The CBI on Thursday filed in a special court a copy of the reference made by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on the basis of which a case was lodged against Prakash Industries Ltd and others in a coal blocks allocation scam.
The investigating officer (IO) placed on record the copy of the reference made by the CVC to CBI on the basis of which initial preliminary enquiry was registered.
The agency’s move came after the court on February 3 directed it to produce the original reference made by CVC and place before it the preliminary enquiry file of the case in which it had later filed a closure report.
During the hearing, the prosecutor said that although the IO has also brought the preliminary enquiry file but the same was required for reference in other cases also. So whenever the court deem it appropriate to consider the case, the file would be produced as and when called for, he said.
“The copy of the reference made by the CVC to CBI be kept on record and the preliminary enquiry file be produced as and when called for,” Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar said while posting the matter for consideration on March 17.
The court was hearing the matter in which CBI had filed a closure report saying no prosecutable evidence could be found during its investigation in the case.
CBI had earlier lodged an FIR against Prakash Industries Ltd and others in connection with alleged irregularities in allocation of Chhattisgarh’s Fatehpur coal block.
According to CBI, the Fatehpur coal block was allocated jointly to Prakash Industries Ltd and one other company by the 35th screening committee.
The FIR was lodged against Prakash Industries Ltd, its three top officials, some officials of the Coal Ministry and others alleging that the firm had misrepresented its net worth while applying for the Fatehpur coal block.
The FIR was lodged in the case for offences punishable under sections 120—B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating) of the IPC and under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The agency had alleged that while the company had misrepresented facts relating to its net worth, the screening committee deliberately did not follow the guidelines and showed undue favour to the firm.
