The summary covers the key aspects of the Supreme Court's ...

Disagreement over disposal of coal rejects deemed a civil dispute, not criminal, due to lack of clear policy and compelling circumstances.

Case Laws     Indian Laws

September 3, 2024

The summary covers the key aspects of the Supreme Court's judgment, including the Court's findings on the following critical issues: The CBI primarily relied on the CAG's Audit Report as the starting point for initiating prosecution against the appellants, which cannot be accepted as decisive without parliamentary approval. The Karnataka High Court's judgment clarifying no criminality can be attributed to KECML based on the same facts is persuasive. The denial of sanctions by sanctioning authorities to prosecute senior KPCL officers involved in the same matter weakens the case against the appellants. The absence of a national policy for disposal of coal rejects and the agreements allowing KECML to dispose them safely without accounting to KPCL negate any criminal intent. KECML's decision to outsource coal washing was driven by compelling circumstances with KPCL's concurrence. The coal rejects lacked useful calorific value as per government laboratory reports. The High Court rightly exercised its inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. The Supreme Court's extraordinary powers under Article 136 allow it to correct errors, safeguard rights, and dispense justice, warranting interference in this case. The charges framed against the appellants stem from a predominantly civil dispute lacking criminal elements, leading the Court to quash the impugned orders.

View Source