Chhattisgarh EOW/ACB Accused of Submitting Forged Judicial Statements to Supreme Court in Coal Scam Case

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – A significant controversy has erupted in Chhattisgarh, placing the state's Economic Offence Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB) at the center of grave allegations involving evidence fabrication and manipulation of judicial process. Senior leaders of the Congress party, led by former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, have accused the agency of submitting a forged statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), before the Supreme Court in the ongoing coal levy scam investigation.

The allegations, which strike at the heart of procedural sanctity and the integrity of evidence, have resulted in a formal criminal complaint against three EOW/ACB officers, demanding a thorough investigation into what is being described as a blatant subversion of the rule of law.

The Core Allegation: Tampering with a Section 164 Statement

At a press conference, former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, alongside state Congress chief Deepak Baij and Leader of Opposition Charan Das Mahant, laid out the explosive claims. The controversy centers on the bail proceedings of Suryakant Tiwari, an accused in the alleged multi-crore coal levy scam. The Congress leaders alleged that the EOW/ACB submitted a statement of co-accused Nikhil Chandrakar, purportedly recorded under Section 164 CrPC, to the Supreme Court, which they claim was forged.

"The font used in Chandrakar's statement under section 164 of CrPC was different from the official font used in the court," Baghel stated. "So, where did this font come from and who introduced it? It is clear the statement was pre-typed and brought by the officers of the state EOW/ACB on a pen drive in the court and not recorded by a magistrate as required by law."

A statement under Section 164 of the CrPC (now Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS) is a critical piece of evidence. It is recorded by a judicial magistrate to ensure its voluntariness and accuracy, granting it significant evidentiary weight. The procedure is designed to be a safeguard against coercion and to create a reliable record. The allegation that this statement was pre-prepared and not organically recorded by the magistrate suggests a fundamental breach of this crucial legal safeguard.

Baghel further claimed that forensic analysis of the document confirmed the use of two distinct fonts, substantiating the party's claim that the document was not generated through standard court procedure.

Legal Recourse and Institutional Scrutiny

In response to these findings, a formal legal challenge has been initiated. Senior Congress leader and advocate Girish Chandra Dewangan has filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Raipur, seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings against three EOW/ACB officers.

"As per the complaint, these officers fabricated or pre-prepared statements to be recorded under CrPC section 164 and later used them as genuine documents in the ongoing investigations and before the Supreme Court," Baghel elaborated.

This action follows a prior complaint filed by Dewangan with the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Chhattisgarh High Court on September 12, indicating a multi-pronged approach to seek accountability. The legal filings aim to not only address the specific instance of alleged forgery but also to trigger a broader inquiry into the practices of the investigative agency.

The Broader Context: The Coal Levy Scam Investigation

The allegations have emerged from the high-profile investigation into the Chhattisgarh coal levy scam. In January of the previous year, the state ACB/EOW registered a case based on information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is conducting a parallel probe into the money laundering aspects of the case.

The FIR, filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, names 35 individuals. This includes prominent political figures such as former minister Amarjeet Bhagat and several incumbent and former Congress MLAs, as well as suspended IAS officers Sameer Bishnoi and Ranu Sahu. The scam allegedly involved the imposition of an illegal levy of ₹25 per tonne of coal transported in the state, generating vast sums of illicit money.

The EOW/ACB's case is heavily reliant on the evidence gathered, making the integrity of witness statements and documentary evidence paramount. The current allegations, therefore, have the potential to severely undermine the prosecution's case if proven true.

Implications for the Legal System and Investigative Agencies

This incident raises profound questions for the legal community, touching upon several critical principles:

• Sanctity of Judicial Procedure: The meticulous process for recording a Section 164 statement exists to protect the accused and ensure the reliability of evidence. An allegation that officials brought a pre-typed statement on a "pen drive" for a magistrate's signature would represent a shocking and cynical subversion of this process.
• Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence: If the statement is found to be fabricated, it will be rendered inadmissible. More significantly, it could cast a shadow of doubt over all evidence presented by the EOW/ACB in this case, potentially leading to challenges against other documents and testimonies. Defence counsels will likely leverage this allegation to question the credibility of the entire investigation.
• Accountability of Law Enforcement: The criminal complaint against the EOW/ACB officers is a crucial test of the mechanisms in place to hold investigative agencies accountable. The outcome of this complaint will be closely watched as a precedent for dealing with allegations of investigative misconduct.
• The Role of Forensic Science: This case highlights the growing importance of digital and document forensics in modern litigation. The claim of differing fonts, if upheld by expert analysis, serves as a powerful example of how scientific evidence can be used to expose procedural and evidentiary fraud.

During the press conference, Bhupesh Baghel also situated the incident within a larger political narrative, accusing central and state agencies of acting at the behest of their "political masters" to target opposition figures. "Until now, the judiciary appeared largely free from pressure, but this single incident has raised serious questions," he remarked, calling for a comprehensive investigation and the registration of a criminal case against the involved officials.

As the complaint proceeds through the judicial system, the legal fraternity will be observing the courts' handling of these serious allegations. The case serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role as a bulwark against potential executive overreach and the imperative to safeguard the foundational procedures that ensure a fair and just criminal justice system.