No sanction received for prosecuting two public servants in coal scam: CBI

The CBI on Wednesday told the special court hearing the coal block allocation case allegedly involving Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Ltd that it has not received any communication from the government for prosecuting two public servants.

The probe agency told Special Judge Bharat Parashar that since the time documents were sent to the Department of Personnel and Training pursuant to orders dated October 30, 2014 of this court to consider grant of according of sanction to prosecute the two public servants, no communication regarding the decision taken by the competent authority in this regard either to grant or refuse the sanction has been received.

Senior Public Prosecutor V.K. Sharma submitted that since the time documents were sent to the competent authority for grant of sanction to prosecute the two public servants a period of four-and-a-half months has elapsed and hence the court in view of the settled position of law may proceed with the matter with the presumption that the sanction shall be deemed to have been granted.

CBI has sought sanction against the coal ministry's then joint secretary K.S. Kropha and then director (coal allocation-1 section) K.C. Samaria to be tried as accused in the case under additional charges dealing with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Meanwhile the probe agency told the court that that no further investigation on any other issue is pending and it will be shortly filing the final report of the further investigation.

The court then posted the matter for May 19 for further hearing.

Former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and the Madhya Pradesh-based company Kamal Sponge and its director Pavan Ahluwalia and senior official Amit Goyal are facing trial in the case. The court had rejected the closure report file in the case.

The CBI had lodged an FIR accusing the company and others of allegedly misrepresenting facts, including inflated net worth, to acquire coal blocks. After the probe, the CBI filed a closure report saying it did not find sufficient evidence against the firm and its director to proceed with the case.