IA.II(M) dated 27th January 2011 of Dr. T. Chandini, Director Ministry of Environment & Forest (MOEF) Paryavan Bhavan, New Delhi, addressed to Director M/s Shree Veerangana Steel Pvt. Ltd. communicating Environment Clearance in respect of Marki Mangli II (0.30 MTPA in 273 Ha), III (0.21 MTPA in 256 ha) and IV (0.2 MTPA in 256 ha) Opencast Coal Mining Project of M/s Shree Veerangana Steel Pvt. Ltd., containing marked sheet 1 to 6.(D-315). This document is Ex. P-210/PW-13 (Colly.)(D-315).
276. He further proved Original forwarding letter dated 14.01.2016 (D-220) as Ex. P-211/PW13 (Colly.) (D-220). The CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 105 of 269 details of documents provided through this letter to CBI are as under :-
(a) Original MOA (Memorandum of Association) of SVSL, Annexure-1 (26 sheets) (M-105/16) (D-221). This document is already Ex. P-43 (Colly.) (D-221).
(b) Consent to Operate issued to M/s SVSL (SVSL) by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Mumbai vide Consent No. BO/RONR/ Nagpur 44/O/50-03/CC-76 dated 08.04.2003, in original, Annexure-2 (5 sheets) (M-106/16) (D-222). This document is already Ex. P-44 (D-
222). This consent to operate was issued by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for the purpose of manufacturing of Sponge Iron to the maximum quantity of 60000 MT/Year.
(c) Eligibility Certificate issued to M/s SVSL (SVSL) vide Ref. No. FINC(I)/1993/DEFERRAL/EC-4693 dated 28.02.2003 issued by SICOM Limited (The representative Agents of Govt. of Maharashtra for DIC till 2004), showing the date of commencement of production 21/02/2003, in original, Annexure-3 (7 sheets) (M-107/16) (D-
223). This document is Ex. P-212/PW13 (Colly.)(D-223).
(d) Copy of Letter No. 410 dated 29.01.2004 issued by Central bank of India, Main Branch, Nagpur to SVSL regarding proposal of loan,, Annexure-4 (2 sheets) (M-108/16, RC-
221/2014/E/0009). (D-224). This document is already Ex. P-45 (D-224).
(e) Copy of Audited Balance sheet of SVSL as on 31st March 2002, Annexure-5 (11 sheets) (M-109/16) (D-225). This document bears my CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 106 of 269 initials at Point A and seal of the company at Point B. This document is Ex. P-213/PW13 (Colly.)(D-225).
(f) Copy of Certificate dated 20.05.2003 issued by the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Station Road, Nagpur to SVSL, Annexure -8 (1 sheets) (M-112/16) (D-228). This document bears my initials at Point A and seal of the company at Point B. This document is Ex. P-214/PW13 (D-228).
(g) Copy of "Certificate of Entitlement for availing Sales Tax Incentives" vide Certificate No. 440001-S-72/R-31B/1412 dated 10.03.2003 issued by Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Incentives & Enforcement), Maharashtra State, Mumbai, marked to SVS, Annexure-11 (4 sheets) (M-115/16) (D-231). This document is Ex. P-215/PW13 (Colly.)(D-
231).
(h) Copy of letter Ref. No. FINC(I)/SCI-2807/ (SGI) dated 06.03.2003 issued by SICOM Limited Mumbai regarding eligibility for Capital Incentives issued to SVSL, Annexure- 12 (1 sheet) (M-116/16) (D-232). This document is Ex. P-216/PW13 (D-232).
(i) Recommendation letter Ref. No. PLS-
1008/C.R. 528/IND-9 dated 27.02.2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Industries, energy & Labour Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Mines, Delhi, Annexure-17 (1 sheet) (M-121/16) (D-
237). This document is Ex. P-217/PW13 (D-
237).
(j) Recommendation letter Ref. No. PLS-
1008/C.R. 528/IND-9 dated 12.08.2009 issued CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 107 of 269 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Industries, Energy & Labour Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Mines, Delhi, Annexure-18 (2 sheets) (M-122/16) (D-
238). This document is Ex. P-218/PW13 (D-
238).
(k) Copy of recommendation letter of allocation of coal blocks for captive coal mining from Industries, Energy & Labour Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai issued to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal Delhi vide Ref. No. MMN 2202/638/Ind-9 dated 24.05.2004, Annexure-19 (2 sheets) (M-123/16) (D-239). This document is already Ex. P-48 (D-239).
(l) Copy of company's application to the MoS, New Delhi vide Ref. No. SVSL/03/365 dated 20th March, 2003, Annexure-20 (2 sheets) (M- 124/16)(D-240). This document is already Ex. P-49 (D-240).
(m)Copy of regret letter from the MoS vide No. 15(38)/2001-IDW dated 29th September, 2003, Annexure-21 (1 sheet) (M-125/16) (D-241). This document is Ex. P-219/PW13 (D-241).
(n) Copy of company's application to the MoS, New Delhi vide No. P1/SVSL/GP/2004/280 dated 7th April, 2004, Annexure-22 (2 sheets). (M-126/16) (D-242). This document is already Ex. P-50 (D-242).
(o) Copy of allotment of Coal Linkage granted from SECL vide MoS, New Delhi letter No. 15(38)/2001-ISW dated 5th October, 2004, Annexure-23 (1 sheet)(M-127/16) (D-243). This document is Ex. P-220/PW13 (D-243).
(p) Copy of the letter No. CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 108 of 269
03/IPP/SVS/160/VOL-1 dated 04.11.2004 issued by M/s Power Finance Corporation Ltd. to SVSL, Annexure-25 (1 sheet) (M-129/16, RC-221/2014/E/0009) (D-245). This document is Ex. P-221/PW13 (D-245).
(q) Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the year 2003-04, Annexure-26 (22 sheets) (M-
130/16). (D-246). This document is Ex. P-
222/PW13 (Colly.)(D-246).
(r) Copy of letter Ref. No. MO/CR/04- 05/No.174 dated 07.08.2004 of Central Bank of India, Main Branch- Nagpur issued to the General Manager, Power Finance Corporation Ltd., Annexure-27 (1 sheet) (M-131/16) (D-
247). This document is already marked as Ex. P-175/PW11 (D-247).
(s) Detailed Project for the Captive Power Plan Phase-1 (Part-I & Part-II) prepared by M/s M.N. Dastur & Co. (P) Ltd., Annexure-33 (164 sheets) (M-137/16) (D-253). This document is already Ex. P-170/PW-10 (Colly.) (D-253). As per this revised DPR, M/s SVSL had proposed the Captive Power Plant to be installed within the Steel Plant Complex of M/s SVSL This revised Project Report was submitted by M.N. Dastur & Company Pvt. Ltd. in the month of May, 2004.
(t) Copy of order issued to M/s Beekay Engineering Corpn. Vide No. SVSL/350 TPD/PUR/001/06-07/01 dated 09.12.2006, Annexure-35 (3 pages) (M-139/16) (D-255). This document is Ex. P-223/PW13 (D-255).
(u) Original copy of Consent to Operate in respect to Sponge Iron Plant obtained from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board vide Consent No. BO/Nagpur-83/CE/CC/134 dated CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 109 of 269 26.05.2005, Annexure-36 (5 pages) (M-140/16) (D-256). This document is already Ex. P-53 (D-
256). This consent to establish was issued by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for the purpose of 15 MW power generation.
(v) Copy of recommendation for allocation of coal block by Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Nagpur vide letter No.1601/2004 dated 17.05.2004 addressed to the Chief Secretary (Industry), Mantralaya, Mumbai, Annexure -39 (1 page) (M-143/16) (D-259).
This document is already Ex. P-54 (D-259).
277. He proved letter dt. 16/18.06.2008, issued by Western Coal Field Ltd. to the authorised signatory of M/s SVSL [available from Page 6 to 10 in D-177] as Ex. P-224/PW-13 (D-177). In this letter, it is mentioned that 15 MW Captive Power Plant of M/s SVSL was to be located at Mouza- Ukkerwahi, Village Heti, Umred Road, Nagpur.
278. He deposed that he used to visit the Sponge Iron Plant of M/s SVSL (Now M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.). He stated that he did not notice any construction of Captive Power Plant at the site. The construction of Captive Power Plant was started in the year 2008/09. Prior to that there was no construction of Captive Power Plant of M/s SVSL
279. He proved letter dt. 15.02.2011 [available from Page 39 to 151, available in MoC file Ex. P-85/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-7)] bearing signature of Sh. Surendra Champalal Lodha as Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 110 of 269 225/PW-13 (Colly.) (D-7). Vide this letter, information about change of name of the company besides other details were provided to Sh. V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, MoC. Annexure-E to this letter [available at Page No.137] bears the signature of S. Surendra Champalal Lodha at Point A and this document mentions that name of SVSL has been changed to Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. w.e.f. 29.06.2010.
280. In cross-examination, he told that M/s HEG Ltd. i.e. the company where he was working presently had achieved more capacity/tonnage of production from the declared capacity i.e. more than 30000 TPA. He told that when M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. took over the company M/s SVSL, there was a chimney already installed but there was no Captive Power Plant. However, the same chimney can be used for Sponge Iron Plant as well as Captive Power Plant.
281. When photographs Annexure 19 (Page no. 47 & 48) of Mark X-1 were shown to PW-13, he told that chimney with the construction and machine were already in existence at the time of taking over of M/s SVSL by M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. He also told that as per standard industry norm, length of kiln of 100 TPD sponge iron plant is 40 mtr..
282. Two balance sheets of M/s HEG Ltd. were marked as Ex. P-231/PW-13 (for the year 1998-99) and Ex. P-232/PW-13 (for the year 1999-2000). One receipt was marked as Mark X-2.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 111 of 269
283. He admitted that against the installed capacity of 60000 TPA, the sponge iron plant of M/s HEG Ltd. had achieved production of more than 70000 TPA for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 as reflected in Ex. P-231/PW-13 & Ex. P-232/PW-13.
284. He told that vide letter dt. 14.01.2016 (Ex. P-211/PW-13 (Colly.)) he had handed over one Techno Economic Viability Report of M/s SVSL (D-251) which is Ex. P-233/PW-13 (Colly.).
285. He admitted that in document/report, Ex. P-233/PW-13 (Colly.), the length of the kiln of M/s SVSL is shown as 42 mtr.
286. PW-14 is Shiv Kumar Agrawal. He deposed that from 2001 to February 2008, he was working as Director in M/s SVSL He knew Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal as he was his friend and he was also Director in M/s SVSL He also knew Sh. Manoj Maheshwari, Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena and Sh. Ram Niwas Daga. He deposed that Manoj Maheshwari was working as CEO, Anand Nandkishore Sarda was initially working as Director, Anil Kumar Saxena was working as President and Sh. Ram Niwas Daga was working as Director in M/s SVSL He also claimed to identify their handwritings and signatures.
287. He told that during the year 2004-05, he was holding 25% shares of M/s SVSL Sh. Vimal Kumar Aggarwal was holding 25% shares. Sh. Ram Niwas Daga and Sh. Manoj CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 112 of 269 Maheshwari were holding 25% shares jointly and Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda and Sh. Nandkishore Sarda Group were holding 25% shares in M/s SVSL Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda is son of Sh. Nandkishore Sarda.
288. He deposed that in the year 2004, M/s SVSL had applied for allocation of coal blocks. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Manoj Maheshwari and A.K. Saxena used to pursue allocation of coal block with MoS and Ministry of Coal.
289. He denied his signatures on letter dt. 21.10.2004 already Ex. P-86/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5) (available at page 213). He did not know who had forged these signatures. He deposed that he never authorized any person to sign this letter on his behalf.
290. He identified his signatures on balance sheet of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2004 already Ex. P-160/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-5) (available from pg. 171-203).
291. He identified signature of A.K. Saxena on application dt. 15.01.2004 already Ex. P-2 (Colly.) from pg. 36-140 available in file Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5).
292. He identified his signature on certified true copy of Board Resolution available at pg. 121 of D-5 already Ex. P- 185/PW-12 (Colly.).
293. He identified signature of Anand Nandkishore Sarda on letter dt. 10.06.2004 available at page 147-148 in file Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 113 of 269 84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5) already exhibit as Ex. P-192/PW-12; on another letter dt. 10.06.2004 available at pg. 156-157 in file Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5) already exhibited as Ex. P- 193/PW-12 (D-5); on letter dt. 02.07.2004 already exhibited as Ex. P-5 (Colly.) (D-5) (available at pg. 165-166 in MoC file Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5).
294. He identified signature of Manoj Maheshwari on letter dt. 30.10.2004 already exhibited as Ex. P-4 (D-5) (available at pg. 232-233 in MoC file Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-5); on letter dt. 04.12.2004 already exhibited as Ex. P-161/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-3) (available in MoC file Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-3); on letter dt. 30.05.2005 already exhibited as Ex. P-162/PW-8 (Colly.) (D-3) (available in MoC file Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.) at pg. 6 (D-3) and on letter dt. 30.05.2005 already exhibited as Ex. P-186/PW-12 (Colly.) (D-3) (available in MoC file Ex. P- 87/PW-1 (Colly.) at pg. 7 (D-3).
295. He identified signature of A.K. Saxena on letter dt. 01.01.2007 already exhibited as Ex. P-190/PW-12 (Colly.) (D-
3) (available in MoC file Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly.) at pg. 81 (D-
3).
296. He identified writing and initials of A.K. Saxena on attendance sheet of the Executives who participated in the 23 rd Screening Committee meeting held on 29.11.2004 available at pg. 77-78 and already exhibited as Ex. P-97/PW-1 (Colly.) (available in File Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-78). He himself CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 114 of 269 had not attended the meeting of 23rd Screening Committee along with Sh. A.K. Saxena.
297. Similarly, he identified writings and signatures of A.K. Saxena on attendance sheet of 28th Screening Committee meeting held on 15.04.2005 available as Exhibit P-104/PW-1 (Colly.) from page 215-219 available in file Ex. P-101/PW-1 (colly) (D-
41). He did not attend the 28th Screening Committee Meeting of MoC as well. He told that as on 15.04.2005 when this meeting was held, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari was the CEO of the company.
298. He deposed that Marki Mangli II, III, IV coal blocks were allocated to M/s SVSL in September 2005.
299. He identified his signatures on the Auditors Report/Balance Sheet of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2004 already Ex. P-160/PW-8 (colly) available from pg. 171-203 in MoC file Ex. P-84/PW-1 (colly) (D-5). Regarding expenditure of Rs. 7,16,100/- as on 31.03.2004 under the head of Power Project, he told that this amount was incurred by the company as "Consultants Fees". This can be verified from the next year balance sheet.
300. He referred to the Auditors Report/Balance Sheet of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2005 already exhibited as Ex. P-157/PW-8 (colly) (D-359). He told that the expenditure of Rs. 7,16,100/- as was shown in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2004 under the head of Power Project has been explained in the present balance sheet CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 115 of 269 at pg. 17 at srl. no. 10(F), where this amount has been shown to have been incurred on "Consultancy".
301. Regarding expenditure of Rs. 2,62,500/- under the head of Power Project in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2003 of M/s SVSL already exhibited as Ex. P-148/PW-7 (colly) (D-5) (available at pg. 102) he told that this amount was incurred by the company on existing sponge iron plant.
302. He specifically deposed that till he remained in M/s SVSL i.e. upto February 2008, there was no construction of captive power plant of M/s SVSL Further, till he remained in the company, no construction of captive power plant of M/s SVSL was ever started.
303. He deposed that as per this revised DPR, M/s SVSL was planning to install a captive power plant within the steel plant complex of M/s SVSL at village Ukkerwadi, Tehsil Umred of District Nagpur. In execution of this revised DPR, no captive power plant was installed or constructed by M/s SVSL till the time he was working as Director in M/s SVSL
304. He identified his signature on application dt. 02.08.2004 Ex. P-126/PW-5 (colly) [available in file Ex. P-124/PW-5 (colly)] addressed to the General Manager, Project Appraisal - IPP, Power Finance Corporation, New Delhi available at pg 60-
59. Vide this application, they had requested the Power Finance Corporation to part finance their captive power plant to the extent CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 116 of 269 of Rs. 2307.00 lakhs as long term loan. This loan amount was not availed by M/s SVSL
305. He told that he had not attached certificate available at pg. 114 of file Ex. P-124/PW-5 (colly) (D-88) issued by Sh. Sanjay Kothari, partner of Kothari Rathi and Associates, Chartered Accountants with his application Ex. P-126/PW-5 (colly) (D-88). He did not know as to who had filed this certificate with Power Finance Corporation. This certificate is Ex. P-226/PW-14. (objected to the mode of proof). Details of this certificate are neither mentioned in his application Ex. P-126/PW-5 (colly) (D-
88) nor in the list of enclosures attached with my aforesaid application. I do not know how and by whom this certificate has been filed with PFC. He also did not remember whether this certificate was issued by Sh. Sanjay Kothari or not. I do not remember if this certificate was issued by Sh. Sanjay Kothari on my instructions. With regard to the details of sales and production of sponge iron as mentioned in this certificate, I say that if monthly statements are available only then I can confirm the authenticity of this certificate. On this basis of annual balance sheets, it is not possible to verify the contents of this certificate. This certificate is now exhibited as Ex. P-227/PW-14. (objected to the mode of proof). Details of this certificate Ex. P-227/PW-14 are neither mentioned in my application Ex. P-126/PW-5 (colly) (D-88) nor in the list of enclosures attached with my application.
306. He identified his specimen signatures which were CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 117 of 269 obtained by CBI which are available in D-105 from S-81 to S-88, already exhibited as Ex. P-183/PW-12 (colly). These specimen signatures were given to Sh. S.N. Khan, Additional SP, CBI.
307. He told that his statement was recorded u/s 164 CrPC also. The statement is Ex. P-228/PW-14. The whole proceedings are Ex. P-229/PW-14 (colly).
308. He identified his signatures on Auditors Report/Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2003 of M/s SVSL available from pg. 96-120 in MoC file Ex. P-84/PW-1 (colly) (D-5). This balance sheet is Ex. P-230/PW-14 (colly) (D-5). As per details mentioned at pg. 117 of this Balance Sheet, the installed capacity of sponge iron plant of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2003 was 30000 MT and production was 1423 MT.
309. From the Balance Sheet of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2004 (Ex. P-160/PW-8 (colly) (D-5)), he told that the installed capacity of sponge iron plant of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2004 was 60000 MT and actual production was 35400.950 MT.
310. From the Auditors Report/Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2005 of SVSL (Ex. P-157/PW-8 (colly) (D-5)) he told that the installed capacity of sponge iron plant of M/s SVSL as on 31.03.2005 was 60000 MT and actual production was 50965.070 MT.
311. He deposed that M/s SVSL never achieved the capacity of 75000MT of sponge iron production till he remained as CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 118 of 269 Director in the company.
312. He further deposed that the details mentioned in the applications submitted to MoC or MoS for allocation of coal blocks was not provided by him to Sh. A.K. Saxena, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari and Sh. Anand Sarda.
313. In cross-examination, PW-14 stated that he did not remember if he was whole time Director in M/s SVSL or not but he was a Director. He used to visit the office at plant of the company and remain there for sufficient time.
314. He told that he had transferred his share holding in M/s SVSL in favour of M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. in February, 2008. He had received the consideration for the same in June, 2006.
315. He denied his signature on letter dt. 09.01.2004 addressed to the Joint Director of Industries, Govt. of Maharashtra (available at Page no.13 in D-192) which is Mark P-234/PW-14; on letter dt. 07.12.2005 addressed to the Secretary, MoC (available at Page no. 70 & 71 in D-192) which is Mark P- 236/PW-14.
316. However, he admitted his signature on letter dt. 15.05.2004 addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Western Coalfield Ltd. (available at Page no. 25 & 26 in D-
192) which is Ex. P-235/PW-14; on letter dt. 22.05.2006 addressed to the Minister of Coal (available at Page no. 94 & 95 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 119 of 269 in D-192) which is Ex. P-237/PW-14; on Board Resolution dt. 12.01.2004 (already Ex. P-185/PW-12 (Colly.)); on provisional balance sheet of M/s SVSL as on 15.07.2004 (already Ex. P-16, D-88); on Board Resolution dt. 09.02.2004 of M/s SVSL (available at Page no. 113 in D-88) which is Ex. P-238/PW-14; on letter dt. 02.08.2004 addressed to the General Manager, Power Finance Corporation (available at Page no. 59 & 60 in D-
88) which is Ex. P-126/PW-5 (Colly.); on letter dt. 02.08.2004 addressed to the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India (available at Page no. 57 in D-88) which is Ex. P-126/PW-5 (Colly.); on letters dt. 31.12.2002 and 29.01.2004 written by Central Bank of India to M/s SVSL (available from Page no. 47 to 53 in D-88) which are Ex. P-126/PW-5 (Colly.); on copy of allocation letter dt. 06.09.2005 issued by MoC to M/s SVSL (available from Page no. 23 to 25 in D-208) which is Ex. P-239/PW-14; on balance sheets for the financial year ending on 31.03.2003 (Ex. P-59 (Colly.), D-357), 31.03.2004 (Ex. P-156/PW-8 (Colly.), D-358) and 31.03.2005 (Ex. P-157/PW-8 (Colly.), D-359).
317. He told that he was authorized signatory of the company M/s SVSL in the bank account. But clarified that the other Directors and CEO were also authorized persons in the bank account. He admitted that as per these balance sheets dt. 31.03.2004 (Ex. P-156/PW-8 (Colly.), D-358), 31.03.2005 (Ex. P-157/PW-8 (Colly.), D-359) and 31.03.2006 (Ex. P-140/PW-7 (Colly.), D-349) Sh. Vishal Vimal Agrawal was also the CEO of M/s SVSL during the financial years ending on 31.03.2004, CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 120 of 269 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006.
318. He admitted his signature on copy of board resolution dt. 17.04.2006 of M/s SVSL (available at Page no. 41 in D-26) which is Ex. P-240/PW-14.
319. He told that he had not issued any communication or letter objecting to issuance of certificates Ex. P-226/PW-14 & Ex. P-227/PW-14 as he had seen them for the first time on 20.05.2022. He denied the suggestion that he was personally pursuing with PFC for grant of loan. He admitted that he had furnished his personal guarantee to Central Bank of India for securing the credit facilities availed by M/s SVSL He did not remember if he had sent any communication objecting to contents of Ex. P-239/PW-14 i.e. copy of allocation letter dt. 06.09.2005 issued by MoC to M/s SVSL.
320. He told that he remained Director in M/s SVSL from 2001 to February, 2008. There was no Chairman or the Managing Director in M/s SVSL. He was looking after production activities at the plant. The production and dispatch/receipt people used to report to him. Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena was the President of the company and Incharge of the production. He admitted that as per board resolutions Ex. P-185/PW-12 (Colly.) and Ex. P- 240/PW-14, accused no.5 Anil Kumar Saxena was authorized by the Board to do the tasks mentioned therein. He told that whatever representations were made by accused no.5 Anil Kumar Saxena in pursuance of Board Resolutions, the same were done CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 121 of 269 with the instructions of the Board. He admitted that accused no.5 Anil Kumar Saxena was a salaried employee of the company M/s SVSL.
321. He told that he was not aware of letter dt. 27.01.2003, Page no. 135 of D-5, already Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.) vide which MSEB had given consent u/s 44 of the Electricity Act, 1948 to install 10 MW Captive Power Plant to M/s SVSL.
322. He did not remember whether MPCB had issued the consent letter under the Air Act and the Water Act to M/s SVSL in connection with installation of Captive Power Plant.
323. Vide letter dt. 05.10.2002 MPCB had given consent u/s 21 Air Act, Section 25 Water Act, Rule 5 Hazardous Rules, 1989 in favour of M/s SVSL and the same is Ex. P-241/PW-14.
324. Mark P-242/PW-14 is letter dt. 23.11.2004, vide which SVSL was informed by Command Area Development Authority, Nagpur that it was considering letter dt. 30.07.2004 of the company for granting permission for water lifting for requirement of 0.80 Mm3 .
325. NOC dt. 14.05.2002, issued by Gram Panchayat of Welsakhra (Page No. 258 of D-87) is Mark P-243/PW-14.
326. One extract i.e. the photocopy of the 7/12 Extract i.e. details of the land situated at village Welsakhra (Page 244 to 250 of D-87) is Mark P-244/PW-14.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 122 of 269
327. He denied that Ex. P-86/PW1 (Colly) (D-5) page 213 is signed by him.
328. PW-14 was re-examined on request of Ld. DLA for some clarifications. He explained regarding Board Resolution ( File Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.) (D-13) Page No.108 of D-13) and told that the Board of M/s SVSL had instructed A-5, A-6 and A-7 to only represent true facts to the MoC, MoS etc. He further told that he had instructed abovesaid persons to only represent true facts to the MoC, MoS etc.
329. In further cross-examination he denied that his signature was never forged or that he had created a new story of forgery of his signature in connivance with CBI and became the witness for CBI.
330. He told that A-5 A.K. Saxena was never given share in the profit of the company.
331. Regarding his knowledge about key managerial personnels such as CEO, Managing Director, Manager, Company Secretary, Whole Time Director, CFO etc. as per the Companies Act, he told that in the language of the Baniya Community, the President used to be referred to as the key person and the full incharge of the company.
332. He denied that he had deliberately made the false statement regarding the role of the President to save his skin as he had signed most of the documents on behalf of the company.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 123 of 269 He denied that A-5 A.K. Saxena was not the key managerial personnel of M/s SVSL.
333. He told that SVSL had not filed any complaint against A-5 A.K. Saxena regarding representations made by him because they did not have knowledge that false representations were made and forgeries were done.
334. PW-15 Sh. Rajbir Singh is from CBI. He told that in the present case FIR/RC was registered on 08.05.2014 by Sh. Amit Kumar, DIG/HoB, CBI, New Delhi and investigation was assigned to him. He identified signature of Sh. Amit Kumar on Original FIR dated 08.05.2014 of RC 221/2014/E/0009 (Total sheets-01 to 10) (D-1). The FIR/RC is already Ex. P-1.
335. He deposed that during the course of investigation, he collected number of documents through Production-cum-Seizure Memos and searches were conducted at various places by CBI teams duly authorized by him. During investigation he had also recorded statements of some of the witnesses.
336. He proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 04.06.2014 in respect of seizure of document by him from Sh. Sunit Kumar Pal, then Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi (D-2). This Production-Cum-Seizure Memo is Ex. P- 248/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-2).
337. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Memo Ex. P-248/PW-15(Colly.)(D-2) are as under :-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 124 of 269
(a) One file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F. No. 13016/9/2004-CA/CAI (Vol-II), SUBJECT Application for Captive Coal Mining Block for Sponge Iron & Steel Plant by M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. containing sheets 1 to 266 (M-1525/14)(D-3). This file is Ex. P-
87/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-3).
(b) One file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F. No. 13016/9/2004-CA-I (Vol- III), SUBJECT Continuance of Supply of Coal to Plant of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.
containing Note sheets Pages 1 to 2 and other sheets 1 to 25 (M-1526/14) (D-4). This file is Ex. P-249/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-4)
(c) One file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F. No. 13016/9/2004-CA/CAI (Vol-I), SUBJECT Application for Captive Coal Mining Block for Sponge Iron & Steel Plant by M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. containing sheets 1 to 238 (M-1527/14, RC-221/2014/E/0009) (D-
5) This file is already Ex. P-84/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-
5).
(d) One file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F. No. 13016/9/2004-CA-I (Vol- III), SUBJECT Allocation of Marki Mangli- II, III & IV Coal Blocks for Captive Coal Mining to M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. containing sheets 1 to 447 (M-1528/14)(D-6). This file is Ex. P-250/PW- 15 (Colly.)(D-6).
(e) One file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F. No. 13016/9/2004-CA-I (Vol- IV), SUBJECT Allocation for Captive Coal Mining Blocks for Sponge Iron Plant by M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.-Marki Mangli-II, III, & IV Coal Blocks containing note sheet 1 to 77 and other sheets 1 to 320 (M- 1529/14)(D-7). This file is already Ex. P-85/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-7).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 125 of 269
(f) Mining Plan (December, 2006) for Marki Mangli-II of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.- (Volume-I-Text, Appendices & Annexures) containing sheets 1 to 65 (M-1530/14)(D-8). This file is Ex. P-251/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-8).
(g) Mining Plan (February, 2007) for Marki Mangli-III of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.- (Volume-I-Text, Appendices & Annexures) containing sheets 1 to 67 (M-1531/14)(D-9). This file is Ex. P-252/PW-15(Colly.)(D-9).
(h) Mining Plan (March, 2007) for Marki Mangli-IV of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.- (Volume-I-Text, Appendices & Annexures) containing sheets 1 to 67 (M- 1532/14)(D-10). This file is Ex. P-253/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-10).
(i) Clarification on the observations made by the Technical Members of the Standing Committee of Ministry of Coal on Mining Plan of December, 2006 for Marki Mangli-II of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. (May, 2007 Text & Plates) containing sheets 1 to 15 (M-1533/14)(D-11). This file is already Ex. P-7 (D-11).
(j) Clarification on the observations made by the Technical Members of the Standing Committee of Ministry of Coal on Mining Plan of February & March, 2007 for Marki Mangli-III of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. (August, 2007-Text, Appendices & Annexures) containing sheets 1 to 18 (M-1534/14)(D-12). This file is Ex. P-
254/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-12).
(k) One file captioned MoS, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi and marked F. No. 21(04)/2004-IDW, Section-ID Wing, SUBJECT Request of M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. for Allocation of Captive Coal Block containing note sheet pages 1 to 9 (Both Sides) and other sheets 1 to 158 (M-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 126 of 269 1535/14, RC-221/2014/E/0009)(D-13). This file is already Ex. P-110/PW-3 (Colly.)(D-13).
338. He also proved the original Search List dated 09.05.2014 in respect of search conducted in the O/o M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd, 126-128 Shriram Tower, 1st Floor Kingsway, Sadar, Nagpur-01 (D-14). The Search List is Ex. P-255/PW-15 (D-14).
339. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Search List Ex. P-255/PW-15 (D-14) are as under :-
(a) Mining Lease Deed of Marki Mangli Coal Block-II containing pages from 01 to 83 (M-
1246/14).(D-15). This document is Ex. P-
256/PW-15(Colly.)
(b) Mining Lease Deed of Marki Mangli Coal Block-III containing pages from 01 to 96 (M- 1247/14).(D-16). This document is Ex. P-
257/PW-15(Colly.)
(c) Mining Lease Deed of Marki Mangli Coal Block-IV containing pages from 01 to 85 (M. No. 1248/14).(D-17). This document is Ex. P-
258/PW-15(Colly.)
(d) One Bunch of papers containing letter No. MMN-1008/C.R.2431/IND-9 of V.S Kulkarni, Under Secy and other (Total pages from 01 to 34) (M-1249/14).(D-18). This document is Ex. P- 259/PW-15 (Colly.)
(e) One Bunch of papers containing letter No. 13016/9/2004-CA-I of VS Rana, Under Secy., Min. of Coal and others (Total pages from 01 to
76) (M-1250/14).(D-19). This document is Ex. P- 260/PW-15 (Colly.) CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 127 of 269
(f) One Bunch of papers containing Affidavit dated 10.02.2011 of Shri Surender C. Lodha and others (Total pages from 01 to 40) (M-1251/14). (D-20). This document is Ex. P-261/PW-15 (Colly.).
(g) One Bunch of papers containing letter dated April 2007 of Shri Surender C. Lodha and others (Total pages from 01 to 15) (M-1252/14).(D-21). This document is Ex. P-262/PW-15(Colly.).
(h) One Bunch of papers containing letter TUML/MINE/NGP/2011-12/211, dt. 20.02.2012 of SK Mittal and others (Total pages from 01 to
31) (M-1253/14).(D-22). This document is Ex. P- 263/PW-15 (Colly.).
(i) One Bunch of papers containing MOU between Knowledge Infra System Pvt. Ltd. and SVSL dated 07.12.2010 of (Total pages from 01 to 27) (M-1254/14).(D-23). This document is Ex. P-264/PW-15(Colly.)
340. He further proved the Original Search List dated 09.05.2014 in respect of search conducted in the O/o M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd., 206, Second Floor, Raheja Center, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (D-
24). The Search List is Ex. P-265/PW-15.(D-24).
341. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Search List Ex. P-265/PW-15 (D-24) are as under :-
(a) One orange file containing application related to mining of Marki Mangli-II, III, IV Yavatmal (Pages 1-259) (M-1258/14)(D-25). This file is Ex. P-266/PW15(Colly.)(D-25).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 128 of 269
(b) One green file containing Veerangna Steel Iron ore mine papers (Pages 1-122)(D-26). This file is Ex. P-267/PW15(Colly.)(D-26).
(c) One Yellow file containing financial Statements/Annual Report of SVSL and TVML (Pages 1-204)(D-27). This file is Ex. P- 268/PW15(Colly.)(D-27).
(d) One bunch of Papers containing financial Statement/Annual Report of SVSL and TUML (Pages1-170)(D-28). This document is Ex. P- 269/PW15(Colly.)(D-28).
(e) One Statutory Register of TUML (pages 1-75) (D-29). This Register is already Ex. P-8.(D-29).
342. He further proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 25.06.2014 in respect of seizure of documents from Sh. Sunit Kumar Pal, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi (D-173). This Memo is Ex. P-270/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-
173). The details of documents seized through this memo are as under :-
(a) One File Captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal marked as File No. 34011/11/2007-CAPM, SUBJECT Approval of mining plan for Marki Mangli-II coal block allocated to M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd. containing note sheet pages 1 to 3 and other sheets 1 to 43 (M-1610/14)(D-
174). This file is Ex. P-271/PW15(Colly.)(D-174).
(b) One File Captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal marked as File No. 34011/23/2007-CAPM, SUBJECT-Approval of mining plan for Marki Mangli-III & IV coal block allocated to M/s Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.(D-175). This file is Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 129 of 269 272/PW15(Colly.)(D-175).
343. He also proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 09.05.2014 in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Ram Naresh, Section Officer, CA-I (A) Ministry of Coal (D-
187). This Memo is Ex. P-273/PW-15 (D-187). Vide this memo one file No. 13016/9/2004-CA-I (Vol.IV) [FTS No. 15194] titled as 'Allocation for Captive coal mining blocks for sponge iron plant by M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd.-Marki Mangli-II, III and IV coal blocks.(D-188) was seized by him from Sh. Ram Naresh, Section Officer, CA-I (A) Ministry of C. The said file is Ex. P-274/PW-15 (Colly.)(D-188).
344. During investigation he had obtained certified true copies of Register of Directors, COI, Form-20B/AR, Form-23AC/BS, 2006 to 2012, Form-23ACA, Form-23AC, MOA & AOA, altered of MOA -Two and F-2 with attachments etc. in respect of SVSL from Dy. Registrar of Companies, Office of the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai. (M-1774/14) (D-131). This document is Ex. P-275/PW-15(Colly.) (D-131).
345. As per order dated 23.09.2014 of Sh. Amit Kumar, DIG, CBI, investigation of this case was transferred from him to Sh. S. N. Khan, Addl. SP CBI. In compliance of this order, I handed over record of this case to Sh. S. N. Khan on 25.09.2014.
346. Nothing substantial has come in cross-examination.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 130 of 269
347. PW-16 Shah Nawaz Khan is the main IO.
348. During investigation, he had examined number of witnesses, collected number of documents, obtained specimen signatures and writings of accused persons/suspects and obtained CFSL reports regarding examination of questioned documents.
349. He had collected various documents/files from D-30 to D-43. These are the photocopies of MoC files. He told that as and when required, the original files were also seen for the purpose of investigation. Since these were the photocopies of the original files therefore no seizure memo in respect to their collection was made by him. The details of these documents/files are as under :-
(a) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file F. No. 13011/3/92-CA(C.F. No. -7720), Constitution of Screening Committee to Screen all the proposal received for captive mining, containing note sheet pages (including front and back) No. 1 to 6 and other sheets No. 1 to 46 (MR- 2214/14). (Original seized in RC 2/14, cited as D-75 ).(D-30). This file is Ex. P-276/PW- 16(Colly.)(D-30).
(b) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal & Mines, Govt. of India file F. No. 13011/5/2003-CA-Part I (C.F. No. -982), Reconstitution of Screening Committee in the Ministry of Coal containing note sheet pages (including front and back) No. 1 to 8 and other sheets No. 1 to 48 (MR-2215/14). (Original seized in RC 2/14, cited as D-76). (D-
31) This file is already Ex. P-67/PW-1(Colly.)(D-
31).
(c) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal file No. CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 131 of 269 47011/ 7/93-CPA (Vol.-I-B), Subject-
Considerations of applications of captive block in respect of Thermal Power Station (first Minutes of Screening Committee Meeting held on 14.07.1993, containing sheets No. 1 to 146 (MR- 269/15) (Original seized in RC 2/2015). (D-32). This file is Ex. P-277/PW16(Colly.)(D-32).
(d) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file F.No. 47011/7/93-CPA, Subject-Consideration of applications of blocks in respect of Thermal Power Stations / captive power plant containing note sheet pages (including front and back) No. 1 to 53 and other sheets No. 1 to 363 (MR-268/15) (Original seized in RC 2/2015).(D-33). This file is Ex. P-278/PW16(Colly.)(D-33).
(e) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file F. No. 47011/7/93-CPA (Vol. III), Consideration of applications for captive blocks for power sector and Iron & Steel Sector containing sheets No. 1 to 275 (M-259/15) (Original seized in RC 2/2015).(D-34). This file is Ex. P-279/PW16(Colly.)(D-34).
(f) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file F. No. 47011/05/2002-CPAM/CA(Vol.-II), Subject- 18th Meeting of Screening Committee for screening proposals relating to captive mining of coal/lignite by power generating companies containing note sheet pages (including front and back) No. 1 to 45 and other sheets No. 1 to 197 (M-437/15) (Original seized in RC 15/14).(D-35). This file is already Ex. P-73/PW-1(Colly.)(D-35).
(g) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file F. No. 47011/15/95-CPA, Subject -
Consideration of applications for captive blocks for Power & Iron and Steel Sector -identification of coal blocks containing note sheets pages 1 to 110 and other sheets 1 to 188 (M-183/15) CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 132 of 269 (Original seized in RC 7/14).(D-36). This file is Ex. P-280/PW16(Colly.)(D-36).
(h) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file No. 47011/13/99-CPAM (Vol.II), Subject- Consideration of applications for captive blocks (for Power, Iron & Steel and Cement Sector ) 14th Screening Committee containing note sheet pages (including front and back) No. 1 to 51 and other sheets No. 1 to 344. (M-1633/14) (Original seized in RC 11/14, EO-III). (D-37). This file is already Ex. P-71/PW-1(Colly.)(D-37).
(i) Photocopy of file No. 47011/4/2003- CB/CA(Pt.), Ministry of Coal Additional Guidelines for allocation of captive blocks and guidance for applicant, note sheet pages 01 to 31 and correspondence pages 01 to 109 (MR-75/12, PE/219/2012, original in case RC -6/2013 of EO- I, D-5). (D-38). This file is Ex. P-76/PW-1(Colly.) (D-38).
(j) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file F. No. 47011/4/2003-CB/CA, SUBJECT 21st-22nd Meeting of the Screening Committee for Screening Proposals relative to Captive Mining of Coal/Lignite to be held on 4.11.2003 containing note sheet pages 1 to 10 and other sheets No. 1 to 121. (M-874/13, EO-III, PE 219 2012 E0004 of CBI EO-I, New Delhi). (D-39).
This file is already Ex. P-80/PW-1(Colly.)(D-39).
(k) Photocopy of File No. 47011/10/2005-CB- CA-I(Pt.), of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India relating to 28th Screening Committee Meeting held on 15.04.2005 (Note sheet Page 1 to 8 and correspondence sheet 1 to 47) (MR-141/12, PE/219/2012 E 0002, original in RC 219 2014 E0025 of EO-I). (D-40). This file is already Ex. P- 106/PW-1(Colly.)(D-40).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 133 of 269
(l) Photocopy of file No. 47011/10/2005-CB-CA- I (C. No.-3128), 28th Screening Committee Meeting Agenda Note containing note sheet pages 01 to 8 (including front and back and correspondence 1 to 222 (M-301/12, PE/219/2012 E 0002, original file in RC 219/2014 E0025). (D-
41). This file is already Ex. P-101/PW-1 (Colly.) (D-41).
(m) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India File No. 13016/3/2005-CA-I, 29th Meeting of Screening Committee Agenda Note file containing note sheet pages 1 to 5 and correspondence pages 1 -109 (MR-142/12, PE/219/2012 E0002, original in RC 219/2014 E- 0025 of EO-I).(D-42). This file is Ex. P-281/PW- 16(Colly.)(D-42).
(n) Photocopy of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India file No. 13016/3/2005-CA-I (Part), 29th Meeting of Screening Committee held on 03.06.2005, containing note sheet pages 1 to 6, correspondence pages 1 to 18 (MR-143/12, PE/219 2012 E-0002, original in RC 219/2014 E- 0025 of EO-I). (D-43). This file is Ex. P-282/PW- 16(Colly.)(D-43).
350. He proved the original Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 19.01.2017 (D-44) in respect of Seizure of documents from Mahender Singh House Keeping In-charge M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. Delhi Office. This Memo is Ex. P-283/PW-16(D-
44).
351. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Memo (Ex. P-283/PW-16)(D-44) are as under :-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 134 of 269
(a) Original Certificate No:440001-S-72/R-
31B/1412 Mum, dt: 10.03.2003 issued by Sh.
G.R. Thombre, Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Incentive & Enforcement), Maharashtra State, Mumbai granted to M/s SVSL (M- 121/17)(D-
45). This certificate is already Ex. P-163/PW-9(D-
45).
(b) Original Power of Attorney bearing Notarial Reg. Entry No. 2559 dated 02.03.11 issued by Sh. Surendra Champalal Lodha, Director SVSL in favour of Sh. Anil Omprakash Nevatia, President, SVSL for execution of Lease Deed, relating to Marki Mangli-II. (M-122/17)(D-46). This document is Ex. P-284/PW-16(Colly.)(D-46).
(c) Original Affidavit dated 02.03.11 of Sh. Anil Omprakash Nevatia bearing Notarial Reg. Entry No. 2560 dated 02.03.2011 relating to Marki Mangli-II. (M -123/17)(D-47). This document is Ex. P-285/PW-16(Colly.)(D-47).
352. He proved the Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 20.03.2015 (D-76) in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Sunit Kumar Pal, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, EO-III 4 th Floor, 5-B, CGO Complex New Delhi. This Memo is Ex. P- 286/PW-16(D-76.)
353. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Memo(D-76) are as under :-
a) One File Captioned Govt. Of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F.No. 38011/3/2005-
CA,SUBJECT 23rd-24th minutes of Screening Committee Meeting held on 29.11.2004 and CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 135 of 269 09.12.2004 containing note sheet pages (including front and back) No.1 to 9 and other (Correspondences) sheets No. 1 to 41. (D-77). This file is Ex. P-287/PW-16(Colly)(D-77).
b) One File Captioned Govt. Of India, Ministry of Coal and marked F.No. 47011/5/2004-CB-CA (Vol-I), SUBJECT 23rd Meeting of the Screening Committee for Screening Proposals relating to Captive Mining of Coal/Lignite by Power generating Companies and Companies engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel and production of Steel containing note sheet pages No. 1 to 7 (page-1 & 2 photocopy, rest original) and other (Correspondences) Sheets No. 1 to 162.(D-78). This file is already Ex. P-82/PW-1 (Colly.)(D-
78).
354. He also proved original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 01.02.2016 (D-85) in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Surinder Arora, General Manager (Vigilance), Power Finance Corporation Limited, 1- Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. This Memo is Ex. P-121/PW-5 (D-85).
355. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Memo (D-85) are as under :-
(a) One folder of Power Finance Corporation, New Delhi containing Note Sheet in respect of Preliminary Appraisal Note for loan proposal, Preliminary Appraisal Note for consideration of Screening committee , both in respect of Shree Virangana Steels Limited and Minutes of 75th meeting of Loan Proposal Screening Committee held on 29-10-2004, Print-out of System Data Base records along with Certificate U/s 65 B(4) CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 136 of 269 (C) of the Evidence Act 1872.(D-86). This file is Ex. P-122/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-86).
(b) File No 02:13/MH:SVSL/01.Vol I of Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi relating to Entity Appraisal of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Limited. (D-87). This file is already Ex. P- 123/PW-5 (Colly.) (D-87).
(c) File No: 02:13/MH:SVSL/01.vol.II/Oct,03 of Power Finance Corporation Limited., New Delhi, relating to Entity Appraisal of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Limited.(D-88). This file is already Ex. P-124/PW-5 (Colly.)(D-88).
356. He deposed that during investigation he had moved an application dated 05.06.2017 (D-89) before the Court of Sh. Bharat Parashar, Hon'ble Special Judge CBI, (Coal Cases), Patiala House Court, New Delhi requesting the release of original page no. 219 (attendance Sheet of executives who participated in 28th Screening Committee for the purpose of sending the same to CFSL for expert opinion. (01 sheet Petition (Original), 08 sheets of enclosures (photocopies) (total 9 sheets). Office Copy of this application bears my signatures at Point - A. This application is Ex. P-288/PW-16 (D-89).
357. The above application (D-89) was allowed by the Hon'ble Special Judge, CBI, (Coal Cases), Patiala House Court, New Delhi vide order dated : 05.06.2017. Dasti Copy of the said order is already Ex. P-17 (D-90).
358. He deposed about obtaining specimen signatures and writings of the accused persons and others persons. Details of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 137 of 269 such specimen signatures and writings are as under :-
(a) Specimen signatures of Sh. A.K. Saxena, the then President M/s SVSL marked as S-23 to S-29 & S-131 to S-139 (16 sheets) (D-98) as Ex. P-19 (Colly.)(D-98).
(b) Specimen initial of Sh. A.K. Saxena, the then President M/s SVSL marked as S-43 to S-47 & S-165 to S-171 (12 sheets). (D-99) Ex. P-20 (Colly.)(D-99).
(c) Specimen writing of Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena (A.K. Saxena), marked as S-140 to S-164 (25 sheets) (D-100) as Ex. P-21(Colly.)(D-100).
(d) Specimen signatures of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda marked as S-54 to S-58 & S-172 to S-185 (19 sheets) (D-101) as Ex. P-22 (Colly.)(D-101).
(e) Specimen writing of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda marked as S-59 to S-72 (14 sheets) (D-102) as Ex. P-23 (Colly.) (D-102).
(f) Specimen signature/ writing of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda marked as S-186 to S-228 (43 sheets)(D-103) as Ex. P-24(Colly.)(D-103).
(g) Specimen signatures of Sh. Manoj Maheswari marked as S-73 to S-80 (8 sheets)(D-104) as Ex. P-25 (Colly.)(D-104).
(h) Specimen signatures of Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal marked as S-81 to S-88 (8 sheets)(D-105) as Ex. P-183/PW-12 (Colly.)(D-105).
(i) Specimen signatures of Sh. Vimal Kumar Agarwal marked as S-89 to S-100 (Total -12 sheets) (D-106) as Ex. P-167/PW-10 (Colly.)(D-106).
(j) Specimen signature of Sh. Sanjay Kothari marked as S-101 to S-108 (Total- 8 sheets)(D-107) as Ex. P-289/PW-16(Colly.)(D-107).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 138 of 269
359. During investigation, he had obtained original Account Opening Form of savings Bank Account No. 32152735387 in the name of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Nagpur containing admitted signatures of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda (pages 1 to 16) marked as A-1 to A-8, along with forwarding letter dated 02.08.2017 in respect of above document from AGM, SBI, Industrial Finance Branch, Nagpur (M-1403/17)(D-108). This document was received by Shri Subhash Pandey, Dy.SP, CBI on his behalf since he was camping at Nagpur at that time. This document is already Ex. P-26(Colly.)(D-108).
360. He also obtained nine numbers of original Cheques containing admitted signatures of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, marked A-9 to A-17(D-109), Specimen Signature Form of Account No. 4986 in the name of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kamptee Road Branch, Nagpur, containing admitted signature of Anand Nandkishore Sarda marked as A-18 (D-110) and Original Account Opening Form (with other related papers) in respect of Savings Account No. 4986 in the name of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kamptee Road Branch, Nagpur (Pages 1 to 6) marked as A-19, A-19/1, A-20 to A-22(D-111). These documents were provided by Branch Manager, Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. through forwarding letter dated 02.08.2017.(D-111). These documents were received by Shri Subhash Pandey, Dy.SP, CBI on his behalf since he was camping CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 139 of 269 at Nagpur at that time. Nine number of original Cheques (D-
109) are already exhibited as Ex. P-27 to Ex. P-35. Specimen Signature Form (D-110) is already exhibited as Ex. P-36. Original Account Opening Form (with other related papers)(D-
111) are already exhibited as Ex. P-37(Colly.).
361. During investigation, he had obtained Original Account Opening Form-Capital Gain Account, Specimen Signature Card and other related documents like Form-C, Form-G, Form-DA-1, Account Opening Form for term deposit etc. attached with the Account Opening Form, all in respect of Account No. 32453179904 in the name of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda maintained at State Bank of India, Seva Sadan Chowk Branch, Nagpur marked as A-23 to A-38, (marked pages 1 to 21). These documents were provided by Branch Manager vide forwarding letter No. BR/17-18/dated 01.08.2017. These documents were received by Shri Subhash Pandey, Dy.SP, CBI on his behalf since he was camping at Nagpur at that time. These documents are already exhibited as Ex. P-38 (Colly.)(D-112).
362. He deposed about sending questioned signatures/ writings, specimen signatures/writings and admitted signatures to CFSL for comparison by Shri Prem Kumar Gautam, SP, CBI EO-
III, New Delhi vide letter No. 2270 RC-
221/2014/E/0009/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi dated 03.05.2017(D-
113), letter No. 3026 RC-221/2014/E/0009/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi dated 07.06.2017(D-114) and letter No. 5356 RC-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 140 of 269 221/2014/E/0009/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi dated 15.09.2017(D-
115). These letters are Ex. P-176/PW12(Colly)(D-113), Ex. P- 177/PW12(Colly)(D-114) and Ex. P-178 /PW-12(Colly.)(D-
115).
363. The reports w.r.t. examination of questioned signatures/writings are Ex. P-179/PW-12 (Colly.)(D-116) and Ex. P-181/PW-12(Colly.)(D-117).
364. During Investigation, he had collected the documents containing the admitted signatures of Vimal Kumar Agarwal from Bank of Baroda, Dharampeth Branch, West High Court Road, Nagpur-440010 vide Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 09.08.2017 (D-118) Ex. P-290/PW-16(D-118).
365. The details of documents seized through the above mentioned Memo Ex. P-290/PW16(D-118) are as under :-
(a) Request letter of Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal dated 23.04.2012 to Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur to close SB A/C No. - 04650100012805 (Left side corners in torn condition and repaired with Cello Tape), marked as A-39.(D-119). This letter is Ex. P- 291/PW-16(D-119).
(b) Seven number of original cheques bearing cheque No. 384471 dated 18.04.2011 for Rs.
6,30,000/-, Cheque No. 384462 dated 03.11.2009 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, Cheque No. 384468 dated 22.03.2010 for Rs. 75,00,000/-, Cheque No. 384470 dated 29.07.2010 for Rs. 6,50,000/-, Cheque No. 384469 dated 23.03.2010 for Rs.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 141 of 269 20,00,000/-, Cheque No. 384467 dated 13.03.2010 for Rs. 75,00,000/- and Cheque No. 384464 dated 17.12.2009 for Rs. 50,00,000/- all issued by Sh. Vimal Kumar P. Agrawal in SSB A/C No. -04650100012805 marked as A-40 to A-
46. (D-120). These Cheques are Ex. P-292/PW- 16(Colly.) (D-120).
(c) RTGS application form dated 17.12.2009 and 13.03.2010 issued by Vimal Kumar Agrawal in A/C No. 04650100012805 (Total 2 sheets), marked as A-47 & A-48.(D-121). This RTGS application form is Ex. P-293/PW-16(D-121).
(d) Specimen signature card of SSB A/C. No. 15in the name of Vimal Kumar P. Agrawal, containing specimen signatures of Sh. Vimal Kumar P. Agrawal, marked as A-49 to A-54. (D-
122). This Specimen signature card is already Ex. P-166/PW-10(D-122).
(e) Application of Vimal Kumar P. Agrawal for KYC updating of A/C No. 04650100012805 along with Xerox copies of PAN card and telephone bill verified under his signature (Total 3 Sheets), marked as A-55 to A-57. (D-123). This application is Ex. P-294/PW-16 (Colly.) (D-123).
366. During investigation, he moved an application dated 24.05.2017 in the court for recording statements of witnesses Sh. Shiv Kumar Agarwal and Sh. Vimal Kumar Agarwal U/s 164 Cr.P.C. The application dated 24.05.2017 alongwith its annexures is Ex. P-295/PW-16(Colly.) (D-124).
367. The Certified copies of statements of Sh. Shiv Kumar Agarwal and Sh. Vimal Kumar Agarwal recorded under section -
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 142 of 269 164 Cr.PC are available as D-125 and D-126 which are now marked as Ex. P-296/PW-16 (Colly.) (D-125) and Ex. P- 297/PW-16 (Colly.) (D-126). The whole proceedings are already marked as Ex. P-229/PW-14 (Colly.).
368. During investigation he had collected original Office copy of letter No. 03/IPP/SVS/160/Vol.-I dated 04.11.2004 issued to CEO, SVSL, SS-3, Golden Palace, Dharmpeth, Nagpur- 441204, under the signature of Sh. R.R. Jha, Sr. Manager (PA- IPP), Power Finance Corporation (D-128)(Already exhibited as Ex. P-128/PW5) from Sh. Surinder Arora, General Manager (Vigilance) Power Finance Corporation New Delhi through Original Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 16.01.2017 (D-
127) (Already exhibited as Ex. P-127/PW5).
(a) Vide forwarding letter bearing Ref.:
TUML/NGP/CBI/2016-17/0196 dated 13.01.2017 (D-129), M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. had also provided Original letter of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vide No. 03/IPP/SVS/160/VOL- I dated 04.11.2004.(D-130) to me. The said Forwarding Letter (D-129) is now marked as Ex. P-298/PW-16 and the Original letter 04.11.2004 (D-130) is already marked as Ex. P-39.
(b) Vide forwarding letter No./Record/122 dated 18.01.2017 (D-132), Dy. Registrar of Companies, ROC, Mumbai, provided Certified photocopy of Form-23 AC and 23ACA of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. for the period 2005 to 2009 along with certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act,1872 along with original office copy of CBI requisition letter No. 268/RC 221 2014 E0009 dated 12.01.2017 and certificate U/s 65B CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 143 of 269 of Evidence Act 1872 to CBI (D-133). The said Forwarding Letter alongwith certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act is now marked as Ex. P-
299/PW-16 (Colly.)(D-132) and the documents provided through Forwarding Letter Ex. P-
299/PW-16(Colly.)(D-132) are now marked as Ex. P-300/PW-16 (Colly.)(D-133).
369. He proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 11.03.2015 (D-164) in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Sanjay Ingle Deputy Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy & Labour, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
32. This Memo is Ex. P-301/PW-16 (D-164). Vide this One File of Ind-8 branch, Department of Industries, Energy & Labour, File No.-HPC/1008/ C.R.275/Industires-8, Subject- M/s Topworth Urja and Metals Ltd(M/s SVSL), Mega Project Proposal (D-165) was seized by him. The said file is Ex. P-302/PW-16(Colly.)(D-
165).
370. He proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 27.05.2015 (D-176) in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Sunit Kumar Pal, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, New Delhi. This Memo is Ex. P-303/PW-16 (D-176). Original letter No. NGP/WCL/S&M/vig/269 dated 27.03.2014 along with enclosures of GM (S&M), WCL addressed to Sh. P.V. Hari Krishna, SP, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi furnishing details about linkage provided to M/s SVSL containing sheets total 16 sheets (D-177) was seized by him vide Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 27.05.2015 Ex. P-303/PW-16 (D-176). This letter is Ex. P-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 144 of 269 304/PW-16 (Colly.)(D-177).
371. He further proved another Original Production-Cum- Seizure Memo dated 10.03.2016 (D-185) as Ex. P-305/PW-16 (Colly.)(D-185). Vide this memo one file captioned Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal and Marked file no. 47011/6/2004-CB- CA, Subject-Meeting of the 24th Screening Committee for Screening proposal relating to Captive Mining of coal/Lignite by Power Generating Companies and Companies engaged in manufacturing of Iron & Steel and Cement (Agenda Note for 23 rd Screening Committee meeting) (D-186) was seized by him. The said file is Ex. P-306/PW-16(Colly.)(D-186).
372. He proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 04.08.2015 in RC-221/2014/E/0009/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi in respect of Seizure of one file of Ministry of Coal/Govt. of India from Sh. Manish Uniyal, Section Officer (CA-I Section), Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, New Delhi(D-189). This Memo is Ex. P-307/PW-16 (D-189). Vide this memo one file of Ministry of Coal/Govt. of India, bearing file No. 13016/09/2004- CA-I (Vol.-IV) Part (FTS File No. 21206), Subject: Allocation of Marki Mangli II, III & IV Coal Blocks to M/s Shree Virangana Steels Pvt. Ltd. was seized. The said file is Ex. P-308/PW- 16(Colly.)(D-190).
373. He also proved Original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 04.12.2015 (D-194) in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Deepak Salodkar, Superintendent, Customs, at point - A who CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 145 of 269 had signed this memo in my presence. This Memo is Ex. P- 129/PW-6(D-194); the certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act is already exhibited as Ex. P-130/PW-6 (D-194) and the documents seized through this memo are already Ex. P-131/PW-6 (Colly.) (D-195) to Ex. P-138/PW-6(Colly.)(D-202).
374. During investigation, he received certain documents from Sh. Jai Thomas vide his letter dated 14.01.2016 (D-220) already exhibited as Ex. P-211/PW-13(Colly.)(D-220). The documents received through the above letter are already exhibited as Ex. P- 43, Ex. P-44, Ex. P-45, Ex. P-48, Ex. P-49, Ex. P-50, Ex. P-53, Ex. P-54, Ex. P-212/PW-13 (Colly.) to Ex. P-223/PW- 13(Colly.).
375. During investigation, he got translated certain documents written in Marathi Language into English Language (D-51, D- 147, D-148, D-151, D-152, D-155, D-159) & (D-161 to D-163) from Saravu Services Translation Agency and Sribalaji International Institute of Foreign Languages. The letter is Ex. P- 309/PW-16(Colly.)(D-275).
376. The Details of English Translations received from these two institutions are as under :-
(a) Original letter dated 16.10.2015 of Sh.
Abhishek Negi, Authorized Signatory, Saravu Services, Translation Agency forwarding Marathi Source Text and English Translation of Source Text to Supdt. of Police, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi along with the enclosures (Total sheets- 1 to 137).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 146 of 269 (D-274). The letter is Ex. P-310/PW-16(Colly.)(D-
274).
(b) Original forwarding letter No. SBIIFL/Transn/ Marathi/01 dated 30.01.2015 from Sribalaji International Institute of Foreign Languages (Translation, Training & Interpretation of Foreign & Indian Languages), RZ-C-34A, Dabri Extn. (East), New Delhi-110045 forwarding the translation of 89 pages of documents from Marathi to English along with enclosures. (Total 81 sheets).(D-276). The letter is Ex. P-311/PW- 16(Colly.)(D-276).
377. He proved original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 08.04.2015 in respect of seizure of document from Sh. Jai Thomas, Vice President (Group Corporate Affairs Topworth Group of Companies (D-299) already exhibited as Ex. P- 194/PW-13 (D-299). Vide this memo, he had seized documents Ex. P-195/PW-13 (D-300) to Ex. P-201/PW-13(D-306) from Sh. Jai Thomas.
378. He further proved original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 10.04.2015 in respect of Seizure of document from Sh. Jai Thomas, Vice President (Group Corporate Affairs Topworth Group of Companies (D-307) Ex.202/PW-13 (D-307). Vide this memo he had seized documents Ex. P-203/PW-13(D-
308) and Ex. P-204/PW-13(D-309) from Sh. Jai Thomas.
379. He proved original Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 24.04.2015 in respect of seizure of document from Sh. Surendra Champalal Lodha (D-310) already exhibited as Ex. P-205/PW-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 147 of 269 13 (D-310). Vide this memo he had seized documents Ex. P- 206/PW-13(Colly.)(D-311) to Ex. P-210/PW-13 (Colly.)(D-315) from Sh. Surendra Lodha.
380. He also got translated certain more documents (D-51, D- 52 and D-53) written in Marathi Language into English Language from Govt. of Maharashtra. The English Translation of these documents were received through following letters:-
(a) Original forwarding letter File Confidential /MLV-Y/249/2015/223 dated 05.10.2015 from Directorate of Geology & Mining Govt. of Maharashtra, Nagpur forwarding English translated copies of note sheet originally in Marathi of the correspondence file No. MLV-
Y/247, MLV-Y-248 and MLV-Y-249 of the Marki Mangli, III, & Iv coal blocks, along with the English translated copies (total marked sheets 01 to 53 (M-3726/15).(Sheets 01 to 53) (D-345). This document is Ex. P-312/PW-16 (Colly.)(D-345).
(b) Original forwarding letter File Confidential /MLV-Y/249/2015/84 dated 12.01.2016 from Director I/c , Directorate of Geology & Mining Govt. of Maharashtra, Nagpur forwarding English translated copies of correspondence pages in file No. MLV-Y/247, MLV-Y-248 and MLV-Y-249 pertaining to Marki Mangli-II, III & IV Coal Blocks along with the translated copies. (Total- 307 sheets) (M-456/16, (i) (ii) & (iii)).(D-347). (Total- 307 sheets). This document is Ex. P- 313/PW16(Colly.)(D-347).
381. He proved original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 25.01.2016 (D-348) in respect of Seizure of document from Sh.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 148 of 269 Dilip Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant & Partner, M/s Dilip Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Mahavir Bhawan Road, Circular Market, Camp-2, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (CG) (D-
348). This Memo is Ex. P-139/PW-7(D-348). The details of documents seized through this memo are as under:-
(a) Office Copy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2006, prepared/ Audited by M/s Dilip Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 26).(M-227/16,). This document is already Ex. P-140/PW-7(Colly.)(D-
349).
(b) Certified photocopy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2006, prepared/ Audited by M/s Dilip Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc.(Marked pages 01 to 26).
(M-228/16). This document is already Ex. P- 141/PW-7(Colly.)(D-350).
(c) Office Copy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2007, prepared/ Audited by M/s Dilip Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 26). (M-229/16). This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-142/PW- 7(Colly.)(D-351).
(d) Certified photocopy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 149 of 269 Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2008, prepared/ Audited by M/s Dilip Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc.(Marked pages 01 to 27). (M-230/16) This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-143/PW-7(Colly.)(D-352).
(e) Certified photocopy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2009, prepared/ Audited by M/s Dilip Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, containing Directors Report, Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc.(Marked pages 01 to 32). (M-
231/16)(D-353). This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-144/PW-7(Colly.)(D-353).
382. He proved original Production-Cum-Seizure Memo dated 25.01.2016 in respect of Seizure of document from Sh.B.K. Bang, Chartered Accountant, M/s Bang Gupta & Company, Chartered Accountants, 202/203, Jai Complex, Opp. City Bus, Gandhibag, Nagpur-02.(D-354). This Memo is Ex. P-152/PW-8 (D-354). The details of documents seized through this memo are as under:-
(a) Office Copy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2000, prepared/ Audited by M/s Bang Gupta & Company, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 14) (M-232/16)(D-355). This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-153/PW-8 (Colly.)(D-355).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 150 of 269
(b) Office Copy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2001, prepared/ Audited by M/s Bang Gupta & Company, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 14) (M-233/16).(D-356).
This document is already exhibited as Ex. P- 154/PW-8 (Colly.)(D-356).
(c) Office Copy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2003, prepared/ Audited by M/s Bang Gupta & Company, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 25) (M-234/16)(D-357). This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-155/PW- 8(Colly.)(D-357).
(d) Certified Photocopy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2004, prepared/ Audited by M/s Bang Gupta & Company, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 22) (M-235/16)(D-358). This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-156/PW-8 (Colly.)(D-358).
(e) Certified Photocopy of Financial statement of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd, Nagpur for the year ended 31.03.2005, prepared/ Audited by M/s Bang Gupta & Company, Chartered Accountants, containing Auditors Report, Annexure, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Schedules etc. (Marked pages 01 to 21) (M-236/16)(D-359). This document is already exhibited as Ex. P-157/PW-8 (Colly.)(D-359).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 151 of 269
383. He also proved Original Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 01.06.2017(D-377) in respect of seizure of File No. R- 31B/1412 of M/s SVSL (M - 884/17)(D-378) from Sh. Sanjay Devde, Sales Tax Inspector, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, HQ-II, Vikrikar Bhawan, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. (D-377). This Memo is marked as Ex. P-314/PW-16 (D-377) and the said file is marked as Ex. P- 315/PW-16 (D-378).
384. He proved original Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 07.12.2017 (D-381) in respect of seizure of documents from Sh. Nagireddy Kunduru, Deputy Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Kompally Branch, Hyderabad. Through this Memo he had seized documents relating to the account of accused A.K. Saxena. This Memo is Ex. P-316/PW-16 (D-381) and the documents seized through this Memo are exhibited Ex. P-60 (Colly.)(D-382) to Ex. P-63(D-385).
385. On completion of investigation, he submitted his report to his office and after due approval from the office, he filed the chargesheet in Court under section 173 CrPC. The Chargesheet under section 173 CrPC is Ex. P-317/PW-16(Colly).
386. He deposed that during investigation, he did not find any evidence to show that the Board of Directors of M/s SVSL had asked Anil Kumar Saxena, Manoj Maheshwari and Anand Nandkishore Sarda to furnish any false/wrong informations to MoS or MoC or Govt. of Maharashtra or any other department or authority to secure allocation of coal blocks.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 152 of 269
387. He deposed that during investigation he did not find any evidence to show that the Board of Directors of M/s SVSL were aware of the fact that Anil Kumar Saxena, Manoj Maheshwari and Anand Nandkishore Sarda had furnished false/wrong informations to the MoS, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of Maharashtra or other departments/authorities to secure allocation of coal blocks.
388. He proved affidavit u/s 296 CrPC of Sh. Sunit Kumar Pal, Dy. SP, EO-III, CBI, New Delhi, presently posted at ACB, CBI, Dehradun as Ex. P-318/PW-16 (Colly.).
389. In cross-examination, statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 14.01.2017 of Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal was exhibited as Ex. P-319/PW-16.
390. It has come that PW-16 had not informed the handwriting experts that Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal was suffering from Parkinson's disease.
391. He told that in expenditure towards Power Project under the head of Capital Work in Progress in Ex. P-59 (Colly.) is Rs.2,62,500/- as on dt. 31.03.2003.
392. He admitted that as on 31.03.2004, there was no consulation fee. But a consultation fee of Rs. 228434.00 as on 31.03.2003 was shown.
393. He denied that he had not conducted the investigation in CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 153 of 269 fair manner.
394. He told that he did not examine any Board Resolution of the company for changing the head from 'the expenditure incurred under the head of 'Power Project' to under the head of 'consultancy fee' as on 31.03.2005. He also did not examine any of the Director or the Officers for changing the head from 'the expenditure incurred under the head of Power Project' to under the head of 'consultancy fee' as on 31.03.2005.
395. He stated that there was no change of head of the expenditure from year 2003, 2004 to year 2005 under head of 'Power Project' to under the head of the 'Consultancy Fee'.
396. He denied all the suggestions that capacity of Sponge Iron Plant could be increased by using different techniques.
397. Statement of Sh. P.C. Parekh dated 09.02.2016 u/s 161 CrPC is Ex. P-320/PW-16.
398. He admitted that at the time of preparation of Techno Economic Viability Report (Ex. P-233/PW-13 (Colly.)), Sh. Ram Niwas Daga, Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal and Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal were the Directors of the company M/s SVSL.
399. He told that he had examined D-257 during investigation and which was in Marathi language and the same is Mark P- 321/PW-16). He had also seized the document D-258 which is Mark P-322/PW-16.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 154 of 269
400. He told that he had got many documents translated which were in Marathi language.
401. He admitted that he had not visited the site of the project during investigation.
402. He admitted that he had not examined the Gram Panchayat people to find out whether there was any construction in pre existence at the site of the power project.
403. It has come that A-6 Manoj Maheshwari became Director of M/s SVSL on 17.11.2005, after allocation of coal block and he resigned on 27.03.2006, as reflected in Ex. P-275/PW-15 (Colly) (Page 615, D-131).
PART - D STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CRPC
404. Statements of A-5 Anil Kumar Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda were thereafter recorded u/s 313 CrPC in detail. Liberty was also given to the accused persons to file their written statements u/s 313 (5) CrPC. However, they did not file any written statement u/s 313(5) CrPC. On 02.06.2023, Advocate Sh. Guneet Sidhu filed an application stating that Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai vide order dated 10.04.2023 had finally appointed Mr. Avil Jerome Menezes as Resolution Professional ("RP") and stated that the RP in his financial capacity did not wish to undertake the proceedings u/s CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 155 of 269 313 CrPC and accordingly the proceedings u/s 313 CrPC qua A-1 company were dispensed with.
PART - E THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE
405. A-5, A-6 and A-7 led evidence in their defence.
406. DW-1 is Moreshwar Rajeram Gedam. He was Village Sarpanch from the year 1993 to 2003 of village Heti (Ukarwahi).
407. He deposed that he had issued NOC to M/s SVSL for establishing sponge iron plant (annually 1 Lac Ton), power plant (10 MW) and steel plant (annually 1 Lac Ton).
408. He was also one of the witness to the sale deeds of the land executed in favour of M/s SVSL which are Mark D-1/DW- 1 and D-2/DW-1.
409. He told that Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal had approached him with application for grant of NOC in favour of M/s SVSL Alongwith the application, he had annexed documents related to the land, construction plan and map.
410. The NOC/Resolution bearing his signature is Mark D- 3/DW-1 (Page No. 259 & 260 of D-87). The covering letter is at page 258 of D-87.
411. He deposed that in the year 2003, the sponge iron plant of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 156 of 269 M/s SVSL had started working. He also deposed that from the year 2003 to 2005, the water tank, the big chimney and godown of the power plant were constructed on the land of M/s SVSL The said power plant was about 500 to 600 meters away from his house.
412. He told that there was a condition at the time of issuance of NOC that the villagers would be employed as a worker in the construction. In view of the same, he used to visit at the site to verify alongwith the committee members whether the employees who were working there are from village or not. They found that there were employees of three villages of the Panchayat as the non-technical employees and the technical employees were from outside the village. After seeing photograph Mark X-1, Page No. 47 & 48, he told that the bigger chimney is of the power plant and the smaller is of sponge iron plant.
413. He told that CBI never made enquiries from him.
414. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that as Page No.1 of D-87 which he deposed to have been received alongwith the application for NOC is dt. 07.05.2004, he was deposing falsely in that regard.
415. He denied that Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal never approached him for issuing NOC. He could not show any document that sponge iron plant had started working in 2003.
416. DW-2 is Vikram Premnath Hinge. He had joined M/s CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 157 of 269 SVSL as Graduate Engineer Trainee (Mechanical) in November 2003 and he worked there till January, 2006. He deposed that from November, 2003, I looked after mechanical maintenance and CPP project. In March/April, 2004, he was made Asst. Engineer in the company but he continued doing the same work.
417. He had produced a Certificate dt. 20.01.2006 bearing signature of A-5/A.K. Saxena issued on a letterhead of M/s SVSL and it mentioned that he had worked in the company from 01.11.2003 to 20.01.2006. He told that this certificate was issued at the time of his leaving the said job. The certificate is Ex. D- 4/DW-2.
418. He told that the company was managed by Sh. Shiv Agrawal, Sh. Vimal Agrawal, Manoj Maheshwari and Anand Sarda.
419. He used to report Sh. A.K. Saxena and sometimes to Sh. Shiv Agrawal regarding Project. The Project was regarding 15 MW Captive Power Plant at Umred by M/s SVSL He deposed that the work of the power plant was started around 2004 after 2- 3 months of his joining.
420. He used to supervise the Project and used to look after erection and commission of equipments like chimney, ESP (Electro Static Precipitator) which is a kind of Pollution Control Equipment for Boiler, Induced Draft Fan, Gas Conditioning Tower with pump station, control panel room, coal shed etc. in CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 158 of 269 relation to the Captive Power Plant.
421. He too was shown photograph at Page 47 of Mark X-1 and told that it was showing the sponge iron plant with two chimneys at Point A & B, GCT at Point C, ESP at Point D, Control Panel at Point E and Chimney of Power Plant at Point F. Second photograph at the same page is of sponge iron plant with Rotary Kiln at Point G.
422. The photographs at Page 48 are of the sponge iron plant and chimney of captive power plant from another angle.
423. He told that when he was working with M/s SVSL, the sponge iron plant and captive power plant were in the same condition as is appearing in the photographs.
424. In cross-examination, he told that he had also worked with M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. as he had rejoined on 02.05.2006 and worked till January, 2017.
425. He told that he was not aware of any inquiry/investigation against M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. or SVSL.
426. He denied the suggestion that he was not looking after the work as deposed to by him. He denied the suggestion that Ex. D- 4/DW-2 is forged/fabricated document or that it had been prepared later on in collusion with accused persons.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 159 of 269
427. He admitted that photographs appearing at Page No. 47 & 48 of Mark X-1 do not bear the name of M/s SVSL
428. DW-3 is Hema Deshpande. She is from Maharshtra Pollution Control Board ("MPCB"). She had joined MPCB in 1998 as Field Officer and presently she was posted as Regional Officer in at Nagpur since July, 2023.
429. She had brought File No. SRO-II/N-827/2 of M/s SVSL duly maintained in MPCB.
430. She deposed that she had visited the site of M/s SVSL on 12.07.2007 for field inspection as there were many complaints against the company in respect of pollution. She had prepared one Report also in that regard. Copy of the said Report dt.12.07.2007 is Mark D-5/DW-3. She told that Original of the report was not traceable. One copy of Analysis Report dt. 31.03.2008 in respect of Stack Emission Monitoring of M/s SVSL available in the File was also taken on record as Mark D- 6/DW-3. Similarly one copies of Inspection Reports dt. 16.01.2008 and 12.02.2008 in respect of visits of the Officers of the MPCB at the site of M/s SVSL available in the File were also taken on record as Ex. D-7/DW-3 and Ex. D-8/DW-3.
431. A copy of RTI reply dt. 09.05.2023 with letter no. MPC/SRN-II/483/2023 issued by MPCB, Nagpur was also taken on record as Ex. D-9/DW-3.
432. She told that the certified copy of letter dt. 31.05.2004 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 160 of 269 annexed with the RTI reply is the report of the Regional Officer Mr. V.M. Motghare to the Member Secretary, MPCB. The original of this report was not traceable in their office as it was very old record. The copy of the letter was sent by Regional Office to Member Secretary and one copy to the Sub Regional Office, MPCB, Nagpur-II.
433. The certified copy of Analysis Report dt. 28.11.2005 annexed with the RTI reply is the report of Sh. N.G. Nihul, the then Sub Regional Officer-II, MPCB, Nagpur. The original of this report was also not traceable in their office as it was very old record.
434. The copy of RTI application dt. 25.04.2023 is Ex.D- 10/DW-3.
435. In cross-examination, she could not tell exact date, month or year of her visit to the said site as it was an old matter.
436. However, she denied the suggestion that as she had visited the site of M/s SVSL 4-5 times, she knew well Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena and Sh. Manoj Maneshwari.
437. She was also cross-examined about non-availability of originals of various documents as noted in her examination-in- chief. She denied the suggestion that she in connivance with the accused persons inserted the photocopies Mark D-5/DW-3, Mark D-6/DW-3, Ex.D-7/DW-3, Ex.D-8/DW-3, photocopy of letter dt.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 161 of 269 31.05.2004 referred to in para 16 of her examination-in-chief and photocopy of report dt. 28.11.2005 referred to in para 17 of her examination-in-chief in the file of MPCB.
438. DW-4 is Syed Faizal Huda. He was produced by the defence as a Forensic Handwriting and Finger Print Expert.
439. He had examined the questioned signatures marked as Q-236, Q-237, Q-239, Q-240, Q-241 and Q-242 in comparison with the admitted/specimen signatures of the Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari and Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal.
440. After examining the same, he prepared a detailed and comprehensive report dt. 29.09.2023 which is running into 133 pages and is Ex. D-11/DW-4 (Colly.).
441. He deposed that the above referred documents containing questioned and admitted/ specimen signatures were also examined by Sh. Syed Faisal Huda, who is his brother and he is also working as an independent forensic expert. He is having the same qualifications as himself. They both are working together. The report Ex. D-11/DW-4 also bears his brother's signature.
442. He deposed that on the basis of forensic examination and comparison of the questioned signatures with the comparative signatures of Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Sh. Manoj Maheshwari and Sh. Vimal Kumar Agrawal, he had arrived at the following definite opinions:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 162 of 269
a) that the questioned signatures marked as Q-236 and Q-
237 are the genuine signatures and have been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, who has given his specimen signature on the specimen sheet in his own writing style marked as S-54 to S-58 and S-172 to S-185 and admitted signatures marked as A-1 to A-38;
b) that the questioned signature marked as Q-239 in the name of Shiv Agarwal has not been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, who has given the specimen signatures on the specimen sheets in the name of Shiv Agarwal marked as S-62 to S- 64 and S-208 to S-218;
c) that the questioned signature marked as Q-239 in the name of Shiv Agarwal has not been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Shiv Agarwal, who has given the specimen signatures on the specimen sheets in his own writing style marked as S-81 to S-88;
d) that the questioned signature marked as Q-240 in the name of Manoj Maheshwari is a genuine signature and it has been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Manoj Maheshwari, who has given his specimen sig- nature on the specimen sheet in his own writing style marked as S-73 to S-80;
e) that the questioned signature marked as Q-241 in the name of Manoj Maheshwari has not been signed/made by the one and the same person Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, who has given the specimen signature on the speci- men sheet in the name of Manoj Maheshwari marked as S- 65 to S-67 and S-186 to S-196;
f) that the questioned signature marked as Q-241 in the name of Manoj Maheshwari has not been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Manoj Maheshwari, who has given the specimen signature on the specimen sheet in his own writing style marked as S-73 to S-80;
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 163 of 269
g) that the questioned signature marked as Q-242 in the name of Vimal Kumar Agarwal has not been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Anand Nandkishore Sarda, who has given the specimen signature on the specimen sheet in the name of Vimal Kumar Agar- wal marked as S-59 to S-61 and S-197 to S-207; and
h) that the questioned signature marked as Q-242 in the name of Vimal Kumar Agarwal has not been written/signed by the one and the same person Sh. Vimal Kumar Agarwal, who has given his specimen signature in his own writing style on the specimen sheet marked as S- 89 to S-100.
443. He was subjected to detailed cross-examination by Ld. DLA. He was questioned about his claim of being an Expert in handwriting and signature comparison.
444. He admitted that now a days due to advancement of technology, photographs of specimen as well questioned signatures can be distorted. He also told that opinion of two hand-writing experts may differ with each other but it is not always necessary.
445. He denied that he had distorted the admitted/specimen signature of Anand Nandkishore Sarda and questioned signatures Q-239, Q-241 & Q-242 in the photographs in order to give favourable report in favour of the said accused. He denied that in respect of examination of Q 239, Q-241 and Q-242, he was not certain in his opinion because his opinion was solely based on photographs. He denied the suggestion that his Report CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 164 of 269 Ex.D-11/DW-4 (Colly.) was incorrect report.
446. He was given specific suggestions regarding specimen of A-7 being similar with questioned signatures which he denied.
PART - F THE ARGUMENTS
447. Detailed final arguments in the matter were heard as were addressed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. DLA on behalf of CBI, by Ms. Rebecca M. John, Ld. Senior Advocate for A-5, by Sh. Mohit Mathur, Ld. Senior Advocate for A-6 and by Sh. P.K. Dubey, Ld. Senior Advocate for A-7.
448. Ms. Ritika Vohra, Advocate for Resolution Professional Sh. Avil Jerome Menzes for A-1 company M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. gave a detailed statement that they did not wish to address final arguments on behalf of A-1 company.
449. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of A-5, A-6 and A-7.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
450. Ld. DLA has segregated the charges against the accused persons A-5 to A-7 allegation-wise. The same gives better understanding of the allegations. The same are as under:
Against A-5 A.K. Saxena:-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 165 of 269 Allegation No. 1: That A-5 submitted application dated 15.01.2004 (Ex. P-2 (Colly.)) to MoC containing false claim about capacity of the Sponge Iron Plant being 75000 MTPA whereas it was actually 60000 MTPA.
Allegation No. 2: That A-5 gave similar application (Ex. P- 111/PW-3 (Colly.)) to MoS and contained false claim about capacity.
Allegation No. 3: That A-5 submitted false information to the 23rd Screening Committee held on 29.11.2004 regarding capacity being 75000 MTPA.
Allegation No. 4: That A-5 submitted false information to 28th Screening Committee held on 15.04.2005 claiming that A-1 company had obtained in-principle clearance from PFC whereas it was not so.
Against A-6 Manoj Maheshwari:-
Allegation No. 1: That A-6 submitted letter dated 30.10.2004 (Ex. P-4) to MoC and sent alongwith it letter dated 24.05.2004 (Ex. P-118/PW-4) mentioning falsely that CPP was under
construction and financial tie-up was complete for CPP.
Allegation No. 2: That A-6 alongwith A-5 provided false information to the 28th Screening Committee held on 15.04.2005 claiming that A-1 company had obtained in-principle clearance from PFC whereas it was not so.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 166 of 269 Against A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda:-
Allegation No. 1: That A-7 submitted letter dated 02.07.2004 (Ex. P-5) to MoC falsely pretending himself as 'Director' of SVSL and submitted false information regarding capacity being 75000 MTPA and also furnished letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra claiming that CPP was under construction.
Allegation No. 2: That A-7 submitted similar letter dated 02.07.2004 (Ex. P-5) to MoS falsely pretending himself as 'Director' of SVSL and submitted false information regarding capacity being 75000 MTPA and also furnished letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra claiming that CPP was under construction.
Allegation No. 3: That A-7 submitted letter dated 21.10.2004 (Ex. P-86/PW-1) to MoC by forging signature of Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Director of SVSL and containing false information regarding implementation of CPP and also sent copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP was under construction.
Allegation No. 4: That A-7 submitted letter dated 23.11.2004 (Ex. P-87/PW-1) to MoC by forging signature of Vimal Kumar Agrawal, Director of SVSL and containing false information that site work for CPP had commenced and that there was financial tie-up with PFC. Again copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra was sent alongwith this letter.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 167 of 269 Allegation No. 5: That A-7 submitted letter dated 25.10.2004 (Ex. P-91/PW-1) to MoP by forging signature of Manoj Maheshwari, Director of SVSL and also enclosed copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra, mentioning that CPP was under construction.
451. Ld. DLA argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Referring to the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents, he submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges. He emphasized that the conspiracy among the accused persons stands established and the offences of cheating and forgery are clearly made out.
452. Ld. DLA referred to the application dated 15.01.2004 (D-5, Page 1-106/C) submitted by A-1 company to MoC. This application has been signed by A-5 A. K. Saxena. Ld. DLA submitted that in this application false information was submitted to MoC regarding capacity of the plant. The application is Ex. P- 2 (Colly.). In the application the capacity of the plant is stated as 75000 MTPA. Ld. DLA submitted that in fact the capacity was less. He referred to Form ER-7 for the year 2009-10 (Ex. P- 138/PW-6 (Colly.) D-202, Page 8). As per this Form ER-7, the capacity of the plant was 60000 MTPA. Further as per Ex. P- 131/PW-6 (Colly.) (D-195), the actual production was 23,777.660 MTPA for the year 2009-10. Ld. DLA referred to the financial statements also which were for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 (Ex. P-141/PW-7 and Ex. P-142/PW-7, D-352) and CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 168 of 269 submitted that capacity was less than 75000 MTPA in these documents also. He referred to another document (Ex. P-44, D- 222, Page-1) which was consent to operate sponge iron plant dated 08.04.2003 and as per this document consent was given to operate sponge iron plant of capacity 60000 MTPA.
453. Ld. DLA referred to testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Rajender Singh Negi, PW-6 Sh. Deepak Salodkar, PW-7 Sh. Dilip Kumar Jain, PW-8 Sh. Balkisan Bang, PW-9 Sh. Maruti Dhondu Upare, PW-10 Sh. Vishal Vimal Agrawal, PW-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Agrawal in this regard. He also referred to balance sheet as on 31.03.2004 (Ex. P-160/PW-8 (Colly.), D-5, Page 174-203) and Certificate of Entitlement, issued by Sales Tax Department dated 10.03.2003 ( Ex. P-163/PW-9, D-45, Page 1).
454. Ld. DLA argued that false information regarding capacity was also furnished to the 23rd Screening Committee. In this context he referred to the attendance sheet (Ex. P-82/PW- 1(Colly), D-78, page 77 & 78). The said attendance sheet has been signed by A-5 A.K. Saxena. He referred to Ex. P-181/PW12 (Colly.), D-117 which is report of handwriting expert PW-12 confirming signature of A.K. Saxena. It was again submitted on behalf of A-1 company that the capacity of the sponge iron plant was 75000 MTPA whereas installed capacity was 60000 MTPA. He referred to the documents mentioned above to show the falsity in this claim of the company.
455. Ld. DLA further pointed out that vide application dated CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 169 of 269 15.01.2004 submitted to the MoS (Ex. P-111/PW-3, D-13, Page-
2), false information was submitted to the said Ministry and capacity was stated as 75000 MTPA whereas actual installed capacity was 60000 MTPA. He referred to testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Deependra Kashiva, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-14 in this regard.
456. Ld. DLA submitted that another allegation against accused persons is that they submitted false information in the 28th Screening Committee claiming that A-1 company had obtained "In-principle clearance" from Power Finance Corporation (PFC) whereas no such communication was issued from PFC. Ld. DLA referred to D-41 i.e. attendance sheet signed by A-5 A.K. Saxena Ex. P-104/PW1 (Colly.). He also referred to the report of the handwriting expert/CFSL expert in this regard Ex. P-181/PW12 (Colly.), D-117. According to this report, signatures of A-5 A.K. Saxena has been confirmed on the attendance sheet. He further referred to testimonies of PW-12 Ms. Lavang Lata, PW-10 and PW-14 and further PW-5 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan in this regard.
457. Ld. DLA submitted that A-6 Manoj Maheshwari submitted letter dated 30.10.2004 (Ex. P-4, D-5, Page 232-234) to MoC and submitted copy of one letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra mentioning that CPP was under
construction and financial tie up was completed for CPP whereas it was not so. Ld. DLA argued that no construction had taken CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 170 of 269 place when this claim was made by accused Manoj Maheshwari. He referred to testimonies of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-10, PW-11 Sh. Purushottam Madavi, PW-13 Sh. Jai Thomas, PW-14 in this regard. In the letter dated 24.05.2004 it was stated that CPP was under construction. Ld. DLA submitted that there was no construction of any CPP till 2008. Ld. DLA submitted that accused Manoj Maheshwari also misrepresented about financial tie-up. He referred to testimonies of PW-10 and PW-13 and pointed out that from their statements, it is apparent that no construction of CPP was there till 2008.
458. Similarly misrepresentation was made regarding financial tie up with Central Bank of India. Ld. DLA referred to letter dated 29.01.2004 from Central Bank of India to SVSL (Ex. P- 174/PW-11, Page 127-128, D-5). As per this document in principle approval was subject to some conditions and those conditions remained unfulfilled.
459. Ld. DLA submitted that A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda submitted letter dated 02.07.2004 (D-5, Page 165-212) to MoC which is Ex. P-5. Similar letter was also submitted to MoS which is Ex. P-116/PW-3 (D-30, Page 112-152). Both these letters are signed by accused Anand Nandkishore Sarda as 'Director' of A-1 company. In this letter, there were misrepresentations regarding Anand Nandkishore Sarda being Director; regarding capacity; regarding CPP construction and regarding in principle sanction from Central Bank of India. He referred to testimonies of PW-1, CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 171 of 269 PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14. He also referred to various documents as already mentioned to show that capacity was less than what was claimed.
460. He referred to documents D-5, D-45, D-195, D-202, D- 222, D-256, D-301, D-131, D-314, D-352 and D-358 and to show that A-7 was not the director at the time of sending letter dated 02.07.2004.
461. Regarding misrepresentation that CPP was under
construction, Ld. DLA referred to PW-4, PW-10, PW-13 and PW-
14. He also referred to D-314 and D-256 to show that no such construction was going on.
462. Regarding in-principle sanction from Central Bank, Ld. DLA referred to evidence of PW-11 and PW-13 and documents D-5, D-301 and D-131.
463. Ld. DLA relied upon the following case law:
i. R. K. Dalmia vs Delhi Administration) AIR 1962 SC 1821) (1978 Crl.L.J 189 SC.
ii. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan, 1987 Crl.L.J. 709, AIR 1987 SC 773.
iii. M.S.Reddy Vs. State Inspector of Police, 1993 Crl.L.J. 558 AP iv. Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 Crl.L.J 4215 v. State to Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini, 1999 Crl.L.J. 3124 vi. Yashpal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab, 1977(4) SCC 540 vii. Kehar Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1989 Crl.L.J. 1 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 172 of 269 viii. Adnan Bilal Mulla V/s. State of Maharsthra, 2006 Crl.L.J.564). ix. Yogesh Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl.L.J.3872.
x. State Vs. K. Narasimhachary 2006 Cr. L. J. 518(Feb.) xi. Gobin Saikia Vs. State of Assam 2006 Crl. L. J. 1815. xii. Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 561 (SC).
xiii. Sunil V/s. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR (Cri.) 314. xiv. Rajeshwar Vs. State, 1992 Crl. L. J.661(Mad), 1996 Crl. L. J.
889(SC) xv. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 568 SC xvi. Motty Philipose and another V/s. State of Kerala, 2006 Crl.L.J. 2271 xvii. Sushil Kumar Datta V/s. The State, 1985 Crl.L.J. 1948, xviii. Ishwarlal Girdharilal, AIR 1969 SC 40 xix. Ram Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1998 Crl. L. J. 502 xx. Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. 1980 Crl. L. J. 396 (SC). xxi. Karamjit Singh Vs. State, 2003 Cr. L. J. 2021.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-1 TUML
464. As already mentioned hereinbefore, Ld. Counsel Ms. Ritika Vohra for Resolution Professional of A-1 company did not address any arguments on behalf of the company but only informed that A-1 company is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble NCLT Mumbai filed by Bank of Baroda against A-1 company M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-5 A.K. SAXENA
465. Ld. Senior Counsel Ms. Rebecca M. John opened her CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 173 of 269 submissions by contending that no false information was supplied to either MoC, MoS or MoP.
466. She referred to the application for allocation of coal block dated 15.01.2004 [(Ex.P-2 (Colly), D-5 page 36] submitted to MoC as well as [Ex. P-111/PW-3, D-13, Page-2] submitted to MoS. Ld. Senior Counsel contended that no false information was provided in the said applications.
467. Regarding the claim qua capacity of the sponge iron plant, Ld. Senior Counsel highlighted that the capacity though formally was 60000 MTPA but there is material on record to show that it was possible to achieve 75000 MTPA capacity in the same plant. She referred to statement of PW-13 Jai Thomas. She also referred to ER-7 Forms [Ex. P-138/PW-6 (Colly.)(D-202)] and contended that it is apparent from the said testimony of the witnesses and documents that increased capacity was achievable. Ld. Senior Counsel argued that the statement of PW-14 to the contrary is to be ignored as it is merely an oral statement.
468. Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that sponge iron capacity was not a requirement of the guidelines and, therefore, no offence is made out.
469. Alternatively, Ld. Sr. Counsel also put forth that the capacity of 60000 MTPA was also in the knowledge of MoS and thus there was no misrepresentation. She referred to office memorandum dated 10.08.2004 [Ex. 117/PW-3, (D-13)] wherein CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 174 of 269 capacity is mentioned as 60000 MTPA. She pointed out that PW- 3 had attended the 28th Screening Committee meeting and there also the capacity is mentioned as 60000 MTPA. She referred to the explanation given by this witness that 60000 MTPA was in relation to the application for coal linkage and not for coal block allocation and contended that the explanation is devoid of any substance because in any case i.e. whether coal linkage or coal block allocation, it was with respect to the same Sponge Iron Plant.
470. Ld. Sr. Counsel thus contended that even the MoS was aware of the capacity of the plant as 60000 MTPA and, therefore, there could not have been any inducement.
471. Regarding financial closure, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that financial closure was required only in case of green field projects. She pointed out that project of A-1 company was not a green field project. She also pointed out that financial closure was required only later on and that too only for the approval of the mining plan. She referred to documents i.e. guidelines [Ex. P-76/PW-1], additional guidelines [Ex. P-79/PW- 1] and note on amendment of guidelines [Ex. P-76/PW-1] in this regard.
472. She also submitted that the letter regarding financial closure i.e. in-principle approval was in fact issued by the Central Bank of India vide letter dated 29.01.2004. She vehemently submitted that accused at no point of time made any claim that CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 175 of 269 in-principle approval was issued by PFC. She submitted that it is wrongly recorded in the minutes of the MoC that accused had claimed in-principle approval from PFC. She contended that it was misreading or misconception on the part of MoC for which accused cannot be held liable. She also pointed out that the application dated 15.01.2004 was in fact submitted to MoC on 06.02.2004 and by which date letter dated 29.01.2004 was received from Central Bank of India.
473. Regarding letter dated 24.05.2004 of the Govt. of Maharashtra, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that accused never claimed or represented to the Govt. of Maharashtra that CPP was under construction. Therefore, the mention about construction of CPP in the letter of Govt. of Maharashtra has to be explained by them as to why they mentioned so. She submitted that there is no material on record to show that accused ever represented so to the Govt. of Maharashtra.
474. Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to the additional guidelines and office notings of MoC and contended that financial closure was not required in the case of A-1 company. She pointed out that on 15.01.2004, there was already existing a term loan and working capital limit from Central Bank of India in favour of A-1 company. She referred to letter dated 29.01.2004 of the said bank wherein the term "in-principle" has been used. She submitted that copy of this letter was annexed with the application for allocation and thus there was no incorrect statement on the part CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 176 of 269 of A-1 company as well as A-5.
475. She also referred to the communication between PFC and Central Bank of India [Ex. P-175/PW-11, D-247] wherein Central Bank had stated that the rating of the account of A-1 company was A++. She also referred to the minutes of the 23 rd Screening Committee wherein also the rating is mentioned as A++. Thereafter she referred to the minutes to the 28 th Screening Committee where only it has been mentioned that 'Triple A' rating has been imputed to the A-1 company. Ld. Sr. Counsel vehemently contended that this is an error on the part of the Screening Committee, MoC for which accused persons should not suffer. Ld. Sr. Counsel also submitted that the in-principle sanction was never withdrawn by the Central Bank of India. She submitted that evidence of PW-11 who is from Central Bank of India does not carry much weight as he was not involved in the process. She highlighted that even the IO has admitted that financial closure was not required. Ld. Sr. Counsel thus contended that if financial closure was not required, any representation qua the same was of no effect. She asserted that entire prosecution with respect to financial closure is misplaced, misguided and without any merit. She also criticized the evidence of PW-1 submitting that he was only a clerical official.
476. She also labelled the investigation by IO/PW-16 as defective since IO did not even visit the site of the plant to verify various facts.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 177 of 269
477. Ld. Senior Counsel also vehemently submitted that A-1 company was already engaged in one of the end uses i.e. production of sponge iron and as such was eligible to apply as per Sec. 3(3)(a)(iii) of CMN Act.
478. Ld. Counsel for A-5 A.K. Saxena relied upon the following case law:
i. R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha and Others (2004) 2 SCC 9. ii. Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and Others (2011) 15 SCC 398.
iii. Deepak Gaba Vs. State of U.P. (2023) 3 SCC 423. iv. M N G Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Anr.
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1061.
v. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751.
vi. Sheila Sebastian Vs. Jawaharaj & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 581. vii. H. Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240. viii. Employees State Insurance Corp. Vs. M/s Kanti Moulding Machine & Anr. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 305.
ix. Shashi Lata Khanna Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 757.
x. V.C. Shukla Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 665. xi. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166. xii. Sait Tarajee Khimchand & Ors. Vs. Yelamarti Satyam @ Satteyya & Ors. (1972) 4 SCC 562.
xiii. Rammi Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649. xiv. Tahsildar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012. xv. Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Chongtham Manihar Singh & Anr. (1996) 11 SCC 622.
xvi. Juwarsingh S/o Bheraji & Ors. Vs. Sate of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 (Supp) SCC 417.
xvii. Dr. Vimla Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1963(2) CriLJ 434. xviii. State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 203.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 178 of 269 xix. Leo Roy Frey & Thomas Dana Vs. The Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar & Anr. AIR 1958 SC 119.
xx. CBI, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512. xxi. Kehar Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1988 3 SCC 609.
xxii. Vijay Vs. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2023 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 29.11.2023.
479. Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to R. Sai Bharathi (supra) and Syndicate Bank (supra) to contend that violation of guidelines which have no statutory backing is not punishable. She contended that the guidelines of the MoC were not issued under any statutory power and, therefore, their violation was not punishable.
480. In Deepak Gaba's case (supra) and M N G Bharateesh Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the ingredients of the offence of cheating.
481. Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr. (supra) and submitted that there was no forgery as A-5 had signed in his own name. She submitted that there was no cheating either. She also relied upon Sheila Sebastian (supra) in this regard.
482. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon H. Siddiqui, ESIC and Shashi Lata Khanna (all supra) to submit that photocopies relied upon by prosecution were inadmissible. She contended that foundational evidence was not brought by the prosecution to rely upon photocopies of documents. She relied upon Vijay Vs. UOI (supra).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 179 of 269
483. Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that testimonies of PW-10 and PW-14 are to be ignored as both of them were interested witnesses and were accomplices rather. She relied upon V.C. Shukla Vs. State (supra) in this regard.
484. She also relied upon Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) and contended that defence witnesses deserve same respect as prosecution witnesses and their evidence should be given same value and equal treatment.
485. She relied upon Sait Tarajee Khimchand (supra) and contended that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not prove the contents.
486. She also referred to Rammi @ Rameshwar (supra) and Tehsildar Singh (supra) and submitted that cross-examination is not the only way to discredit a witness. She also referred to Juwarsingh (supra) in this regard.
487. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon P. Sugathan (supra) and contended that conspiracy has not been proved by the prosecution against any of the accused or at least against A-5. She highlighted that the circumstances which are sought to be proved by the prosecution to prove the conspiracy should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence. She contended that conspiracy cannot be proved merely on suspicion or surmises. She relied upon CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra) and Kehar Singh (supra).
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 180 of 269
488. Ld. Counsel also relied upon Dr. Vimla's case (supra) to submit that intention to defraud must exist to prove forgery.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-6 MANOJ MAHESHWARI
489. Sh. Mohit Mathur, Ld. Senior Counsel for A-6 made detailed submissions on his behalf. Referring to the charges actually framed, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the same. He submitted that the only allegation against A-6 for the substantive charge u/s 420 IPC is that he had sent letter dated 30.10.2004 and alongwith it sent a letter dated 24.05.2004 and in the said letter misrepresentation was made regarding construction of CPP. Ld. Senior Counsel contended that there is no evidence that A-6 had induced V.S. Dhumal to issue letter dated 24.05.2004. He vehemently submitted that no enclosure was sent with the said letter. He submitted that A-6 did not send letter dated 24.05.2004 alongwith his letter dated 30.10.2004.
490. Regarding letter dated 24.05.2004 of the Govt. of Maharashtra, it is contended that in the letter dated 30.10.2004, it is mentioned that the said letter dated 24.05.2004 "was on record". Therefore, letter dated 24.05.2004 was not submitted alongwith letter dated 30.10.2004. It is pointed out that the letter dated 24.05.2004 was sent directly by Govt. of Maharashtra to MoC. It is contended that as the said letter dated 24.05.2004 was already available with MoC/MoS, there was no misrepresentation CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 181 of 269 in that regard.
491. Ld. Senior Counsel contended that A-1 company had sought coal block for sponge iron plant and not for captive power plant and therefore misrepresentation, even if assumed to have been made by A-6, had no influence or use in allocation of coal block. He also pointed out that a letter dated 10.05.2004 has been referred to in the letter dated 24.05.2004 of V.S. Dhumal. However, prosecution has failed to bring this letter dated 10.05.2004 on record and thus adverse inference must be drawn against him. He expressed his doubt that this letter was probably the basis of issuing the letter dated 24.05.2004 and probably it was against the case of prosecution and that is why it has been withheld. He further pointed out that letter dated 30.10.2004 was in fact submitted with MoC on 08.11.2004, therefore, he submitted that this letter was of no effect.
492. Regarding second part of the substantive charge, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the allegation is that A-6 furnished false information to the 28 th Screening Committee. He read out the minutes of the 28th Screening Committee and in the same it is mentioned that whatever was stated before the 23 rd Screening Committee was considered at that time. He thus canvassed that in the 28th Screening Committee, no representation much less any misrepresentation was made. Ld. Senior Counsel also read out the minutes of the 23rd Screening Committee. He submitted that A-6 never attended 23rd Screening Committee.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 182 of 269
493. It is also contended that prosecution has failed to prove that A-6 had attended the 28th Screening Committee meeting. It is stated that name of A-6 is not mentioned in the list of participants. It is also pointed out that there were two CEOs in A-1 company on the said date. He also pointed out that prosecution has failed to prove that A-6 attended the 28 th Screening Committee as well. He contended that thus prosecution has failed to prove making of any misrepresentation on the part of A-6 either before the 23 rd Screening Committee or 28th Screening Committee.
494. Regarding conspiracy charge, he submitted that except sending letter dated 30.10.2004, there is no role of A-6. He referred to various documents to show that it was Shiv Kumar Agrawal or Vimal Kumar Agrawal who were pursuing the matter of allocation of coal block to SVSL. He submitted that both these persons were actually controlling the affairs of the A-1 company.
495. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that in the statement u/s 313 CrPC, there is no question putting any incriminating circumstance regarding making of misrepresentation by A-6 and therefore benefit of the same should be given to the accused.
496. It is also contended in the written submissions that even as per the judgment in Manohar Lal's case (supra), A-1 company was entitled for allocation of coal block. It is contended that as the company was entitled for allocation, there could not have been any wrongful gain to the company.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 183 of 269
497. It is also contended that the allocation letter has been held to be not 'property' in the judgment of Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087 and, therefore, there can not be any offence u/s 420 IPC.
498. It is also contended that no evidence has been brought by the prosecution to show when the conspiracy was hatched between the accused persons. He contended that conspiracy has to be prequel and act has to be sequel.
499. Ld. Counsel for A-6 Manoj Maheshwari relied upon the following case law:
i. Veeda Menezes Vs. Yusuf Khan & Ors., MANU/SC/0085/1966. ii. John Pandian Vs. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129. iii. Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572. iv. A.P. Narang Vs. CBI, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 212. v. Indra Dalal Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31. vi. Akanksha Sharma Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 DHC 1408.
500. In Veeda Menezes case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with Sec. 95 IPC and held that any act which causes slight harm is not an offence. Ld. Sr. Counsel had contended that even if A-6 is assumed to have sent letter dated 30.10.2004 and referred to letter dated 24.05.2004, it only caused a slight harm and thus excepted u/s 95 IPC.
501. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon John Pandian's case (supra) CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 184 of 269 and Indra Dalal's case (supra) to highlight that offence of conspiracy was not made out in the present case. In A.P. Narang's case (supra), it was held that if no wrongful gain or loss is caused by the act of accused, offence of cheating is not made out.
502. Ld. Counsel also relied upon Akansha's case (supra) and submitted that no forgery was committed in the present case.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-7 ANAND NANDKISHORE SARDA
503. Sh. P.K. Dubey, Ld. Sr. Counsel for A-7 submitted that the letter dated 02.07.2004 did not have any impact on the decision of the MoC in allocation of the coal blocks in question.
504. He further contended that there was no requirement of having capacity of 75000 MTPA.
505. Regarding letter dated 24.05.2004 of the Govt. of Maharashtra, Ld. Sr. Counsel vehemently submitted that the fact regarding CPP being under construction was mentioned by the said department for reasons best known to them. He pointed out that prosecution has failed to prove as to under what circumstances or on what basis the said fact was mentioned in the said letter. He highlighted that one letter dated 10.05.2004 which was referred to in the said letter has not been produced by the prosecution.
506. Regarding evidence of PW-3, Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that PW-3 was not a decision maker and his evidence does not CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 185 of 269 carry any weight. He argued that prosecution should have produce some senior officer but they examined only PW-3. He also contended that even as per PW-3, there was no value of letter dated 24.05.2004.
507. Regarding specimen of A-7, Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the same were taken twice without explaining the need for the same. Further the specimen have been taken in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Ld. Sr. Counsel also criticized the report of PW-12 Ms. Lavang Lata, Handwriting Expert. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is admitted position that Vimal Kumar Agrawal was suffering from Parkinson's disease and therefore the sample given by Vimal Kumar Agrawal can never be said to be a good sample. Thus, reports given by PW-12 which took into consideration the said sample of Vimal Kumar Agrawal is also liable to be rejected.
508. Regarding evidence of Shiv Kumar Agrawal and Vishal Vimal Agrawal, Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that both are not reliable. He contended that Shiv Kumar Agrawal himself was liable to be prosecuted but he has been made a witness and therefore his evidence is no more good than the evidence of an accomplice. He further contended that Vishal Vimal Agrawal was himself CEO and was now trying to shift the burden to the accused persons.
509. Ld. Sr. Counsel also criticized the investigation done by PW-16 as defective and biased investigation. He submitted that CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 186 of 269 the IO had only one aim that is to save Shiv Kumar Agrawal and Vimal Kumar Agrawal and falsely prosecute the accused persons.
510. He also referred to the balance sheets and other documents and contended that the same show expenses towards construction of CPP.
511. Ld. Sr. Counsel referring to Manohar Lal Sharma's case (supra) contended that A-1 company SVSL was entitled for allocation in view of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of CMN Act as it was already engaged in production of sponge iron/steel. It is contended in the written submissions that as it has already been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case that there was no inter se comparison/comparative analysis, therefore, misrepresentations even if assumed to have been made had no effect on allocation of coal blocks. As such whether the capacity was stated as 75000 MTPA or 60000 MTPA made no difference.
512. Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the prosecution has concealed various steps which were taken by A-1 company for expansion of its Sponge Iron Plant. Reference has been made to balance sheets as on 31.03.2003 (Ex. P-155/PW-8 Colly.), as on 31.03.2004 (Ex. P-156/PW-8 Colly.) and on 31.03.2005 (Ex. P- 157/PW-8 Colly.). He further submitted that the expansion was to happen in synchronization with the mining plan.
513. Sh. P.K. Dubey, Ld. Senior Counsel for A-7 relied upon the following case law:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 187 of 269 i. Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secy. & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC
516.
ii. Vijay Vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1585. iii. Dr. Vimla Vs. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572. iv. Shashi Lata Khanna Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 757.
v. Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and Others (2011) 15 SCC 398.
vi. Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5809. vii. Deepak Gaba & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2023) 3 SCC 423. viii. M N G Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1061.
ix. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166. x. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2000 4 SCC 168.
xi. Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Chongtham Manihar Singh & Anr. (1996) 11 SCC 622.
xii. Sapan Haldar and Ors Vs. State MANU/DE/2200/2012. xiii. Rajender Kumar Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) MANU/DE/4051/2012. xiv. Raj Kumar v. State [(2012) :DHC: 6496-DB] xv. Zafar Umar Khan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) MANU/DE/0655/2013.
xvi. Anand Kumar @ Beeru & ORS. Vs. State CRL.A.No. 772/2008 decided on 03.12.2013 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. xvii. Prakash Chand Vs. State MANU/DE/0745/2014. xviii. Sanjay Vs. State MANU/DE/2926/2014. xix. Santosh Vs. State and State Vs. Neeraj, MANU/SC/0499/2023. xx. Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. Vs.. State (NCT of Delhi) CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 188 of 269 MANU/SC/0832/2016.
xxi. Rakesh Bisht v. CBI ILR (2007) I Delhi 223. xxii. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC
143.
514. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon Vijay Vs. UOI (supra) and contended that the prosecution did not prove the foundational facts for leading secondary evidence and as such prosecution can not rely upon Ex. P-91/PW-1. He also relied upon Shashi Lata Khanna (supra) to submit that as the original letter containing alleged forged signature has not been produced, the charge of forgery has not been established.
515. Ld. Sr. Counsel also relied upon Dr. Vimla's case (supra) to contend that there was no forgery as the letters which were submitted in pursuance of the application for allocation were so submitted by A-7 without there being any mens rea.
516. Ld. Sr. Counsel also vehemently contended that violation of the guidelines is not punishable as an offence. He relied upon Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai (supra) in this regard. He argued that as the guidelines were not issued in exercise of any statutory power under any statute, therefore non- compliance/violation of the same does not have penal consequences.
517. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon Doodh Nath Pandey (supra) to contend that evidence of defence witnesses is also to be CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 189 of 269 appreciated in the same manner as that of prosecution witnesses.
518. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon Ramesh Kumar (supra) and contended that various documents which were filed as relied upon documents by the prosecution were used by the accused during cross-examination and many of them were only marked instead of exhibited. He contended that despite this, the said documents could still be used by the defence.
519. Ld. Sr. Counsel also contended that since forgery has not been proved, the offence of cheating has also not been proved. He relied upon Guru Bipin Singh's case (supra).
520. Ld. Sr. Counsel also referred to Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra) and submitted that identification of accused and his handwriting has not been established fully and there are gaps in the evidence produced by the prosecution. He also referred to Tomaso Bruno (supra) and contended that evidence of PW-14 is to be looked upon with suspicion and it is not a conclusive evidence.
521. Regarding collection of handwriting specimen of A-7, Ld. Sr. Counsel had various reservations. He submitted that the whole exercise was unconstitutional and illegal. He relied upon Sapan Haldar (supra) to contend that specimen were not taken with the permission of the Magistrate and as such the report of the handwriting expert must be discarded. He also referred to Rajender Kumar @ Raju (supra), Raj Kumar (supra), Zafar CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 190 of 269 Umar Khan @ Jafar Umar (supra), Anand Kumar @ Beeru (supra) and Sanjay @ Vicky (supra) in support of the said contention.
522. Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to Section 311-A CrPC and submitted that the said provision was applicable when the specimen were taken and thus should have been complied with. He relied upon Santosh @ Bhure (supra) in this regard.
523. Ld. Sr. Counsel expressed his great disapproval of the manner of taking specimen signature of A-7. He pointed out that A-7 was made to write signature in the name of "Shiv Kumar Agrawal", "Manoj Maheswari" and "Vimal Kumar Agrawal". He contended that this process was unconstitutional and in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. He relied upon Sudhir Chaudhary (supra) and Rakesh Bisht (supra) in this regard.
REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS BY PROSECUTION
524. Ld. DLA rebutted all the contentions of the learned defence counsels.
525. He reiterated that financial closure was required prior to 07.12.2004. He contended that capacity was also relevant for inter se priority.
526. Regarding Shiv Kumar Agrawal not being prosecuted, Ld. DLA submitted that even if it is assumed that Shiv Kumar CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 191 of 269 Agrawal was liable to be prosecuted, still this does not diminish guilt of the other accused persons. He also submitted that in the communications sent by Shiv Kumar Agrawal, there was no false information about capacity or CPP.
527. He further submitted that accused Manoj Maheshwari was not merely employee and rather he was shareholder in the company. Similarly, Anand Nandkishore Sarda was also a shareholder.
528. Regarding non-examination of P.C. Parakh as a witness, Ld. DLA submitted that even if examined, evidence of P.C. Parakh would have gone against the accused persons. He also submitted that it is prerogative of the prosecution to decide as to which witnesses are to be examined to prove the charges. He relied upon Dr. Rajesh Talwar Vs. CBI, 2013 (82) ACC 303. He submitted that repetition of the same facts is to be avoided. He referred to Narpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cri.LJ 2720. He contended that if evidence of Sh. P.C. Parakh was so important for the defence, they could have summoned him and examined him.
529. Regarding objection of the defence relating to photocopies of some documents being relied upon by the prosecution i.e. letter dated 25.10.2004 written to MoP (D-5, Page 236-238), Ld. DLA referred to P.C. Purushothama Reddiar Vs. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608 wherein it was held that "Once a document is properly admitted, the contents of that CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 192 of 269 document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence". He also referred to Daya Shankar Vs. Smt. Bachi & Ors., AIR 1982 All 376, wherein it was held that where a document has been assigned an exhibit mark in the Court of the first instance without any objection by the party who later challenges its admissibility, such objection must be overruled. He also relied upon R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 4548. It was held as under in the said decision:
"The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the made of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 193 of 269 two reasons; firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court."
530. Thus Ld. DLA submitted that the objections as to mode of proof should have been taken at the time when the document was tendered in evidence and now at this final stage, the said objection can not be entertained.
531. Regarding judgment in the case of Dr. Vimla (supra), Ld. DLA submitted that the said judgment is not applicable to the present case as the facts are different because in the present case the accused had not only forged signatures but had also furnished false information through various letters.
532. Regarding there being no minimum capacity benchmark, Ld. DLA submitted that mentioning the figure of 75000 MTPA had shown preparedness of the applicant company and therefore same was relevant.
533. Regarding allocation letter not being property, Ld. DLA CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 194 of 269 referred to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) which is as under:
"61. 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."
534. As to the contention that MoS only considered TEFR as stated by PW-3, Ld. DLA contended that even then charge has been proved as the TEFR contained all the misinformations and misrepresentations. He also submitted that evidence of PW-3 has to be considered in its entirety.
535. Regarding defects in the obtainment of specimen signatures and handwritings, Ld. DLA submitted that there was nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the CBI. He relied upon Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, 2011 SCC OnLine SC 219; Rekha Sharma Vs. CBI 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7796; Baljor Singh Vs. State of UP & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine All. 6797; R. Srinevass Rao Vs. State 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5507 and State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6400.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 195 of 269 PART-G THE ANALYSIS AND DECISION OF THE COURT
536. I have carefully perused the record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the accused persons. I have also considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsels.
537. Let us take note of the points for determination at this juncture.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
538. On the basis of submissions of the respective Counsels for the parties, the following points for determination arise in the present case:
I. Whether any misrepresentation(s) was/were made in various communications/presentations submitted to MoC, MoSand MoP?
II. If any such misrepresentation(s) was/were made, as noted above, who is responsible for making the said misrepresentation(s)?
III. Did A-7 forge letter dated 02.07.2004 (containing his signature as Director of SVSL), and letters dated 21.10.2004, 25.10.2004 and 23.11.2004 (containing forged signatures of Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Manoj Maheshwari and Vimal Kumar Agrawal respectively)?
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 196 of 269 IV. What offence(s) has been committed by the accused persons?
539. In the present case, the alleged misrepresentations were made through various communications. It was also made through presentation before the 23rd and 28th Screening Committees.
540. The first of such communication is application dated 15.01.2004. This application was submitted to MoC as well as MoS.
541. The application dated 15.01.2004 submitted to MoC is Ex. P-2 (Colly.). The main application reads as under:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 197 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 198 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 199 of 269
542. The application dated 15.01.2004 submitted to MoS is Ex. P-111/PW-3. The same reads as under:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 200 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 201 of 269
543. Another instance of making misrepresentation is found in letter dated 24.05.2004 which was issued by Govt. of Maharashtra. The same is Ex. P-114/PW-3 and reads as under:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 202 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 203 of 269
544. Copy of this letter was sent alongwith various letters.
545. One such letter is dated 25.10.2004 submitted to MoP and is Ex. P-91/PW-1 ( Page 236-238, D-5) and reads as under:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 204 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 205 of 269
546. Another communication is letter dated 30.10.2004 which is (Ex. P-4, Page 232, D-5) and it was referred to in it and reads as under:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 206 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 207 of 269
547. Further such letters are letter dated 02.07.2004 [Ex. P- 116/PW-3], letter dated 21.10.2004 [Ex. P-86/PW-1] and letter dated 23.11.2004 [Ex. P-88/PW-1]. These three letters read as under:
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 208 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 209 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 210 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 211 of 269 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 212 of 269
548. Let us now discuss the points for determination.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. I:
Whether any misrepresentation(s) was/were made in various communications/presentations submitted to MoC, MoS and MoP?
549. The alleged misrepresentations were made to 23.11.2004 MoC, MoS and MoP. It will be appropriate to discuss the misrepresentations with respect to each ministry.
Misrepresentations to MoC:
550. The alleged misrepresentations can further be sub-divided as follows:
(a) Misrepresentation regarding Capacity of Sponge Iron Plant
551. Firstly, the alleged misrepresentation regarding capacity of the sponge iron plant was made in the application dated 15.01.2004 [Ex. P-2 (Colly.)] submitted to MoC. The application dated 15.01.2004 [Ex. P-2 (Colly.)] was submitted to MoC apparently on 06.02.2004. It was claimed in the application that capacity of the sponge iron plant was 75000 MTPA. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.07.2004 (Ex. P-5) again claim regarding capacity being 75000 MTPA was made to MoC. After this, on 29.11.2004 i.e. before the 23rd Screening Committee, representation was made by the company about its capacity being 75000 MTPA.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 213 of 269
552. However, as already has been observed in the order on charge dated 04.09.2020, as far as misrepresentation regarding capacity to MoC is concerned, no charge was made out in that regard. But, in the actual charge framed, there is reference of misrepresentation regarding capacity of the Sponge Iron Plant to be 75000 MTPA as mentioned in the application dated 15.01.2004. This appears to be due to oversight because as per the order on charge, this misrepresentation to MoC did not make out any offence (as held in para 162 of the order on charge). The application of A-1 was considered by the 23 rd and 28th Screening Committee. As the figure regarding capacity was corrected at the time of 28th Screening Committee, it was held in the order on charge that no case was made out warranting framing of charges regarding making of representation to MoC with respect to existing capacity of Sponge Iron Plant. Therefore, misrepresentation regarding capacity of Sponge Iron Plant in the application dated 15.01.2004 [Ex. P-2 (Colly.)] and other communications submitted to MoC is to be ignored. The said alleged misrepresentation will be discussed in detail a little later while considering the misrepresentations to MoS.
(b) Misrepresentation regarding Construction of CPP/Implementation of CPP/Site work of CPP
553. Another misrepresentation to MoC is regarding construction of Captive Power Plant/Implementation of CPP/Site work of CPP. Such misrepresentation was made to MoC vide CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 214 of 269 letter dated 02.07.2004 (Ex. P-5) with which copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra (Ex. P-118/PW-4) was annexed. It was also made vide letter dated 21.10.2004 (Ex. P- 86/PW-1) in which false information about implementation of CPP was given and again annexing copy of letter dated 24.05.2004. Such misrepresentation was also made to MoC vide letter dated 30.10.2004 (Ex. P-4). It was further made vide letter dated 23.11.2004 (Ex. P-88/PW-1) in which it was falsely mentioned that site work for CPP had commenced and again annexing copy of letter dated 24.05.2004.
554. This letter dated 24.05.2004 had been widely and extensively used by the accused persons. At no point of time any objection was raised as to its contents. Now during trial only accused persons have come up with the plea that the prosecution did not bring material to show the source of this information regarding construction of CPP. In a way, the defence is suggesting that they are not aware as to why fact regarding construction of CPP has been mentioned in the said letter of Govt. of Maharashtra. However, astonishingly, the defence also says in the same breath that no information contained in the letter dated 24.05.2004 is incorrect. Thus, they are blowing hot and cold in the same breath which is not permissible. After having used this letter multiple times in its communications, the accused persons cannot be allowed to say that the prosecution has failed to bring home the reasons for which the letter dated 24.05.2004 contained observation that captive power plant was CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 215 of 269 under construction. The accused persons used the said letter to influence the MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005 [Ex. P-108/PW-1] and MoS to issue recommendation letter/OM dated 10.08.2004 [Ex. P-90/PW-1 or Ex. P-117/PW-3 (Colly.)].
555. Regarding letter dated 24.05.2004 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra (Ex. P-118/PW-4), the defence has contended that the said letter was issued keeping in view the Sponge Iron Plant of the company and not the CPP. The defence contends that only one line in the said letter is being used by the prosecution against the accused persons. It was also contended that the said letter has a reference to two letters i.e. application dated 15.01.2004 and letter dated 10.05.2004. The defence has contended that there is no mention of construction of CPP in the application dated 15.01.2004. The prosecution, however, has not produced letter dated 10.05.2004. The defence thus contended that in all possibility the letter dated 24.05.2004 was issued in pursuance of letter dated 10.05.2004. They submit that benefit of non- production of the letter dated 10.05.2004 must be given to the accused persons.
556. I do not find any substance in these submissions. If the letter dated 10.05.2004 has not been produced by the prosecution, same could be produced by the accused persons if it was of this importance. After all, this letter was purportedly written by A-1 company to Govt. of Maharashtra. However, accused persons also made no efforts to bring this document on CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 216 of 269 record. In the absence of this document, no presumption can be drawn about its contents.
557. Reference has been made to letter dated 15.01.2004 (Mark P-322/PW-16, D-258) and it was contended that Department of Industries, Nagpur Region, Govt. of Maharashtra had issued the said letter after visiting the site. Reference is also made to letter dated 02.05.2004 (Page 108-109 D-13) which was written by A-5 to MoS and MoC and it was claimed in this letter that their project had been seen in operation by various senior govt. officers including Development Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of Maharashtra. The defence contended that this shows that plant was operational.
558. Again there is no substance in these submissions. Letter dated 15.01.2004 (Mark P-322/PW-16) is regarding request for ad hoc release of coal from WCL to A-1 company for its Sponge Iron Plant. It does not relate to construction of CPP. Further, letter dated 02.05.2004 (D-13, Page 108-109) is also with regard to Sponge Iron Plant and as such is of no use to defend misrepresentation regarding construction of CPP.
559. It was also contended that power generation was not the End Use for seeking allocation of coal block. It was submitted that power was to be generated from the waste of the sponge iron plant as well as by utilizing the heat generated from the said plant. It was highlighted that End Use was production of iron and CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 217 of 269 steel. It was also submitted that setting up of the CPP was a cost cutting measure only.
560. Elaborating the various steps taken towards setting up CPP, it was submitted that land was purchased for the CPP. Reference has been made to evidence of DW-1 and documents Mark D-1/DW-1 and D-2/DW-1. Reference has also been made to photographs Mark X-1 which purportedly shows chimney of power plant and sponge iron plant. Reference is also made to RTI reply Ex. D-9/DW-3 through which copy of report dated 31.05.2004 of Regional Officer of MPCB was obtained. The said report has reference to civil work of GCT, ESP civil work, civil work of chimney and coal storage. It was contended that all these were steps towards setting up of CPP. Reference is also made to payment of Rs. 50,000/- to Consultant for water line for the project (vide D-87 Page 236-243); water lifting permission (D- 87, Page 251-257, D-249, Page 1, Ex. P-51, Mark P-242/PW-14); and also to Board Resolution dated 09.02.2004 of SVSL (D-88, Page 113).
561. Further reference is made to audited balance sheets such as Ex. P-155/PW-8, P-156/PW-8 and P-157/PW-8. Reference is also made to provisional balance sheet (Ex. P-16, D-88 Page 131-149) and one CA certificate (D-90, Page 114). Defence has relied heavily upon balance sheets to assert that the CPP was in fact under construction. Whereas prosecution relying on the same CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 218 of 269 balance sheets says that the expenses were not towards CPP but were only towards consultation fee.
562. It was contended that prosecution has not obtained any clarification from any witness as to how expenses shown under the head "Power Project" were changed "Consultancy".
563. Reference was also made to two reports i.e. (D-252 page 1-169 and D-253 page 1-164) which were submitted by M.N. Dastur & Co. who were consultant for CPP. It was advised in the report that firstly a chimney of height of 43 metres should be installed for which consent was obtained from MPCB vide letter dated 05.10.2002 (Ex. P-241/PW-14, D-346 page 287-295). It was further advised to raise the height to 72 metres for which MPCB consent was obtained vide letter dated 26.05.2005 (Ex. P- 53, D-256). It was contended that the change in the height was necessitated as capacity of the CPP was increased from 10 MW to 15 MW. Reference is also made to minutes of meeting dated 12.03.2004 between M.N. Dastur & Co. and SVSL (D-87 Page 558-561).
564. The emphasis of the defence that CPP was under
construction gets weakened when they also take the plea that reason for mentioning 'CPP under construction' in the letter dated 24.05.2004 is not known. Thus, on the one hand they are showing their ignorance about inclusion of these words in the letter dated 24.05.2004 and on the other hand they are trying to CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 219 of 269 show that CPP was being constructed. These are mutually destructive pleas.
565. Even otherwise, the defence has not been able to show that any construction qua CPP had taken place prior to 2008. PW- 13 Jai Thomas who is from TUML has himself stated that no construction had started qua CPP before 2008. His statement is sufficient to demolish this defence. Further, in the balance sheets the amount initially shown under the heading 'Power Project' was changed to 'Consultancy'. The contention of the defence that prosecution has not clarified the reasons for this change is to be rejected as it was upon the accused to show that those expenses were towards construction. However, as a matter of fact, no construction had taken place before 2008 and, therefore, these expenses must have been towards consultancy. The onus to prove to the contrary was upon the accused persons which they have failed to discharge. The emphasis of the accused persons was on the fact that 'CPP was under construction' but no construction had taken place.
566. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have tried to show that coal blocks were sought only for the Sponge Iron Plant and not for the CPP. They wanted to convey that in-principle clearance from PFC was not relevant for obtaining allocation of coal blocks for the Sponge Iron Plant and for this reason there was no need to mention the same before the 28th Screening Committee.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 220 of 269
567. However, it cannot be said that coal blocks were sought only for Sponge Iron Plant. Captive Power Plant has been referred to in various correspondences of the accused company. It cannot be said that CPP was not in the picture at all. Though primary use of coal was for the Sponge Iron Plant but CPP was also in the frame.
568. The defence has also contended that setting up of CPP was part of second phase as mentioned in Annexure-6 of application dated 15.01.2004 (Ex. P-2 (Colly) as well as Ex. P- 111/PW-3) and thus there could not have been any inducement. Reference was also made to Annexure-7 thereof.
569. There is no substance in this contention as A-1 company had been insisting that CPP was under construction as it had widely used the letter dt. 24.05.2004. They wanted to show their better preparedness as well as necessity.
570. Regarding letter dated 21.10.2004 (Ex. P-86/PW-1), it is contended that the letter merely mentioned that the CPP was 'under implementation'. It was also contended that the prosecution did not clarify meaning of 'implementation'. Further it was contended that in this letter, reference was made to letter dated 02.05.2004 issued by A-5 (D-13, Page 108-109) in which there was one annexure i.e. Annexure-4 which is Geological Note which was authored by one Nikhil Pashine. It was argued that the words 'under implementation' were taken from this annexure. It was contended that prosecution did not examine Nikhil Pashine CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 221 of 269 to clarify meaning of 'under implementation'. It also did not examine Sujit Gulati to whom the letter was addressed. It was vehemently submitted that no charge has been framed with respect to letter dated 02.05.2004 and thus charge will not survive in respect of letter dated 21.10.2004 as well.
571. In my considered opinion, as the copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 was attached with this letter dated 21.10.2004, no doubt remained there about the words 'under implementation'. Through this letter dated 21.10.2004, it was represented that the CPP was under construction. The words 'under implementation' will definitely include the words 'under construction' which was the impression sought to be given by the accused by annexing copy of letter dated 24.05.2004. Therefore, these contentions are also rejected.
572. Similarly, misrepresentations were made to MoC in the letters dated 02.07.2004, 30.10.2004 and 23.11.2004 with respect to CPP.
573. Thus it is held that there was misrepresentation regarding construction of CPP to MoC.
(c) Misrepresentation regarding Financial Closure
574. Another misrepresentation made to MoC is about achieving financial closure. Such misrepresentation was made to MoC vide letter dated 30.10.2004 (Ex. P-4) wherein it was stated that financial tie-up was complete for CPP. It was also made vide CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 222 of 269 letter dated 23.11.2004 (Ex. P-87/PW-1) wherein it was mentioned that there was financial tie-up with PFC. It was also made to MoC on 15.04.2005 i.e. before 28th Screening Committee meeting wherein it was represented that company had obtained in-principle clearance from PFC.
575. The defence says that achieving financial closure was not a pre-condition at any level whereas prosecution claims that it was so required.
576. Defence referred to the milestones chart (Page-109 of file Ex. P-76/PW-1, D-38) and contended that financial closure was required at the time of approval of mining plan. This stage was 47 months post allocation of coal block. It was contended that the same was required at the time of application only for greenfield projects. Project of A-1 company was not a greenfield project. Reference is made to note dated 01.09.2004 (Page 7/N to 9/N of file Ex. P-76/PW-1, D-38) and also note dated 07.12.2004 (Ex. P- 306/PW-16, Page 3, D-186) according to which it was communicated to the allocatees that financial closure was not a pre-requisite for grant of approval of mining plan. It was contended that the IO despite being aware of these notes stated to the contrary. Reference was also made to minutes of 23 rd Screening Committee as per which the requirement of financial closure was decided to be shifted to a stage subsequent to mine development stage.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 223 of 269
577. Regarding the allegations, the defence has referred to the letter dated 31.12.2002 (Ex. P-172/PW-11, Page 129-133, D-5) and certificate dated 20.05.2003 (Ex. P-173/PW-11, Page 168, D-
5) and it was submitted that A-1 company was already availing facilities from Central Bank of India and the said bank had already financed the sponge iron plant. The company had approached the said bank for financing of captive power plant and steel plant for which the bank had issued in-principle sanction letter dated 29.01.2004 (Ex. P-174/PW-11, Page 127- 128, D-5). Regarding the contention of the prosecution that as on 30.10.2004 there was neither any in-principle sanction nor in- principle approval from Central Bank of India for CPP, relying on deposition of PW-11, the defence contended that it was only a bald statement by PW-11 as the sanction letter dated 29.01.2004 was neither withdrawn nor there was any cut-off date.
578. This contention is not acceptable. What the defence wants this Court to believe is that in-principle sanction issued on 29.01.2004 was still valid on 30.10.2004 without the company fulfilling any of the conditions of the said in-principle sanction.
579. Vide letter dated 07.08.2004 (Ex. P-175/PW-11, Page 1 D-247), Central Bank of India upon request of PFC replied to PFC and told that account of SVSL had A++ rating. The defence submits that Central Bank of India and PFC were communicating independently regarding financing of CPP and billet unit. Reference is made to letter dated 04.11.2004 (Ex. P-128/PW-5, CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 224 of 269 Page 79, D-128) vide which PFC informed SVSL that proposal of the company was shortlisted for detailed appraisal for consideration of financial assistance upto 50% of the project cost. The defence thus wanted to convey that reading letter dated 29.01.2004 and 04.11.2004 conjointly, the company could claim that it had financial closure regarding CPP and billet unit in its communications with MoC and MoS.
580. This contention is also misconceived because without going ahead by fulfilling the conditions, and without there being actually any approval of financial assistance, SVSL could not claim that it had achieved financial closure before MoC and MoS. Whether financial closure was required or not, the fact that the company represented so at the time of application as well as later on will amount to misrepresentation. The claim of the company about obtaining financial closure was made to influence the MoC to recommend its case for allocation. This inducement cannot be denied.
581. As far as misrepresentation before 28th Screening Committee about obtaining in-principle clearance from PFC is concerned, the defence taken by the accused is that the same is error on the part of Screening Committee/MoC as nowhere it was projected that there was in-principle clearance from PFC. Rather there was in-principle clearance from Central Bank of India only.
582. Regarding letter dated 23.11.2004 (Ex. P-88/PW-1), it was contended that the financial closure was not a pre-condition CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 225 of 269 and thus reference to financial tie-up with PFC is of no effect. As far as claim that site work had commenced is concerned, it was contended that there is material to show that steps towards site work had been taken such as purchase of land, construction of chimney etc. Regarding annexing copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra, it was contended that merely attaching the said letter was no inducement as it was already available with MoC.
583. It is true that on 15.04.2005 i.e. the date of 28 th Screening Committee meeting or 06.09.2005 i.e. the date of allocation letter, financial closure was not a pre-condition for allocation in respect of projects other than greenfield projects. It is an admitted position that project of A-1 company was not a greenfield project. However, prior to 07.12.2004, same was a pre-condition. The note regarding relaxation of requirement of financial closure became effective w.e.f. 07.12.2004. The 23rd Screening Committee was held on 29.11.2004. Thus the claim of the applicant company that it had obtained financial closure was a misrepresentation prior to 07.12.2004. It also showed better preparedness in comparison to other applicants.
584. The reliance of the defence on the fact that there was pre- existing loan with Central Bank of India and, therefore, there was no wrong information in the application dated 15.01.2004 is misdirected since the accused company had claimed financial CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 226 of 269 closure in respect of CPP also. This assertion made the said representation a misrepresentation.
585. The minutes of the 28th Screening Committee have to be read as they exist. The defence has been unable to show that the minutes were wrongly written. The representative of the A-1 company must have made such a representation, therefore, the same finds mentioned in the minutes.
586. It is held that there was misrepresentation to MoC regarding financial closure as well.
(d) Misrepresentation regarding rating given by PFC
587. One more misrepresentation to MoC is regarding rating given by the bank or the PFC. However, in the charge actually framed, there is no reference of any misrepresentation relating to rating given by the Central Bank of India or PFC. Thus, misrepresentation regarding rating is also to be ignored.
Misrepresentations to MoS:
588. Here also, the misrepresentations are being sub-divided as follows:
(a) Misrepresentation regarding Capacity of Sponge Iron Plant
589. An application similar to application dated 15.01.2004 as was submitted to MoC was also submitted to MoS which is Ex.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 227 of 269 P-111/PW-3. It was apparently submitted on 05.02.2004. In this application, it was claimed that the capacity of the sponge iron plant of the company was 75000 MTPA. This misrepresentation was further made to MoS vide letter dated 02.07.2004 [Ex. P- 116/PW-3] in which also it was claimed that capacity of the plant was 75000 MTPA.
590. The misrepresentation regarding capacity made to MoS is of relevance.
591. It would be fruitful to reproduce the relevant content of the said application:
"We have set up Sponge Iron Plant at Nagar, Maharashtra State and for meeting our coal requirements we are interested in getting allocation of a Captive Coal Mine. We understand that few captive coal blocks are available for allocation and hence we wish to put up our application for the same. We are pleased to submit the details as under:
We have planned to set up a Plant to produce Steel Billets. This plant shall comprise of Sponge Iron & Steel Plant. The sponge iron plant - 1st phase of 75,000 MT per annum capacity has already been set up, installed and commissioned recently. We are in the process of setting up of Captive Power Plant and Steel Melt Shop. The financial closure of the same has been achieved and the project work shall start shortly. The Sponge Iron Plant capacity shall be increased to Three Lac Tons Sponge Iron in the second phase, and the same shall be augmented suitably by addition of further capacity in the Captive Power Plant and Steel Melt Shop.
Our Coal requirement (Raw) shall be about 1.2 to 1.5 MT P.A. (Calculation Sheet enclosed). We propose to set up Coal Washery at mine site to improve the coal quality for use in the steel plant."
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 228 of 269
592. As can be seen, the A-1 company made certain claims in the said application. The company claimed (a) that it had planned to set up a plant to produce steel billets; (b) that the plant shall comprise of Sponge Iron & Steel Plant; (c) that Sponge Iron Plant First Phase of 75000 MTPA had already been set up, installed and commissioned; (d) that they were in the process of setting up of Captive Power Plant and Steel Melt Shop; (e) that financial closure of the same had been achieved and the project work was to start shortly; (f) that Sponge Iron capacity was to be increased to 3 lakhs MTPA in the second phase; and (g) that the enhanced capacity was to be augmented suitably by addition of further capacity in CPP and Steel Melt Shop.
593. It is an admitted fact that sponge iron plant of A-1 company was operational when it moved the application dated 15.01.2004 seeking allocation of coal block. The company was obtaining coal from the open market and was also seeking coal linkage prior to allocation.
594. The application dated 15.01.2004 submitted to MoS is Ex. P-111/PW-3 (Colly.). In the said application, as already noted hereinabove, it was claimed by SVSL that capacity of the Sponge Iron Plant was 75000 MTPA. Prosecution claims that actual capacity was 60000 MTPA. Various documents have been referred to by the prosecution to show that capacity was actually 60000 MTPA and which was also never achieved during production. On the other hand, the defence also relies upon the CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 229 of 269 same documents to contend that the capacity by nomenclature was 60000 MTPA but it could be expanded to 75000 MTPA by resorting to various techniques and the expanded capacity was mentioned in the application and therefore there was no misrepresentation.
595. It was also submitted by the defence that MoS was not induced at any point of time. It was argued that MoS was aware of the nameplate capacity of 60000 MTPA as appears from OM dated 10.08.2004 (Ex. P-90/PW-1, D-5 Page 208-210). The capacity was also mentioned as 60000 MTPA in the minutes of the 28th Screening Committee. It was contended that even as per PW-3, MoS had not shown any dissent to the said minutes. It was also contended that the proposed capacity of 3 LTPA was relevant for allocation and not 60000 MTPA or 75000 MTPA. It was vehemently submitted that companies having no existing production were also allocated coal blocks and for this reason capacity was of no relevance.
596. Relying upon observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma's case (supra) to the effect that no assessment of comparative merits of the applicants was done in the 28th Screening Committee meeting, it was submitted by the defence that claim about capacity being 60000 or 75000 MTPA did not make any difference.
597. It was also contended that there were no guidelines, rules or laws having statutory force issued either by MoS or MoC CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 230 of 269 which prescribed any minimum requirement of capacity regarding sponge iron. As such there was no inducement was made while stating the capacity of the sponge iron plant.
598. Prosecution has submitted that misrepresentation regarding capacity made to MoS had an effect on making of recommendation by MoS in favour of SVSL.
599. It is true that there was no minimum criterion regarding capacity of Spone Iron Plant. However, merely because there was no minimum capacity required, can it be said that an applicant company was free to mention any capacity it deemed fit?
600. More or less, the defence has accepted that the installed capacity was 60000 MTPA. Their emphasis has rather been that the said installed capacity could actually be expanded to 75000 MTPA. Thus, their claim is that the capacity stated in the application dated 15.01.2004 to MoS was the said expanded capacity. Accused tried to show that the capacity was expandable to 75000 MTPA.
601. From various documents as well statements of witnesses, there remains no doubt that installed capacity was 60000 MTPA. Now the only defence of the accused persons is that this capacity was expandable to 75000 MTPA.
602. Much effort was made by the Ld. Defence Counsels to show that capacity could be increased to 75000 MTPA. However, in my view, all that effort goes in vain. This is because nowhere CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 231 of 269 A-1 company had mentioned that the capacity of 75000 MTPA was the expanded capacity. Rather everywhere it was claimed that 75000 MTPA was the actual capacity. If 75000 MTPA was expanded capacity, it should have been mentioned as such by the accused. Concealing the said fact i.e. that it was expanded capacity, amounts to misrepresentation. Even if it is assumed that capacity could be expanded to 75000 MTPA, still it makes out no defence to charge of making misrepresentation because 75000 MTPA was represented as actual capacity rather than expanded capacity. Nowhere it was disclosed by the accused that they had expanded the capacity by employing some techniques and improvements. Thus, there was misrepresentation regarding capacity to MoS.
603. The MoS issued recommendation letter Ex. P-117/PW-3 (Colly.) i.e. OM dated 10.08.2004 and it can be safely taken that capacity had played its part in obtaining that recommendation.
604. Thus, it is held that there was misrepresentation made to MoS regarding capacity of the sponge iron plant.
(b) Misrepresentation regarding Construction of CPP
605. The misrepresentation to MoS regarding construction of CPP was made vide letter dt. 02.07.2004 [Ex. P-116/PW-3 (Colly)] by annexing copy of letter dt. 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 232 of 269
606. The misrepresentation regarding construction of CPP have already been discussed hereinabove. For the same reasons, it is held that misrepresentation regarding construction of CPP were also made to MoS.
Misrepresentations to MoP
607. Another misrepresentation is regarding construction of CPP to MoP. The company SVSL had sent letter dt. 25.10.2004 [part of Ex. P-91/PW-1] to MoP and had annexed copy of letter dt. 24.05.2004 [Ex. P-89/PW-1] issued by Govt. of Maharashtra with it and claimed that CPP was under construction.
608. The original of letter dt. 25.10.2004 is not available. However, its copy was annexed with OM dt. 24.11.2004 [Ex. P- 91/PW-1]. The defence raised considerable objection as to its admissibility. However, it is noteworthy that when the OM dt. 24.11.2004 was tendered in evidence, no objection was taken to copy of letter dt. 25.10.2004. As such, the objection is deemed to have been given up. There was no need for prosecution to first lead evidence about loss of original of this letter dt. 25.10.2004. The copy of letter dt. 24.05.2004 was once again attached with letter dt. 25.10.2004.
609. The misrepresentations regarding construction of CPP have already been discussed hereinabove. For the same reasons, it is held that misrepresentation regarding construction of CPP CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 233 of 269 was also made to MoP. The MoP issued recommendation letter dt. 24.11.2004 [Ex. P-91/PW-1] to SVSL.
610. Thus it is held that misrepresentations were made to MoC, MoS and MoP.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. II:
If any such misrepresentation(s) was/were made, as noted above, who is responsible for making the said misrepresentation(s)?
611. Now it is to be ascertained as to who is/are responsible for making these misrepresentations?
Role of A-1 company M/s SVSL (now known as M/s TUML)
612. As the company SVSL was the applicant, and all communications were made in its name, the company is naturally responsible for making the abovenoted misrepresentations.
613. It is to be further ascertained as to what is the responsibility of the other accused persons i.e. through whom the A-1 company had acted?
Role of A-5 A.K. Saxena
614. The application dated 15.01.2004 [Ex. P-2 (Colly)/P- 111/PW-3 (Colly.)] submitted to MoC/MoS has been signed by A-5 as President of A-1 company. Handwriting expert has CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 234 of 269 confirmed signature of A-5 on the said application. Even otherwise the same is an admitted document.
615. As per attendance sheet [Ex. P-97/PW-1 (Colly.)], A-5 A.K. Saxena had attended the 23rd Screening Committee meeting on 29.11.2004. Again as per concerned attendance sheet [Ex. P- 104/PW-1 (Colly.)] A-5 A.K. Saxena had attended the 28th Screening Committee meeting on 15.04.2005. It was on 15.04.2005 that misrepresentation regarding obtaining in- principle clearance from PFC was made to MoC through the Screening Committee.
616. It is not disputed that A-5 A.K. Saxena as President of SVSL had signed the applications dated 15.01.2004 (Ex. P-2 as well as Ex. P-111/PW-3). His defence is that he had signed it on instructions of Shiv Kumar Agrawal/PW-14 who was a director of the company and on the basis of authorisation dated 12.01.2004 (Ex. P-185/PW-12, D-5 Page 121).
617. This defence does not rescue A-5 as he has failed to prove that whatever was mentioned in the application was done as per instructions of PW-14. Though it has come in cross- examination of PW-14 that the representations in the application were made upon instructions of the Board of Directors of A-1 company but PW-14 had clarified during re-examination that Board had not instructed A-5 to state incorrect facts.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 235 of 269
618. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that whatever representations were made in the application were made with instructions of the Board, still it only shows involvement of PW- 14 in the crime but it does not save A-5.
619. Thus, A-5 is responsible for making these misrepresentations.
Role of A-6 Manoj Maheshwari.
620. A-6 had signed letter dated 30.10.2004 (Ex. P-4) to MoC. Copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 was referred to in this letter. In this letter, misrepresentation was made regarding construction of CPP and completion of financial tie-up regarding CPP. A-6 had also attended the 28th Screening Committee meeting held on 15.04.2005. In this meeting misrepresentation was made regarding obtaining in-principle clearance from PFC.
621. Regarding the contention that A-6 was only a salaried employee, Ld. DLA submitted that A-6 was also a director of A-1 company from 29.11.1993 to 17.08.2001 and again from 17.11.2005 to 27.03.2006 (vide D-301). He also submitted that A-6 was also a shareholder in A-1 company and was holding 21647 number of shares as stated by him in his statement u/s 313 CrPC. Ld. DLA submitted that A-6 was also CEO of the company.
622. Regarding contention that A-6 did not attend meeting of 28th Screening Committee alongwith A-5, Ld. DLA referred to CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 236 of 269 the statement of A-6 u/s 313 CrPC in which there is no denial of this fact (as recorded in answers to Q. No. 32, 40 and 156). He also submitted that no suggestion was given by the defence either to PW-1 R.S. Negi or to PW-10 Vishal Vimal Agrawal that A-6 had not attended the meeting of the 28th Screening Committee. He submitted that even A-5 has not disclosed who was with him as CEO in the meeting of 28th Screening Committee.
623. In the attendance sheet of the 28th Screening Committee meeting [Ex. P-104/PW-1 (Colly)], it is mentioned that 'A.K. Saxena + CEO' had attended the meeting. A-6 was CEO at the relevant time.
624. Ld. Defence Counsel had submitted that PW-10 Vishal Vimal Agrawal had also joined as CEO as was stated by him during evidence. Ld. Counsel thus contended that this "CEO" as mentioned in the attendance sheet could be Vishal Vimal Agrawal and benefit of this doubt should be given to A-6.
625. This contention is also not acceptable as Vishal Vimal Agrawal had joined recently as CEO whereas A-6 was working as CEO since long. It is also appearing that PW-10 was also CEO of SVSL. However, it is to be kept in mind that PW-10 had recently joined the company whereas A-6 was already working with the company. It is more or less apparent that a seasoned person would attend the important meeting of the Screening Committee rather than a novice.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 237 of 269
626. Thus prosecution has proved that A-6 had attended the said meeting. Thus, the meaning of 'A.K. Saxena + CEO' is that it was A-6 who attended the meeting of the 28 th Screening Committee as CEO.
627. The fact that it is mentioned in the letter dt. 30.10.2004 that copy of letter dt. 24.05.2004 was already on record does not make any difference because A-6 made reference to the said letter dt. 24.05.2004 and relied upon its contents which were false.
628. Therefore, prosecution has proved that A-6 is responsible for making such misrepresentations.
Role of A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda
629. A-7 has signed letter dated 02.07.2004 (sent to MoC and MoS) as Director of A-1 company. He has also signed letters dated 21.10.2004 and 23.11.2004. Prosecution has alleged that he had also signed letter dated 25.10.2004 submitted to MoP. All these letters are alleged to be forged letters and allegedly forged by A-7.
630. The responsibility for misrepresentations in these letters depends upon the issue whether A-7 forged these letters or not. Thus it is being decided with the next point for determination.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 238 of 269 POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. III:
Did A-7 forge letter dated 02.07.2004 (containing his signature as Director of SVSL), and letters dated 21.10.2004, 25.10.2004 and 23.11.2004 (containing forged signatures of Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Manoj Maheshwari and Vimal Kumar Agrawal respectively)?
631. The relevant provisions of IPC relating to forgery are as under:
463. Forgery-- Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 239 of 269 [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
632. The letter dated 02.07.2004 (Ex. P-5) has been admitted by A-7 u/s 294 CrPC. This letter was sent to MoS as well as to MoC. This letter is bearing signature of A-7 as Director of SVSL. Prosecution has alleged that A-7 was not Director on the said date.
633. There are two letters dated 02.07.2004. One was sent to MoC and the other was sent to MoS. As far as these letters dated 02.07.2004 are concerned, there is no dispute that A-7 had signed the said letters.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 240 of 269
634. The prosecution has alleged that A-7 had signed these letters in the capacity of the Director of SVSL whereas in fact on 02.07.2004, he was not a Director of the said company and thus the said documents are forged.
635. The defence of accused A-7 is that the contents of these two letters are true and contain no false information. Therefore, these cannot be called forged letters.
636. A-7, in his written submissions, has himself stated that he was Director of SVSL from 11.12.2004 to 01.04.2005. This means that on 02.07.2004 he could not sign as Director of SVSL.
637. Reliance on Mohd. Ibrahim's case (supra) is misdirected. Although A-7 signed in his own name but he donned the character of 'Director' of SVSL. In Mohd. Ibrahim's case, the accused had executed sale deed signing in his own name but he sold off property not belonging to him. The facts are thus different. Here, A-7 wanted to show that letter dated 02.07.2004 was from the company SVSL.
638. I am of the view that letters dated 02.07.2004 can be termed forged because A-7 falsely claimed to be Director of SVSL whereas he was not so. The judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) is not applicable to the present case.
639. As far as other letters are concerned i.e. letters dated 21.10.2004, 25.10.2004 and 23.11.2004, these letters bear signature in the name of Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Manoj CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 241 of 269 Maheshwari and Vimal Kumar Agrawal respectively but alleged to have been made by A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda.
640. The prosecution heavily relies upon the opinion of the handwriting expert i.e. PW-12 Ms. Lavang Lata. The defence, on the contrary, relies strongly upon the opinion of the other handwriting expert i.e. DW-4 Syed Faizal Huda.
641. PW-12, as already noted, has given opinion that signature in the name of Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Manoj Maheshwari and Vimal Kumar Agrawal were made by A-7. However, to the contrary is the opinion of DW-4 who says that A-7 did not make these signatures on these letters. As such, this Court has two contrary opinions before it.
642. It has been vehemently contended that by Ld. defence Counsel that A-7 while giving specimen signature was made to sign as 'Vimal Kumar Agrawal', 'Manoj Maheshwari' and 'Shiv Kumar Agrawal' as many as 944 times. He forcefully submitted that making A-7 give specimen in the above manner amounts to giving specimen in the form of incriminating writing and thus violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. He contended that IO should have obtained permission from the Magistrate. He referred to Sec. 311-A CrPC.
643. In State of UP Vs. Ram Babu Mishra (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed that there was no procedure established by law which governed obtaining of specimen of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 242 of 269 handwriting and signature. Ultimately Sec. 311-A CrPC was inserted by way of amendment in CrPC. It was contended that as specimen were taken without permission, same were inadmissible per se.
644. Reference was also made to Rakesh Bisht Vs. CBI (supra), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that specimen signature which is of inculpatory nature cannot be looked into.
645. Regarding letter dated 21.10.2004 being forged, it was contended by the defence that DW-4 has already given opinion that it was not signed by A-7. Further the report of CFSL Expert is not to be looked into as specimen of A-7 were illegally taken.
646. Regarding letter dated 25.10.2004 (Ex. P-91/PW-1) being forged, it was contended that PW-12/CFSL Expert gave opinion only on the photocopy as the original letter dated 25.10.2004 was never collected by the IO. It was contended that such an opinion is of no value. Alternatively, it was contended that DW-4 has given independent opinion that signature on this letter was not made by A-7. The opinion of PW-12 has also been questioned on the mode of collecting specimen of A-7. According to the defence, the said letter was not proved as per the Evidence Act. Reliance has been placed upon Vijay Vs. UOI (supra).
647. As far as forgery of letter dated 23.11.2004 is concerned, it was contended that DW-4 has already given opinion that A-7 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 243 of 269 did not sign the said letter. The report of CFSL Expert was questioned on similar lines as noted above.
648. It was also highlighted that as per report Ex. P-179/PW- 12 (D-116), PW-12 could not give an opinion on the existing specimen signatures and requisitioned further specimen similar to impugned signatures/questioned signatures. Ld. Counsel for A-7 submitted that such a requisition was also violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, further specimen were taken from A-7 which were in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and therefore the further report Ex. P-181/PW- 12 (D-117) must be disregarded.
649. Section 311-A CrPC read as under:
"311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. - If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding."
650. In Sapan Haldar's case (supra), the full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that handwriting and signature are not measurements u/s 2(a) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and, therefore, Sec. 4 & 5 thereof will not apply. As such CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 244 of 269 the IO cannot obtain specimen of handwriting or signature from a person. It was also held that prior to 23.06.2006 i.e. prior to insertion of Sec. 311-A CrPC, even a Magistrate could not direct any person to give specimen of handwriting or signature. Only the Court where the accused was to be tried could so direct in view of Sec. 73 of Indian Evidence Act.
651. In Rajinder Kumar @ Raju, Raj Kumar, Zafar Umar Khan @ Zafar Umar, Anand Kumar @ Beeru, Prakash Chand and Sanjay @ Vicky (all supra), the specimen of handwriting and signature taken without permission from Magistrate were not taken into consideration.
652. However, what is of importance is to note that in all these above citations, the accused persons had been arrested and their specimen of handwriting was taken after such arrest.
653. In Rakesh Bisht's case (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dealing with voice sample and held that voice sample was not included under Sec. 311-A CrPC.
654. Sudhir Chaudhary's case (supra) also relates to giving voice sample. In that case, the accused agitated the manner of collection of voice samples as the investigating agency wanted them to read the exact transcript of the questioned recording. They contended that the voice sample should be totally different. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sample text cannot be totally different from the questioned recording. It held CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 245 of 269 that commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination. The relevant para reads as under:
"10. The Appellants expressly consented to a voice sample being drawn, in their response to the application that was filed by the Investigating officer before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. This was reiterated before the High Court. In the submissions which have been urged in these proceedings, learned Counsel has specifically stated that the Appellants would abide by the consent which they had furnished to their voice samples being drawn. That being the position, the only surviving issue for this Court is to ensure that the underlying process for drawing the voice samples is fair and reasonable, having due regard to the mandate of Article 21. On the one hand, it is not open to the accused to dictate the course of investigation. Hence, we do not find substance in the submission that the text which is to be read by the Appellants in the course of drawing their voice samples should contain no part of the inculpatory words which are a part of the disputed conversation. A commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination."
655. It is noteworthy that for the application of Sec. 311-A CrPC, it is necessary that the person should have been arrested at some point of time in that case. It means that if the person was not arrested in a particular case, Sec. 311-A CrPC will not apply and IO cannot file application for directions.
656. Ld. Defence Counsels have submitted that when A-7 was made to sign so many specimen signatures, it was natural that some of them would match with the questioned ones. I do not find any weight in this contention. This is a fanciful contention. Hence rejected.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 246 of 269
657. The submissions with respect to obtainment of specimen of A-7 being illegal and in violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India are misconceived. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for A-7 is trying to draw analogy between drawing of voice samples and hand-writing samples. What was held illegal in the judgment of Sudhir Chaudhary (supra) was that voice sample cannot be taken by making an accused or a suspect to say the exact words as are there in the questioned recording. This course of action for voice sample cannot be applied to handwriting sample. It would be very difficult and rather impossible for a hand-writing expert to give opinion regarding hand-writing and signature comparison if the specimen of hand-writing and signature are different from questioned ones.
658. The argument that sample should have been taken with permission of the Court is also misconceived. Reliance on Sec. 311-A CrPC is uncalled for. What the defence has failed to notice is that a Magistrate cannot direct an accused to give sample unless the accused had been arrested at some point of time. In the present case, however, A-7 was never arrested by the investigating agency and thus it could not have moved application before the Magistrate for directions. It is more than apparent that it was never the intention of the Legislature that for the sake of obtaining specimen of handwriting, a person should be first arrested. The provisions of Sec. 311-A CrPC are for the protection of arrested persons. If an investigating agency does not intend to arrest a person but wants specimen signatures of CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 247 of 269 that person, it can simply ask that person to provide the specimen and if he does so, the specimen can be said to have been given voluntarily. This appears to be correct interpretation. Because if a person refuses to provide specimen of handwriting (whether justifiably or unjustifiably), he runs the risk of being arrested. This could never have been the intention of the Legislature.
659. As such, the specimen of hand-writing given by A-7 when so requested by the investigating agency are voluntarily given specimen. Such specimen cannot be termed illegal or unconstitutional.
660. In the present case, the handwriting expert requisitioned specimen similar to impugned signatures/questioned signatures. In my view, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sudhir Chaudhary's case (supra) that the sample cannot be totally different and some commonality is necessary. Likewise in the present case also, it was necessary to have specimen signature in the form of questioned signatures. Otherwise, it was impossible for the handwriting expert to give opinion. Obtaining specimen signatures of A-7 by making him write 'Shiv Kumar Agrawal', 'Vimal Kumar Agrawal' and 'Manoj Maheshwari' was not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, these contentions are rejected.
661. The prosecution had tried to rely on statement of PW-10 in showing that these letters were forged by A-7. However, I am CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 248 of 269 not inclined to rely on the statement of PW-10 as he is not a handwriting expert.
662. The evidence of DW-4, the independent hand-writing Expert, even if accepted on its face value does show that questioned signatures Q-239, Q-241 and Q-242 are not genuine signatures of Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Vimal Kumar Agrawal and Manoj Maheshwari. From his report itself, it is clear that these signatures are forged. This is enough for the prosecution. It is true that DW-4 also opines that A-7 did not forge these three signatures. There is contrary opinion of PW-12/CFSL Expert. In any case, use of forged documents has been clearly established by the prosecution.
663. It is noticed that both the handwriting experts have given opinion on one of the letters which is dated 25.10.2004 which was submitted to MoP but which is a photocopy. Ld. Defence Counsels had strongly objected to opinion of PW-12 qua this photocopy document submitting that such an opinion has no value. However, they forgot that DW-4 has also given opinion regarding signature on this photocopy document. Nonetheless, since this document is a photocopy, opinion qua forgerer of this document is being kept out of consideration. It will be unsafe to rely on the opinion given by the handwriting experts on this photocopy document. But it is clear that this letter is a forged document as has been affirmed by both PW-12 and DW-4.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 249 of 269
664. As far as other two letters are concerned i.e. letters dated 21.10.2004 and 23.11.2004, as already noted, regarding author of the forgery, there are two contradictory reports of two different handwriting experts. However, one common factor in reports of both these handwriting experts is that both of them say that these two letters do not bear genuine signature of Shiv Kumar Agrawal and Vimal Kumar Agrawal. Thus, confirming that both these letters are forged letters as they have not been signed by Shiv Kumar Agrawal and Vimal Kumar Agrawal. PW-12 opines that the forgerer is A-7 whereas DW-4 says the contrary.
665. In such circumstances, the Court is within its powers to compare the questioned signatures with specimen signatures. Ld. DLA had referred to various commonalities between specimen signatures and questioned signatures. He pointed out various alphabets from specimen sheets resembling those in the questioned signatures. I have also seen the same and many of the specimen are similar.
666. Therefore, it is held that A-7 had forged letters dt. 21.10.2004 and 23.11.2004 also.
667. A-7 is also held responsible for making misrepresentations vide letters dated 02.07.2004 (to MoC and MoS), 21.10.2004, 25.10.2004 and 23.11.2004.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 250 of 269 POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. IV What offence(s) has/have been committed?
668. Having held that misrepresentations were made to MoC and MoS as well as MoP, and having fixed the responsibility therefor, it is now to be seen what offences are made out and against whom?
669. At this stage, the text of the relevant provisions are being reproduced for ready reference.
670. Section 415 of IPC reads 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 a deception within the meaning of this section. "
671. Section 420 IPC reads as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 251 of 269 converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
672. From perusal of the above-noted provisions, it is found that the ingredients of the offence of cheating are:
(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 were not so deceived; and
(iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b) above, 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.
(As held in Ram Jas v. State of UP (1970) 2 SCC 740)
673. It will also be fruitful to note definitions of 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently'. Dishonestly has been defined under S. 24 IPC as under:
24. "Dishonestly".--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".
674. Fraudulently has been defined under S. 25 IPC as under:
25. "Fraudulently".--A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 252 of 269 but not otherwise.
675. What is wrongful gain and wrongful loss are provided in S. 23 IPC as under:
"23. "Wrongful gain".--"Wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
"Wrongful loss".--"Wrongful loss" is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
Gaining wrongfully, losing wrongfully.--A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property."
676. What is the meaning of the phrase "deceiving any person"
as used in the definition of cheating as provided in Section 415 IPC.
677. In the case of Swami Dhirendra Brahamchari Vs. Shailendra Bhushan, 1995 Cr. L.J. 1810 (Delhi), Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the word deceiving as used in S. 415 IPC, observed that generally speaking "deceiving" is to lead into error by causing a person to believe what is false or to disbelieve what is true and such deception may be by words or by conduct. A fraudulent representation can be made directly or indirectly.
678. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of P.M. Natrajan Vs. Krishna Chandra Gupta, 1975 Cr. L.J. 899 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 253 of 269 (All.) explained the word "deceive" as indicating inculcating of one so that he takes the false as true, the unreal as existent, the spurious as genuine.
679. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co. Ltd. vs Sha Misrimal Bherajee, AIR 1966 SC 1892, explained "deceit" as a false statement of a fact made by a person knowingly or recklessly with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another who does act upon it and thereby suffers damage.
680. Thus, it is clear that in all such cases of deception, the object of the deceiver is fraudulent. He intends to acquire or retain wrongful possession of that to which some other person has a better claim. So, where a person parts away with a property while acting on such a representation of an accused believing in the truth thereof, it clearly amounts to deceiving the person. However, it is also important that the person practicing the deceit knows or has reason to believe the said representation to be false. Though in the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by direct evidence. It can be, however, proved by number of circumstances only from which a reasonable inference can be drawn. Further the explanation to Section 415 IPC i.e. cheating states that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
681. Deception is not defined under Indian Penal Code. How- ever, it is now well settled through various decisions that a per-
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 254 of 269 son deceives another when he causes that another to believe what is false or misleading as to a matter of fact, or leads him into er- ror. A willful misrepresentation of a definite fact with intent to defraud constitutes an offence of cheating. Further, it is not suffi- cient to prove that a false representation had been made but it must be proved that the representation was false to the knowl- edge of the accused and was made to deceive the complainant.
682. The deception within the meaning of section 415 IPC can happen through misrepresentation. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that various misrepresentations were made by the accused persons.
683. As regards inducing fraudulently or dishonestly, Hon'ble Supreme Court after extensively referring to various case law on the issue in the case of Dr. Vimla (supra), observed that while the definition of "dishonestly" involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss but as regard "fraudulently", it is primarily the intent to defraud which is an important ingredient. The word "defraud" in- cludes an element of deceit. It was also observed that by way of their very definition as provided under IPC, the word "fraudu- lently" by its construction excludes the element of pecuniary eco- nomic gain or loss.
684. It was observed that if the expression "fraudulently" were to be held, to involve the element of injury to the persons or the persons deceived, it would be reasonable to assume that the injury should be something other than pecuniary or economic CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 255 of 269 loss. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to another and vice-versa, it need not necessarily be so. It should be held that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived. It would be thus appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of "dishonestly" that to satisfy definition of "fraudulently" it would be sufficient if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or non-economic loss to the deceit. Both need not co- exist. It was also observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicate their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other. The aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court culling out the difference between the words "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" have been followed consistently in all subsequent cases involving the issue of cheating.
685. The issue which comes up is whether all such fraudulent acts done with a dishonest intention to deceive MoS, MoP, Screening Committee, MoC and thereby Government of India actually had the effect of deceiving them or not. In other words, whether the persons by way of such fraudulent acts done with dishonest intention actually deceived Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal or not and thereby induced it to deliver a property to them.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 256 of 269
686. It was contended on behalf of the accused persons that as A-1 company was already engaged in production of sponge iron, its application stood on higher pedestal from applications of other companies. Reference was made to letter dated 31.01.2004 [Ex. P-84/PW-1, Page-149, D-5] issued by V.S. Dhumal/PW-4 in which the need of coal of A-1 company was brought to notice of MoC as sponge iron was being produced by A-1 company.
687. As already observed, it is admitted position that A-1 company was producing sponge iron. However, this fact did not entitle A-1 company to make misrepresentations to MoS or MoC. The contentions that plant was being expanded is also of no help as this also did not authorise A-1 company to make misrepresentation about capacity.
688. There is no merit in the contention that minutes of the 28th Screening Committee have not been duly proved. The minutes are official record and the concerned file was also produced. The minutes can be read in evidence.
689. As per the guidelines of the 14 th Screening Committee, recommendation from the administrative Ministry was of prime importance. The administrative Ministry in the present case was MoS. Thus, obtaining recommendation of MoS was of great relevance for accused company. From the material on record, it is apparent that the accused company left no stone unturned to obtain the said recommendation. It obtained such recommendation vide OM dated 10.08.2004 [Ex. P-117/PW-3] CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 257 of 269 from MoS. As the accused company had obtained recommendation from MoS, it was able to induce MoC to grant allocation of the coal blocks.
690. There is no merit in the argument of the defence that accused company had sought allocation of different coal blocks but was granted allocation of some other coal blocks. This is so because vide letter dated 31.01.2005 [Ex. P-87/PW-1 (Colly)] the accused company itself had given option of Marki-Mangli II, III and IV coal blocks which were ultimately allocated to it.
691. Non-visit of the site by the IO is of no consequence since it was found during investigation itself that the construction of CPP had not even started till 2008. The witnesses brought by the defence to show to the contrary are not worth credit. The testimony of DW-1was demolished during cross-examination. Similarly, testimony of DW-3 is also of no help as none of the original report were available in the file brought by her. In the RTI reply, merely photocopy of copy of those reports were supplied. The same were not proved at all.
692. Another contention was regarding non-examination various witnesses, particularly P.C. Parekh by the prosecution. The defence contended that non-examination of these witnesses who were most relevant witnesses should raise presumption u/s 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act i.e. that if they were produced and examined, they would have given evidence against the CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 258 of 269 prosecution. Reliance was placed upon Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra).
693. I find no merit in these contentions. It is not the number of witnesses which is important. Rather the quality of the evidence only matters. Further it is always the prerogative of the prosecutor to whom he wants to examine as witness. If the defence thought that evidence of any such person who was not examined was important, the defence could have examined him as a defence witness.
694. It is also noteworthy that the present case relates to the period when the applications used to be given by the interested companies without there being any advertisement for allocation of coal blocks. The application(s) used to be processed in the MoC through Screening Committees. The application was first considered by the 23rd Screening Committee in its meeting held on 29.11.2004. The relevant portion of the minutes of the said meeting relating to SVSL are also being reproduced as under:
"Name of applicant company: Shree Virangana Steel Ltd.
Block Takli Jena Bellora (North) Representative of the company stated that they are already in the business of sponge iron and have commissioned a capacity of 0.75 lakh tonnes per annum. They wish to expand this capacity to 3 lakh tonnes per annum and also to set up a 25 MW CPP. They stated that their proposed expansion is at an advanced stage of implementation, a considerable amount of money has been invested. They have achieved financial closure and have installed an iron ore crusher at Barbil (Orissa). They enjoy credit rating of A++ by a nationalized bank. They have made a profit of Rs. 3 crores last year and this year, it is likely to be Rs.6.5 CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 259 of 269 crores. All consents have been received from MSEB and MSPCB. Water arrangements have been tied up and recommendations have been received from Govt. of Maharashtra. M.N. Dastoor & Co. are their consultants and their plant and machinery specifications are ready. They have no linkage of coal for their existing plant and are sourcing coal from the market. They stated that they are a fit case for early allocation of captive coal block. Since they have already set up a 75000 tonnes per annum of sponge iron capacity and are scheduled to set up the remaining capacity very soon, it would be in their interest to start mining at the earliest once they are allocated a captive coal block. The coal requirement given the quality of coal has been assessed at 18 million tonnes over a period of 30 years. This assessment does not include use of superior grade coal for power generation in their proposed 25 MW power plant. As the coal would require beneficiation before being used in the power plant, they are likely to generate rejects of about 0.12 million tonnes per annum, which could be used for power generation. The likely available extractable reserves in Takli Jena Bellora (North) are estimated at 25 million tonnes. The Screening Committee noted the fact that the company has already set up a 0.75 mtpa power plant and is sourcing coal from the market."
695. No final decision was taken regarding the application of SVSL in the abovesaid 23rd Screening Committee meeting. The application of SVSL was again considered in the 28 th Screening Committee meeting. Relevant portion of the minutes of 28 th Screening Committee meeting concerning SVSL read as under:
"36. Shree Virangana Steel Limited.
The representative of the company had given a presentation in the 23rd meeting of the Screening Committee earlier. They sated that they have an existing plant with 60,000 tonne per annum capacity. They have no linkage of coal for CIL. They have a triple A rating and have obtained in principle clearance from the PFC. Without going into further details the Chairman requested CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 260 of 269 them to give their order of priority for the blocks to which the applicant stated that their first priority would be MM II, MM III and MM IV followed by Nerad Malegaon."
696. In between the period i.e. between the date of application for allocation and date of actual allocation, various correspondences, as already taken note of, were also made between the company SVSL and MoC, MoS and MoP.
697. A-1 company submitted application dated 15.01.2004 to MoS in which misrepresentation qua capacity of sponge iron plant was made. A-1 company also sent letter dated 02.07.2004 to MoS with which copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra was annexed and which contained misrepresentations regarding capacity of sponge iron plant and construction of CPP and thus induced MoS to issue recommendation dt. 10.08.2004 [Ex. P-117/PW-3] in its favour.
698. A-1 company also sent letter dated 25.10.2004 to MoP and annexed copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of the Govt. of Maharashtra making misrepresentation that CPP was under
construction and that financial tie-up for CPP was complete. The company induced MoP to issue recommendation dt. 24.11.2004 [Ex. P-91/PW-1] .
699. A-1 company also sent letters dated 02.07.2004 to MoC with which copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 of Govt. of Maharashtra was annexed and contained misrepresentations regarding construction of CPP. A-1 company also sent letter CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 261 of 269 dated 21.10.2004 again attaching copy of letter dated 24.05.2004 and made misrepresentations regarding implementation of CPP as well as construction of CPP. The company also sent letter dated 23.11.2004 to MoC again relying upon letter dated 24.05.2004 and misrepresented about commencement of site work of CPP and financial tie-up with CPP as well as construction of CPP. It also sent letter dated 30.10.2004 to MoC relying upon letter dated 24.05.2004 misrepresenting that CPP was under construction and that financial tie-up for CPP was complete.
700. A-1 company misrepresented before 28th Screening Committee regarding obtaining in-principle clearance from PFC.
701. A-5 A.K. Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda were the persons through whom A-1 company committed the aforesaid acts.
702. The accused persons thus induced 28th Screening Committee to recommend allocation of Marki-Mangli II, III and IV coal blocks and further induced MoC to issue allocation letter regarding these coal blocks vide allocation letter dated 06.09.2005.
703. Regarding contention of the defence that nobody from MoC or MoS or Screening Committee had stated that he was deceived by any of the misrepresentation, Ld. DLA relied upon Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy @ Kaza Krishnamurthy Vs. CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 262 of 269 State of AP, AIR 1965 SC 333. Ld. DLA contended that Govt. of India was deceived in the present case.
704. Much hue and cry was raised by the defence that Shiv Kumar Agrawal has not been prosecuted despite he being the main person who was looking after the process of allocation for the company. In this regard, suffice it to say that the accused persons are suppose to meet the case against them. Non- prosecution of another person does not make out any defence to the charges framed against them.
705. It is true that role of Shiv Kumar Agrawal is also of some relevance in the whole episode, however, his non- prosecution does not diminish roles of the other accused persons.
706. Regarding the offence of conspiracy, Ld. DLA, on the other hand, referred to State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 253 wherein it was observed as under:
"Thus the offence of criminal conspiracy certainly re- quires a prior agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is legal by illegal means. However, when it is legal act by il- legal means overt act is necessary. It is also equally true that direct evidence of existence of a criminal conspiracy is seldom available and has to be inferred from the over all facts and circumstances of the case. Clearly from the overall facts and circumstances of the present case as al- ready discussed above. It is evident that the accused per- sons consciously made false representation at different stages of processing of their application for allotment of a coal block in Ministry of Coal. Different roles were played by the accused persons in order to support the claim made by each other before different Government authorities.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 263 of 269 The existence of a common agreement amongst the ac- cused persons is thus writ large on the face of record."
707. He also referred to the provisions of S. 120-A and 120-B IPC. The same are as under:
"Definition of criminal conspiracy Section 120 A IPC : When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done --
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation -- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
Section 120 B IPC Punishment of criminal conspiracy (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, or imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punishable with for 10 years and with fine."
708. Ld. Sr. PP submitted that all the accused persons are liable for the offence of conspiracy. He argued that prosecution has proved that there was conspiracy between all the accused CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 264 of 269 persons to the cheat the Screening Committee, the MoC and the Govt. of India to obtain the allocation of coal block.
709. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel refuted these submissions contending that there is no evidence of any conspiracy. He contended that there is no evidence of any meeting between the accused persons concerning any conspiracy.
710. Having considered the material on record, it is more than apparent that there was consipracy between the accused persons. All the accused acted in concert to achieve the common object of the conspiracy.
711. It is settled law that direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available as conspiracies are hatched in secrecy. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.
712. In the present case, it has been established that A-1 company applied for allocation of coal block vide application Ex. P-2 (Colly.); that A-5 had signed the said application; that A-5 alongwith A-6 attended meeting of the 28th Screening Committee and made presentation; and that A-6 and A-7 signed various letters submitted to MoC, MoS and MoP. All these acts have been fully established. It has further been established that false claims were made in the applications and various communications. Prosecution has also established the accused persons dishonestly induced the Screening Committee, the MoC CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 265 of 269 and the Govt. of India to issue coal block allocation letter dt. 06.09.2005 [Ex. P-108/PW-1].
713. From these facts and circumstances, it can be safely inferred conclusively that there was conspiracy amongst them.
714. As far as the offence of cheating is concerned, there are various counts of the charge regarding cheating.
715. One count is for the offence of cheating done with MoS. The accused persons induced MoS to issue recommendation letter dated 10.08.2004.
716. The other count is for the offence of cheating done with MoP. The accused persons induced MoP to issue recommendation letter dated 24.11.2004.
717. Another count is for the offence of cheating done with MoC. The accused persons induced MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005.
718. Ld. defence Counsels had relied upon Prakash Industries case (supra) to contend that allocation letter is not property for the purpose of offence of cheating. However, that judgment pertains to provisions of PMLA. It did not deal with offence of cheating. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma's case had observed that the allocation letter by the Central Government creates and confers a very valuable right CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 266 of 269 upon the allottee. This is sufficient to hold that for the purposes of the offence of cheating, allocation letter is a property.
719. However, the recommendation letter obtained by accused persons from MoS or MoP are not akin to allocation letter. The recommendation letter cannot be strictly called property for the purpose of offence of cheating.
720. Therefore, while the offence u/s 420 IPC with respect to obtaining allocation letter from MoC is clearly made out but with respect to obtaining recommendation letters from MoS or MoP, only offence u/s 417 IPC is made out.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
721. In view of the above discussion, it is held that prosecution has proved the offences. Accused persons namely A-1 company M/s Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. ("TUML") [Earlier known as M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd. ("SVSL")], A-5 A.K. Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda are held guilty and convicted as follows:
722. All the accused persons i.e. A-1 company M/s TUML (Earlier known as M/s SVSL), A-5 A.K. Saxena, A-6 Manoj Maheshwari and A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda are convicted for the offence u/s 120-B IPC as well as 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC.
CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 267 of 269
723. A-1 company M/s TUML is convicted for the offence u/s 417 IPC for inducing MoS to issue recommendation letter dated 10.08.2004. The company is further convicted for the offence u/s 417 IPC for inducing MoP to issue recommendation letter dated 24.11.2004. A-1 company is further convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC for inducing MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005. However, the company is acquitted of the heading fourthly of the substantive charge i.e. with respect to letter dated 30.10.2004 as the said letter was used to induce MoC to issue allocation letter alongwith other communications. This letter was only a step in inducing MoC for which the company has been already convicted.
724. A-5 A.K. Saxena is convicted for the offence u/s 417 IPC for inducing MoS to issue recommendation letter dated 10.08.2004. A-5 is further convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC for inducing MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005.
725. A-6 Manoj Maheshwari is convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC for inducing MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005. However, A-6 is acquitted of the heading firstly of the substantive charge i.e. with respect to letter dated 30.10.2004 as the said letter was used to induce MoC to issue allocation letter alongwith other communications. This letter was only a step in inducing MoC for which A-6 has been already convicted.
726. A-7 Anand Nandkishore Sarda is convicted for the offence u/s 417 IPC for inducing MoS to issue recommendation CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 268 of 269 letter dated 10.08.2004. A-7 is further convicted for the offence u/s 417 IPC for inducing MoP to issue recommendation letter dated 24.11.2004. A-7 is further convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC for inducing MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005. However, A-7 is acquitted of the heading (iii), (v) and (vii) of the substantive charge i.e. with respect to letters dated 02.07.2004, 21.10.2004 and 23.11.2004 to MoC as the said letters were used to induce MoC to issue allocation letter alongwith other communications. These letters were only steps in inducing MoC for which A-7 has been already convicted. A-7, however, is further convicted for the offence u/s 468 and 471 IPC for forging letters dated 02.07.2004 (to MoS and MoC), 21.10.2004 and 23.11.2004 and using them as genuine. He is, however, acquitted with respect to charge u/s 468 IPC in respect of letter dated 25.10.2004. He is convicted u/s 471 IPC for using this letter dated 25.10.2004 as genuine.
727. Let the convicts be heard on sentence.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2024.01.06 Announced in the Open Court 17:52:07 +0530 on this 05th Day of January, 2024 (Sanjay Bansal) Special Judge, (PC Act)(CBI), (Coal Block Cases)-02, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi CBI Vs. M/s TUML & Ors. Judgment Dt. 05.01.2024 Page No. 269 of 269