Nagpur News : It appears CBI is on the wrong side on its course of investigation in the multi-crore Coal Block Allocation Scam as it is being pulled up the special court for its some or the other act. This time CBI faced the music for filing a report which the court dubs as vague and improper. The report was filed on a plea for return of passport by a Nagpur based accused Manoj Jayaswal in a coal blocks scam case with the judge warning the investigating officer (IO) that cost would be imposed on him in future.
The court had earlier issued a notice to the concerned passport officer at Nagpur on a plea filed by accused Manoj Jayaswal, Director of co-accused firm Nagpur-based AMR Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd, seeking return of his passport seized by the CBI during the investigation.
The special court was hearing the case in which CBI had named in its charge sheet Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda, Manoj Jayaswal, director of Nagpur-based AMR Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd, and the firm as accused for offences under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating) of the IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court had on September 19 asked the CBI not to take any final decision on any case arising out of multi-crore coal scam after serious allegations were levelled against its Director Ranjit Sinha for protecting some accused.
Vijay Darda, Devendra, Jayaswal and the firm were named as accused in the charge sheet filed on March 27 in which it was alleged that they had fraudulently acquired coal blocks. They have denied the allegations levelled against them by CBI.
Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar was unhappy with the CBI’s compliance report on service of notice to the passport officer, Nagpur, and observed that the document placed in the court was “not proper” and “vague”.
“A bare perusal of the entire report and other documents shows that the report is per say vague. It does not say as to whom summons were served and except the word served, there is no other word written on it.
“IO has been warned that in future the report should be in pursuance to rules and procedures of CrPC,” the court said.