The court ruled that allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation based on an unapproved CAG report do not constitute sufficient grounds for criminal charges, emphasizing the civil nature of the dispute.

S. No.

Details

Paras No.

1.

A. PREFACE

1-2

2.

B. FACTUAL BACKDROP

3-3.10.5

3.

3.1 Joint Venture Agreement

3.1.1 – 3.1.4

4.

3.2 Correspondence

3.2.1 – 3.2.3

5.

3.3 Fuel Supply Agreement

3.3.1-3.3.3

6.

3.4 Memorandum of Understanding

3.4.1 – 3.4.2

7.

3.5 Washability Report of the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Nagpur

3.5.1

8.

3.6 Revised Mining Plan

3.6.1 – 3.6.2

9.

3.7 Information submitted by KECML to the Coal Controller

3.7.1 – 3.7.2

10.

3.8 Audit Objection raised by the CAG

3.8.1 – 3.8.3

11.

3.9 Preliminary Enquiry registered by respondent – CBI

3.9.1 – 3.9.2

12.

3.10 Litigation between KPCL and KECML

3.10.1 -3.10.6

13.

C. SUBMISSIONS

14.

4. Arguments by Counsel for the Appellants

4.1 – 4.17

15.

5. Arguments by Counsel for the respondent – CBI

5.1 – 5.15

16.

6. Rejoinder Arguments by Counsel for the appellants

6.1 – 6.4

17.

D DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

7.1-7.3

18.

Did CBI Primarily Rely on the Audity Repot of the CAG?

8.1-8.3

19.

Could the Audit Report of the CAG fasten any liability on KECML?

9.1-9.5

20.

Import of the Judgment dated 24th March, 2016 of the Karnataka High Court

10.1-10.3

21.

Sanctity of an Audit Report in Law

11.1-11.5

22.

Denial of Sanctions by the Sanctioning Authorities and the effect on the Appellants

12.1-12.5

23.

Effect of the absence of any strategy in the Mining plan to dispose off the coal rejects

13.1-13.2

24.

Was KECML required to account for the coal rejects?

14.1-14.3

25.

Can KECML be blamed for not setting up the coal washery at the pithead?

15.1-15.4

26.

Did the coal rejects have any useful calorific value making it a saleable commodity?

16.1

27.

Persuasive Value of the Aryan Energy Case

17.1-17.2

28.

Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C

18.1-18.7

29.

Extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

19.1-19.9

30.

Application of mind at the stage of Section 277, CrPC

20.1-20.4

31.

E - CONCLUSION

21.1-21.4

S. No.

Title

Citation

1

‘CBI vs. S.M. Jaamdar & Others’

2

M.L. Sharma v. The Principal Secretary and Others

(2014) 9 SCC 614

3

Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI

(2017) 14 SCC 809

4

KPCL v. Aryan Energy Private Limited1 and Others

COMAP No. 12, 13, 14 and 15 and 2020 decided on 22nd July, 2021

5

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

(2012) 3 SCC 1

6

Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India

(2013) 7 SCC 1

7

Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmat khan v. State of Gujarat

(2014) 4 SCC 156

8

Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Another

(2011) 3 SCC 581

9

Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another

(2020) 9 SCC 636

10

J Sekar alias Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement

(2022) 7 SCC 370

11

Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Another

2024 SCC OnLine SC 483

12

Neeraj Dutta v State (NCT of Delhi)

(2023) 4 SCC 731

13

B. Jayaraj v State of Andhra Pradesh

(2014) 13 SCC 55

14

P. Satyanarayana Murthy v District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

(2015) 10 SCC 152

15

K. Shanthamma v State of Telangana

(2022) 4 SCC 574

16

State through Central Bureau of Investigation v Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava

(2017) 15 SCC 560

17

Soundarajan v State R