Court pronounces first verdict in coal scam; convicts JIPL directors RS Rungta, RC Rungta

Zee Media Bureau

New Delhi: A Special court on Monday convicted Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd (JIPL) and its two directors R S Rungta and R C Rungta in a coal block allocation scam case for acquiring the coal block in Jharkhand on the basis of false documents.

The case pertains to irregularities in allocation of North Dhadu coal block by the 27th and 30th screening committees jointly to JIPL and three other firms M/s Electro Steel Casting Ltd, M/s Adhunik Alloys and Power Ltd and M/s Pawanjay Steel and Power Ltd.

Court has convicted them for offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating under IPC and ordered that R S Rungta and R C Rungta be taken into custody.

It has fixed March 31 for hearing arguments on quantum of sentence in the case.

This is the first case in coal block allocation scam in which the special court, exclusively dealing with all the related matters, has pronounced its verdict.

The court had on March 21 last year framed charges against them for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of IPC.

All the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, while refuting the allegations levelled against them by CBI.

In its chargesheet, CBI had alleged that during the probe, it was found that JIPL had “grossly misrepresented” a number of aspects before the Ministry of Steel (MoS) and the Ministry of Coal (MoC) to inflate their claim and thereby induced the MoC officers and the screening committee to allocate the coal block to them.

CBI alleged that JIPL along with three other firms, Electro Steel Casting Ltd, Adhunik Alloys and Power Ltd and Pawanjay Steel and Power Ltd, was jointly allocated North Dhadu coal block by 27th and 30th screening committee.

CBI had alleged that no efforts were made either by the screening committee to verify the claims made by the applicant firm and that MoS also did not develop any methodology for assessment of the applicant companies.

It had claimed that some records of MoC relating to the case were stated to be missing and a separate preliminary enquiry has been registered by CBI.

With PTI Inputs