The Final Verdict: Years-Long Coal Block Saga Ends in Acquittal

In a landmark development for the long-standing "Coal Block Allocation" cases, the Special Court at Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, has acquitted all five accused in the Bandar Coal Block matter. Special Judge Sunena Sharma delivered the judgment on March 27, 2026, putting an end to a case that originated over a decade ago following the 2012 CVC reference.

The primary figures acquitted include Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Vijay Darda, Devendra Darda, and former Coal Secretary HC Gupta, all of whom had faced charges of criminal conspiracy and corruption under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

A Decade of Allegations

The case against the accused centered on the allocation of the Bander Coal Block to M/s AMR Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (AMR) in 2008. The CBI alleged that the company—controlled by the Jayaswal and Darda families—had misrepresented facts regarding their net worth, land ownership, and their status as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to the 36th Screening Committee.

Furthermore, the CBI alleged a quid pro quo relationship, contending that approximately Rs 24.60 crore was routed through shell companies as an illegal reward for the Dardas' assistance in securing the coal block allocation.

Arguments from the Dock

The prosecution, led by Ld. DLA Sh. A.P. Singh, insisted that the accused orchestrated a complex conspiracy to fraudulently induce officials into parting with national natural resources. They emphasized that the misrepresentation in the application form—specifically, the denial of prior coal block allocations to group companies—constituted fraudulent deception.

Conversely, the defense, led by Sh. Mudit Jain and Sh. Rahul Tyagi, painted the prosecution’s case as a web of presumptions without evidence of a "meeting of minds." The defense successfully argued that the terms "group company" and "associate company" were undefined in the 2007 legal landscape, rendering the application answers subjective rather than fraudulent. They further argued that the financial transactions mentioned by the CBI were legitimate business dealings unrelated to the coal block allocation.

> "The prosecution case for the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, has also failed miserably against all the accused for lack of any iota of evidence, direct or indirect, to establish any prior meeting of mind amongst the accused persons," noted the Court in its final assessment.

Key Observations of the Court

The court’s verdict rested on the failure of the CBI to bridge the gap between their allegations and the evidence. Critical observations included:

• Failure of Inducement : "The feedback form... were not considered by the Screening Committee as the requisite application for the proposed EUP mentioned in the said documents was never filed."
• The Inconsequential Nature of Representation : "The letters/FAX of Sh. Vijay Darda (A-2) were neither placed before nor considered by the Screening Committee... [and] the allocation of Bander Coal Block... runs contrary to the contents of the said letters."
• Absence of Quid Pro Quo : "The prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate... the alleged purpose of transactions as illegal gratification."

The End of the Road

The court found that the 36th Screening Committee’s recommendation was a collective, unanimous decision that followed the process in place at the time. Crucially, the court emphasized that it is the allocation letter , not the recommendation, that serves as a valuable right, and by the time the allocation was issued, HC Gupta had retired.

Ultimately, Special Judge Sunena Sharma concluded that "In the absence of proof of inducement and mens rea... the charge under Section 420 IPC is rendered wholly unsustainable." With this, the curtain falls on a significant chapter of India’s coal allocation litigation, highlighting the high bar of proof required in complex criminal conspiracy cases.

---

Structure and Subheadings

1. Introduction : Setting the stage of the acquittal.
2. A Decade of Allegations : Detailing the CBI's theory concerning AMR and the Darda/Jayaswal families.
3. Arguments from the Dock : Presenting the defense's strategy on "lack of statutory definitions" and "lack of nexus."
4. Key Observations : Highlighting pivotal quotes using the court's reasoning.
5. The End of the Road : Final judgment implications.

---

Integration of Sources

Information from external sources (like the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary ) was integrated as a legal touchstone to define what constitutes a "valuable right" in coal block allocations, contrasting the CBI’s theory with the court’s strict requirement for definitive evidence of inducement.