Coal block allocation: Court orders framing of charges against firm, 2 directors
The court has now put up the matter for February 16 for formally framing charges against the accused, saying prima facie there were evidences to start the trial against the accused.india Updated: Feb 06, 2017 12:52 IST
A special court on Monday ordered framing of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy charges against Adhunik Corporation Ltd and its two directors foralleged irregularities in allocation of Patrapara coal block in Odisha to the firm.
Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar ordered to put the firm and its two directors -- Nirmal Kumar Agarwal and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal -- on trial for the offence allegedly committed under sections 420 (cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).
The court has now put up the matter for February 16 for formally framing charges against the accused, saying prima facie there were evidences to start the trial against the accused.
The court had on January 15 last year granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each with one surety of like amount after they appeared before it on pursuance of its summons issued against them.
The court had summoned the firm and its two directors for alleged offences under sections 120-B, 420, 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 of the IPC after taking cognisance of CBI’s charge sheet.
In its charge sheet, the CBI said the 30th Screening Committee had recommended M/s Adhunik Corporation Ltd for part allocation of Patrapara coal block.
“During the course of investigation, it was found that M/s Adhunik Corporation Ltd had misrepresented on various aspects both to Ministry of Steel and thereby to Ministry of Coal with a view to cheat them so as to procure allocation of Patrapara coal block,” CBI had said in its charge sheet.
While taking cognisance of the charge sheet, the court had discharged another director of the firm, Ghanshyam Das Agarwal, who was also chargesheeted by CBI in the case, saying there was no sufficient incriminating evidence on record which could lead to his summoning as an accused in the matter.