NEW DELHI: A special Delhi court on Friday acquitted former Congress MP Vijay Darda, his son Devendra, ex-coal secretary H C Gupta and others in a coal block allocation case, ending over a decade of trial after finding the evidence “highly insufficient” to prove charges of cheating, conspiracy, or misconduct.The case stemmed from the allocation in Maharashtra’s Bandar and led to the first CBI chargesheet in the larger coal block controversy dating back to the time Congress-led UPA was in office. The FIR was filed in 2012 and the chargesheet in 2014.
Judge Sunena Sharma held that there was no proof of criminal conspiracy, noting the case was based on conjectures and lacked evidence of a “meeting of minds” or illegal agreement. The others cleared included AMR Iron and Steel Private Ltd, which had bagged the block in Maharashtra’s Bander, its director Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and two others. Advocate Mudit Jain appeared for Jayaswal, the Dardas and AMR, while lawyer Rahul Tyagi represented Gupta.Sharma observed that the material on record was too sparse to conclusively establish any of the essential ingredients — viz deception, inducement, dishonest intention or cheating under Section 420 of IPC.CBI had alleged that AMR, in conspiracy with Gupta, submitted false information to a screening committee of the Union coal ministry to secure the allocation. According to CBI, then Rajya Sabha MP Vijay wrote to various departments allegedly reiterating misrepresentations to influence the allocation process and received Rs 24.6 crore as illegal gratification.Strictly follow rule on not naming survivor: SCSC said: “Clearly, the intent of this Section has been given a miss in these proceedings. The name of the survivor is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record. This must be deprecated in the strongest terms. In fact, this court has noticed earlier also that the mandate of this provision is not being followed”.The court said that a copy of this judgment be sent to all high courts to ensure strict compliance with the apex court’s order.“This has been the long-standing position in law but it has not been followed. The primary reason there amongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences,” the Supreme Court said.Supreme Court, while convicting the accused and setting aside the acquittal order of Uttarakhand high court, said courts must not give undue importance to minor discrepancies.“A truthful witness may make honest mistakes or omit immaterial details, and such normal variation should not result in wholesale rejection of evidence. However, when omissions or contradictions relate to material facts that form the foundation of the prosecution’s version, they assume significance and may create reasonable doubt….We may observe that the approach adopted by the high court is one of attempting to pick holes in a case that otherwise has withstood the test of cross-examination. The prosecutrix has positively identified the respondent-accused and has unequivocally stated that it was he who forced himself upon her,” it said.
