The report filed before Special Judge Bharat Parashar in a sealed cover included statements of certain persons recorded during the course of further investigation by CBI.
The court put up the report for consideration on September 14, the next date of hearing in the case.
"Investigating Officer has submitted report of further investigation. Statements of certain persons as were recorded during the course of further investigation have also been produced in a sealed cover.
CBI, which filed over 5,000-page documents as part of the report, submitted that it was yet to receive certain papers, including forensic reports, which will be placed before the court later.
The court had earlier allowed CBI's plea that they needed to probe the case further in light of certain disclosures made by a chartered accountant, Suresh Singhal, who had sought the court's nod to turn approver.
CBI had earlier alleged that ex-Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda, also accused in the case, had favoured Jindal group firms -- Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (JSPL) and Gagan Sponge Iron Private Ltd (GSIPL) -- in allocation of Amarkonda Murgadangal coal block in Jharkhand.
CBI had also claimed that the accused had conspired with each other to get the allocation of the coal block in favour of the two Jindal group firms.
The court had said that before accepting CBI's closure
It had earlier directed the CVC to clarify its stand on CBI's closure report in the case in which an FIR was lodged on the basis of CVC's reference.
An FIR was registered against PIL and others in connection with alleged irregularities in allocation of Chhattisgarh's Fatehpur coal block.
The court had earlier said the case was registered on the basis of CVC's reference, but after completing its probe, CBI had filed a closure report saying no incriminating evidence had come on record warranting prosecution of any accused.
According to CBI, the Fatehpur coal block was allocated jointly to PIL and another firm by 35th Screening Committee.
The FIR was registered under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating) of the IPC and under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
CBI had alleged in its FIR that while the company had misrepresented facts relating to its net worth, the screening committee had deliberately not followed the guidelines and show undue favour to it.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
