Coalscam: JIPL misrepresented facts to acquire block, says CBI

Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd (JIPL) and its officials, who have been chargesheeted in a coalscam case, had allegedly misrepresented facts to acquire North Dhadu coal block in Jharkhand, CBI today told a special court.
CBI has chargesheeted JIPL, its two Directors R S Rungta and R C Rungta and others in the case pertaining to allocation of coal block to the accused firm.
However, the accused today raised jurisdictional issue contending that as no offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act was there in the case, the matter should be heard by a magisterial court.
The competence of the special court to try the case was raised when senior public prosecutor A P Singh was advancing arguments on framing of charges in the case by alleging that JIPL had given false information and inflated claims in their February 2004 application seeking allocation of coal block.

The prosecutor alleged that JIPL had "misrepresented" facts regarding the land required for establishing their proposed end use project as well as its installed capacity.
CBI said in its initial application form, the company had stated that one kiln of 100 tonne per day was in operation and two kilns were to be commissioned in April 2004, but in its agenda form, the firm said three kilns of 100 tonne per day were in operation and eight others were under installation.

"They (accused) had shown three kilns in the form but during the investigation, it has been established that they had only two kilns," the prosecutor told Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar.

"The first misrepresentation was regarding land the other was regarding kilns," the agency said.
Raising jurisdictional issue, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, who appeared for the firm, said, "This court has taken cognisance of the offence only under the IPC and not under Prevention of Corruption Act. All these offences are triable by a magisterial court."
He argued that the accused would be prejudiced if they were tried by special court in the case and the matter should be remanded to a magisterial court.
The arguments on framing of charges remained inconclusive and would continue on February 18.