Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi: In a case pertaining to allocation of ‘Fatehpur East’ coal block in the State of Chhattisgarh in favour of JLD Yavatmal Energy Private Limited (‘JLD’), the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), Sanjay Bansal, J., held that the accused persons were guilty for offences under Sections 120-B read with 420 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Factual Matrix
On basis of preliminary enquiry by the CBI on the reference of Central Vigilance Commission, a First Information report (‘FIR’) was registered under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section 409 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the directors of JLD namely Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Vijay Darda, Devendra Darda and other directors and also other unknown persons, wherein it was alleged that JLD had misrepresented and concealed various facts in the application form in order to qualify and obtain wrongful gain in allocation of coal blocks. The Ministry of Coal (‘MoC’), Government of India, used to allocate captive coal blocks to companies for their end use plants in steel, cement and power sectors based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee which was headed by the Secretary. The 35th Screening Committee concluded its deliberation on 13-09-2007 and recommended allocation of Fatehpur East coal block jointly to JLD and four other companies for their proposed power plants situated in the State of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh. It was found in the enquiry that the Government of Chhattisgarh had not recommended the name of JLD. It was also alleged that JLD had fraudulently claimed in its application that it was jointly promoted, controlled and managed by Lokmat Group and Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (‘IDFC’) and claimed net worth of IDFC to the tune of Rs. 2544.19 crores and that of Lokmat Group to the tune of Rs. 73.38 crores as total net worth of JLD. It was alleged that if net worth of IDFC and Lokmat Group had not been included, JLD could not have qualified for allocation as it did not meet criteria of 0.50 crores per Mega Watt adopted by Central Electricity Authority (‘CEA’). After the investigation, charges were framed against all the accused persons i.e., company- JLD, its directors Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Vijay Darda, Devendra Darda and public servants i.e., accused H.C. Gupta, K.S. Kropha and K.C. Samria for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’).
Analysis of the Issues
1. Were there any Misrepresentations by the JLD and whether the misrepresentations by the JLD induced any person?
The Court perused the Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) dated 27-12-2006 in which IDFC had categorically specified that it was only in the capacity of financial investor. The Court said that it was amply clear from the MoU that there was no provision for use of net worth of IDFC by JLD. The Court said that the ultimate person cheated was the Government of India. Referring to Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy v. State of A.P., (1964) 7 SCR 410, the Court said that it was clear that MoC could be considered as ‘person’ deceived. The Court held prosecution had successfully established that there was inducement that the Screening Committee, MoC were induced to issue the allocation letter of the coal block.
2. Who was responsible for making those misrepresentations and thereby deceiving and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the said person?
The Court said that one of the accused Vijay Darda in the capacity of Director of JLD had written various letters for allocation of Lohara West and extension coal block and had a vested interest in writing those letters to achieve the object of the conspiracy. Another accused Devendra Darda had made presentation and had also signed the feedback form therefore, he cannot escape the liability. The Court added that the signing of the document is enough to fix responsibility. If the person who has signed the document refuses to take responsibility for signing the document, then the whole criminal justice system would collapse.
3. Whether the offence of cheating was made out against the accused persons?
The Court perused Section 23, 25, 415, 420 of the IPC. The Court also referred to several other legal authorities wherein, the meaning of the phrase ‘deceiving any person” as used in the definition of cheating as provided in Section 415 of the IPC was discussed. Further, the Court relied on Dr. Vimla (supra), wherein it was 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’ includes an element of deceit and that by way of their very definition as provided under IPC, the word ‘fraudulently’ by its construction excludes the element of pecuniary economic gain or loss. 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.”
Regarding the question that whether all such fraudulent acts done with a dishonest intention to deceive MoC, Government of India actually had the effect of deceiving the Screening Committee, MoC and thereby the Government of India or not, the Court said that the Prosecution had already proved that the misrepresentations made in the application form, feedback form and the letters had induced the MoC, Government of India to recommend and issue letter of allocation of Fatehpur East Coal Block to JLD company. Therefore, the Court said that in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dr. Vimla (supra) it was clear that the actions of the accused persons in making all such false claims knowing them to be false were actuated with an intention to deceive the MoC and thereby Government of India. It was also said by the Court that it was also clear that all the acts committed by the accused persons were fraudulently done with dishonest intention. Thus, the Court held that the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC was clearly made out against the accused persons.
The Court also examined the question that whether the actions of accused public servants i.e., of MoC officers involved in the process of allocation of Fatehpur East coal block in favour of company- JLD had any element of culpability in the said actions or not?
The Court noted that the guidelines issued by MoC, were clearly issued to regulate the exercise of discretion by the MoC officers and that of the Screening Committee in the matter of allocation of captive coal blocks. The purpose was to rule out any element of arbitrariness in the said exercise of discretion. The said guidelines undisputedly provided the logical and reasoned steps as to how the MoC officers and the Screening Committee shall undertake the decision-making process vide which allocation of captive coal blocks in favour of private applicant companies will be made. The Court said that the officers of the department which issued those guidelines were clearly bound to follow the said guidelines. The Court also added that the said officers can always be punished by the Government or department concerned for violation of the said guidelines by them.
Therefore, the Court held that the guidelines issued by the MoC governing allocation of captive coal blocks though may not be termed as law under Article 13 of the Constitution of India but were clearly binding upon the accused MoC officers.
Regarding the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the PC Act, the Court said that the prosecution had clearly proved the said offence. The Court said that the JLD Company was ineligible for allocation of the coal block but was still recommended by the Screening Committee headed by H.C. Gupta as Chairman, K.S. Kropha was Member Convener and K.C. Samria was Director, they had failed to perform their duties. The Court also added that Allocation of coal block to an ineligible company is against public interest and the actions of H.C. Gupta and K.C. Samria conclusively showed that their efforts were to somehow recommend allocation of the coal block in favour of the JLD Company and which they did. Therefore, the Court held that H.C. Gupta, K.C. Samria and K.S. Kropha were guilty of offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
Court’s Findings
The Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused persons and thereby they were held guilty for offences under Sections 120-B read with 420 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Court acquitted H.C. Gupta of the offences under Section 409 of the IPC and under Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act.
[CBI v. JLD Yavatmal Energy Private Limited, CNR No. DLCT110004422019, Decided on 13-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the CBI: Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema, Special Public Prosecutor, alongwith DLA A.P. Singh, DLA Sanjay Kumar, Senior Public Prosecutor N.P. Srivastava and Advocate Tarannum Cheema;
For Convicts: Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate Nagesh Behl, Advocate Vishal Gaurav, Advocate Chetan Manchanda and Advocate Rajat Tayal, Advocate Aashish Chojar.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
