Case Number: CR Cases/1/2019
Parties: Directorate Of Enforcement versus M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd And Ors
Order Number: 108
Filing Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018
Order Date: Wed, 17 May 2023
Order Description: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Status: Arguments on Charge
Stage: Arguments on Charge
CC NO. 248/2019 (Old CC Nos. 44/2016 & 03/15)
RC No. 219 2013 (E) 0006; Branch: CBI/EO-I/New Delhi CBI vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors. U/s. 120-B IPC, 120-B/420 IPC & Sec 7, 12 & 13(1)(d) PC
Act,1988
CC No. 314/2019 (Old CC No. 13/17)
RC No. 219 2015 (E) 0004; Branch: CBI, EO-I/New Delhi CBI vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL) & Ors. U/s 120-B/420 IPC
(3)
CRC No. 01/2019 (Old CRC No. 08/18)
ECIR No.12/DLZO/2014; Branch:Delhi Zonal Office, Zone-II.
ED vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors.
Offence u/s 3 and punishable u/s 4 PMLA, 2002
17.05.2023.
Present:
Ld. DLAs Sh. A.P. Singh, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Ld. Sr. PP for CBI Sh. N.P. Srivastava for CBI along with IO/Dy.SP Sh. Ajeet Singh.
Ld. Special PPs Sh. Rajesh Batra, Sh. N.K. Matta and Ld. Advocates Ms. Sonia Kukreja, Sh. Ansh Singh Luthra, Sh. Prabhas Bajaj (all through VC) and Sh. Shikhar Adholia for ED .
Applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal (through VC) with Ld. Counsels Sh. Rajeev Goyal and Sh. Gurpreet Singh Parwanda .
Replies to these applications filed on behalf of CBI as well as ED. Copy supplied to Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Copies of the applications at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have already been supplied to CBI as well as ED.
This order shall dispose off the applications at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4 moved on behalf of applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal.
Vide orders dated 11.04.2023, the itinerary filed by applicant/accused vide his application dated 10.04.2023 for traveling to UK, Viena, Hungary, Romania and Spain from 16.04.2023 to 23.04.2023 was taken on record.
However, he filed an application on 26.04.2023 informing his return to India and also informing that he had also visited Czech Republic during his visit abroad.
In the reply filed by CBI, it is stated that the applicant/accused was not accorded permission for visiting Czech Republic as the same was not even sought for at any point of time. It
was also stated that the applicant/accused has not even sought post facto permission for visiting Czech Republic. It is also mentioned in the reply that the applicant/accused has made contempt of court of order dated 11.04.2023 of this court by visiting Czech Republic without obtaining the necessary permission from this court and strict action is warranted against the applicant/accused and it is prayed that strict action as deemed fit be taken against the applicant/accused.
In the reply filed by ED, it is stated that the applicant/accused completely changed his travel plans without intimating this court and has chosen to travel as per his whims and fancies. It is submitted in the reply that the application of the accused intimating his return to India be dismissed with heavy cost for breaching the terms and conditions as imposed by this court vide orders dated 18.01.2023, the liberties granted to him be rescinded and FDR of Rs.1 Crore deposited by the applicant/accused as a security to ensure compliance of the terms and conditions of the above mentioned orders be forfeited.
The applicant/accused has also filed application dated 16.05.2023 stating therein that he had to travel to Czech Republic on account of last minute scheduling of meeting there. He has submitted that he was under the bonafide belief that as Czech Republic is part of Schengen Countries, no separate prior intimation to this court would be required. He has submitted that the visit to Czech Republic was on account of business related exigencies in good faith and under a bonafide belief and was not intentional. He has submitted that he never realized that his said act in visiting additional Schengen Country in the said manner can be considered to be an impropriety on his part, as pleaded by the prosecution. He has stated that in the past, he has
never traveled to any additional country without permission/intimation to this court and always complied with all the conditions imposed by this court and never misused the liberty so granted by this court and had returned to India within the granted period always. He has submitted that prosecution has not suffered any prejudice by his visit to Czech Republic. He has submitted that there is no apprehension that he has tempered with evidence or has influenced any witness of the prosecution. He has prayed to take on record post facto the revised itinerary for visiting Czech Republic from 20.04.2023 to 21.04.2023.
This court has considered the submissions made and is of the opinion that every accused has a right to visit abroad during pendency of trial but he has to honor the terms and conditions of the order of the court granting him permission to travel abroad. In this case, considering the availability of VC technology and considering availability of hybrid hearings in the courts, it was possible and required for the applicant/accused to move urgent application for intimating the court, CBI and ED before proceeding to Czech Republic for which he had given no itinerary to this court before leaving India.
In the opinion of this court, forfeiting the FDR of Rs.1 Crore for this breach, as prayed by ED, would be harsh order. However, in the facts and circumstances, the applicant/accused is liable to be burdened with some cost for visiting Czech Republic for which he had filed no itinerary in the court indicating his visit there. It is directed that the applicant/accused shall pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/(composite for all the three cases) to DLSA, Delhi within a week and file the receipt with the court.
Further, henceforth, the accused shall not visit abroad without permission of this court.
With these directions, the itinerary filed by applicant/accused in his application dated 26.04.2023 including his visit to Czech Republic is taken on record.
In the applications at Sr. No. 4, the applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal has prayed for permitting him to travel to UK, Spain, Paris, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Belgium, Venezuela, USA, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Oman and UAE from 20.05.2023 to 15.06.2023, in connection with his business interests.
It is mentioned in the applications that the applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal for business interests is required to travel to Oman and UAE from 20.05.2023 to 15.06.2023 in addition to the aforesaid countries during the said period as stated in the travel application dated 09.05.2023 (mentioned above at Sr. No. 2). The invitations in this regard are enclosed with these applications as Annexure A-1 .
The applicant has mentioned in the applications, the details of the addresses where he would be staying during the period of his aforesaid visits.
The applicant has mentioned that no prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution and/or any proceedings including trial before this Court shall be hampered/delayed in his absence. He undertakes that he will not dispute his identity nor question the legitimacy of any proceedings done including recording prosecution evidences in his absence and in the presence of his counsel on the ground of his absence. It is further stated in the applications that he has instructed his Counsels not to seek any adjournment in the matter
on the ground of his absence. The applicant has undertakes to remain present himself as and when so directed and his presence is required in connection with the present three cases.
The applicant has also given his mobile number, where he would be always available/reachable.
Both the applications have been opposed by CBI as well as ED for the reason that on the earlier occasion, the applicant/accused visited Czech Republic without intimating either this court or CBI or ED.
However, Ld. Special PP for ED Sh. Rajesh Batra has submitted that since the applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal is a businessman, he has to travel frequently. He submitted that while taking on record his travel itinerary filed with application dated 26.04.2023, this court has already burdened him with cost. He submitted that the present applications be disposed off taking into account the present facts and circumstances of the cases.
Similarly, Sh. A.P. Singh, the Ld. DLA for CBI has also stated that since this court has now imposed conditions on the applicant/accused to visit abroad only after taking permission of this court, present application be disposed off taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused, Sh. A.P. Singh, Ld. DLA for CBI and Sh. Rajesh Batra, Ld. Counsel for ED.
A perusal of records shows that the accused has traveled abroad several times in the past and returned to India to face the trial within the stipulated period. Out of three matters, only in one matter i.e. CC No. 248/2019, prosecution evidence was being recorded and
applicant/accused has already undertaken that he will not dispute his identity and will not question the legitimacy of proceedings conducted in his absence and in the presence of his Counsel on the ground of his absence during such period of travel. For visiting Czech Republic without intimating this court, he has been burdened with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and he has been directed not to visit abroad without permission of the court.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant/accused is entitled to permission of the Court to travel abroad to UK, Spain, Paris, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Belgium, Venezuela, USA, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Oman and UAE from 20.05.2023 to 15.06.2023 subject to following conditions:-
absence and shall further undertake that in case the presence of applicant is required during the aforesaid period he shall immediately intimate the applicant and the applicant shall return to India within 48 hours.
Put up the cases now on their respective next dates of hearings.
A copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused, as prayed for.
(ARUN BHARDWAJ) SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) (CBI), COAL BLOCK CASES-01, RADC, NEW DELHI/17.05.2023.
(1)
(2)
CNR NO. DLCT11-000949-2019
CC NO. 248/2019 (Old CC Nos. 44/2016 & 03/15)
RC No. 219 2013 (E) 0006; Branch: CBI/EO-I/New Delhi
CBI vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors.
U/s. 120-B IPC, 120-B/420 IPC & Sec 7, 12 & 13(1)(d) PC
CNR No. DLCT11-001302-2019
RC No. 219 2015 (E) 0004; Branch: CBI, EO-I/New Delhi
CBI vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL) & Ors.
U/s 120-B/420 IPC
CNR No. DLCT11-000452-2019;
ECIR No.12/DLZO/2014; Branch:Delhi Zonal Office,
Zone-II.
ED vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors.
Present: Ld. DLAs Sh. A.P. Singh, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Ld.
1
Sr. PP for CBI Sh. N.P. Srivastava for CBI along with
IO/Dy.SP Sh. Ajeet Singh.
Ld. Special PPs Sh. Rajesh Batra, Sh. N.K. Matta and
Ld. Advocates Ms. Sonia Kukreja, Sh. Ansh Singh
Luthra, Sh. Prabhas Bajaj (all through VC) and Sh.
Shikhar Adholia for ED.
Applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal (through VC) with
Ld. Counsels Sh. Rajeev Goyal and Sh. Gurpreet
Singh Parwanda.
APPLICATIONS DATED 26.04.2023 IN
COMPLIANCE OF ORDERS DATED = 18.01.2023 AND
11.04.2023 ABOUT RETURN OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED
NAVEEN JINDAL TO INDIA.
Replies to these applications filed on behalf of CBI as
well as ED. Copy supplied to Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Page 1 of 8
OF SH. NAVEEN JINDAL FOR PERMISSION TO TRAVEL TO
UK, SPAIN, PARIS, CZECH REPUBLIC, SWITZERLAND,
BELGIUM, VENEZUELA, USA, HUNGARY, ITALY AND
GERMANY FROM 20.05.2023 TO 15.06.2023.
OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED SH. NAVEEN JINDAL FOR
TAKING ON RECORD THE REVISED ITINERARY FOR
TRAVEL TO AN ADDITIONAL SCHENEGAN COUNTRY I.E.
CZECH REPUBLIC FROM 20.04.2023 TO 21.04.2023 POST
FACTO.
Copies of the applications at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have
already been supplied to CBI as well as ED.
OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED SH. NAVEEN JINDAL FOR
PERMISSION TO TRAVEL TO OMAN AND UAE IN
ADDITION TO APPLIATION DATED 09.05.2023 FOR
PERMISSION TO TRAVEL TO UK, SPAIN, PARIS, CZECH
REPUBLIC, SWITZERLAND, BELGIUM, VENEZUELA, USA,
HUNGARY, ITALY AND GERMANY FROM 20.05.2023 TO
15.06.2023.
This order shall dispose off the applications at Sr. Nos. 1
to 4 moved on behalf of applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal.
Vide orders dated 11.04.2023, the itinerary filed by
applicant/accused vide his application dated 10.04.2023 for traveling
to UK, Viena, Hungary, Romania and Spain from 16.04.2023 to
23.04.2023 was taken on record.
However, he filed an application on 26.04.2023
informing his return to India and also informing that he had also
visited Czech Republic during his visit abroad.
In the reply filed by CBI, it is stated that the
applicant/accused was not accorded permission for visiting Czech
Republic as the same was not even sought for at any point of time. It
Page 2 of 8
was also stated that the applicant/accused has not even sought post
facto permission for visiting Czech Republic. It is also mentioned in
the reply that the applicant/accused has made contempt of court of
order dated 11.04.2023 of this court by visiting Czech Republic
without obtaining the necessary permission from this court and strict
action is warranted against the applicant/accused and it is prayed that
strict action as deemed fit be taken against the applicant/accused.
In the reply filed by ED, it is stated that the
applicant/accused completely changed his travel plans without
intimating this court and has chosen to travel as per his whims and
fancies. It is submitted in the reply that the application of the accused
intimating his return to India be dismissed with heavy cost for
breaching the terms and conditions as imposed by this court vide
orders dated 18.01.2023, the liberties granted to him be rescinded and
FDR of Rs.1 Crore deposited by the applicant/accused as a security to
ensure compliance of the terms and conditions of the above mentioned
orders be forfeited.
The applicant/accused has also filed application dated
16.05.2023 stating therein that he had to travel to Czech Republic on
account of last minute scheduling of meeting there. He has submitted
that he was under the bonafide belief that as Czech Republic is part of
Schengen Countries, no separate prior intimation to this court would
be required. He has submitted that the visit to Czech Republic was on
account of business related exigencies in good faith and under a
bonafide belief and was not intentional. He has submitted that he
never realized that his said act in visiting additional Schengen Country
in the said manner can be considered to be an impropriety on his part,
as pleaded by the prosecution. He has stated that in the past, he has
Page 3 of 8
never traveled to any additional country without permission/intimation
to this court and always complied with all the conditions imposed by
this court and never misused the liberty so granted by this court and
had returned to India within the granted period always. He has
submitted that prosecution has not suffered any prejudice by his visit
to Czech Republic. He has submitted that there is no apprehension that
he has tempered with evidence or has influenced any witness of the
prosecution. He has prayed to take on record post facto the revised
itinerary for visiting Czech Republic from 20.04.2023 to 21.04.2023.
This court has considered the submissions made and is of
the opinion that every accused has a right to visit abroad during
pendency of trial but he has to honor the terms and conditions of the
order of the court granting him permission to travel abroad. In this
case, considering the availability of VC technology and considering
availability of hybrid hearings in the courts, it was possible and
required for the applicant/accused to move urgent application for
intimating the court, CBI and ED before proceeding to Czech
Republic for which he had given no itinerary to this court before
leaving India.
In the opinion of this court, forfeiting the FDR of Rs.1
Crore for this breach, as prayed by ED, would be harsh order.
However, in the facts and circumstances, the applicant/accused is
liable to be burdened with some cost for visiting Czech Republic for
which he had filed no itinerary in the court indicating his visit there. It
is directed that the applicant/accused shall pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
(composite for all the three cases) to DLSA, Delhi within a week and
file the receipt with the court.
Page 4 of 8
Further, henceforth, the accused shall not visit abroad
without permission of this court.
With these directions, the itinerary filed by
applicant/accused in his application dated 26.04.2023 including his
visit to Czech Republic is taken on record.
In the applications at Sr. No. 4, the applicant/accused Sh.
Naveen Jindal has prayed for permitting him to travel to UK, Spain,
Paris, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Belgium, Venezuela, USA,
Hungary, Italy, Germany, Oman and UAE from 20.05.2023 to
15.06.2023, in connection with his business interests.
It is mentioned in the applications that the
applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal for business interests is required
to travel to Oman and UAE from 20.05.2023 to 15.06.2023 in addition
to the aforesaid countries during the said period as stated in the travel
application dated 09.05.2023 (mentioned above at Sr. No. 2). The
invitations in this regard are enclosed with these applications as
Annexure A-1.
The applicant has mentioned in the applications, the
details of the addresses where he would be staying during the period
of his aforesaid visits.
The applicant has mentioned that no prejudice shall be
caused to the prosecution and/or any proceedings including trial
before this Court shall be hampered/delayed in his absence. He
undertakes that he will not dispute his identity nor question the
legitimacy of any proceedings done including recording prosecution
evidences in his absence and in the presence of his counsel on the
ground of his absence. It is further stated in the applications that he
has instructed his Counsels not to seek any adjournment in the matter
Page 5 of 8
on the ground of his absence. The applicant has undertakes to remain
present himself as and when so directed and his presence is required in
connection with the present three cases.
The applicant has also given his mobile number, where
he would be always available/reachable.
Both the applications have been opposed by CBI as well
as ED for the reason that on the earlier occasion, the applicant/accused
visited Czech Republic without intimating either this court or CBI or
ED.
However, Ld. Special PP for ED Sh. Rajesh Batra has
submitted that since the applicant/accused Sh. Naveen Jindal is a
businessman, he has to travel frequently. He submitted that while
taking on record his travel itinerary filed with application dated
26.04.2023, this court has already burdened him with cost. He
submitted that the present applications be disposed off taking into
account the present facts and circumstances of the cases.
Similarly, Sh. A.P. Singh, the Ld. DLA for CBI has also
stated that since this court has now imposed conditions on the
applicant/accused to visit abroad only after taking permission of this
court, present application be disposed off taking into account the facts
and circumstances of the case.
This Court has considered the submissions made on
behalf of Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused, Sh. A.P. Singh, Ld.
DLA for CBI and Sh. Rajesh Batra, Ld. Counsel for ED.
A perusal of records shows that the accused has traveled
abroad several times in the past and returned to India to face the trial
within the stipulated period. Out of three matters, only in one matter
i.e. CC No. 248/2019, prosecution evidence was being recorded and
Page 6 of 8
applicant/accused has already undertaken that he will not dispute his
identity and will not question the legitimacy of proceedings conducted
in his absence and in the presence of his Counsel on the ground of his
absence during such period of travel. For visiting Czech Republic
without intimating this court, he has been burdened with a cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- and he has been directed not to visit abroad without
permission of the court.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
applicant/accused is entitled to permission of the Court to travel
abroad to UK, Spain, Paris, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Belgium,
Venezuela, USA, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Oman and UAE from
20.05.2023 to 15.06.2023 subject to following conditions:-
He shall furnish FD for a sum of Rs. One crore
(Cumulatively in all the three cases i.e. RC No. 219
2013 (E) 0006 titled CBI vs M/s JSPL; RC No. 219
2015 (E) 0004 titled CBI vs M/s JSPL and ECIR No.
12/DLZO/2014 titled ED vs M/s JSPL)
He shall inform to the IO of CBI and ED and the
Court about his arrival to India mentioning the details
of the places visited by him along with the other details
of the itinerary within seven days of his arrival. The
applicant/accused shall also file complete copy of his
passport alongwith the copy of Visa in the Court on his
return.
He shall not tamper with the evidence nor try to
influence any witness in any manner and will not use
the permission granted to him so as to hamper the trial
in any manner.
This permission shall be subject to other
applicable rules and will not be deemed as
directions to any authority except the permission
from the side of the Court.
His Advocate Sh. Rajeev Goyal/Sh. Gurpreet
Singh Parwanda shall undertake to accept notice from
the Court/IO, if any, on behalf of the applicant in his
Page 7 of 8
absence and shall further undertake that in case the
presence of applicant is required during the aforesaid
period he shall immediately intimate the applicant and
the applicant shall return to India within 48 hours.
He shall intimate the Court about his contact
addresses where he would be staying and his
contact numbers.
With these directions, the applications at Sr. Nos. 1 to
4 are disposed off.
Put up the cases now on their respective next dates of
hearings.
A copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused, as prayed for.
(ARUN BHARDWAJ)
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) (CBI),
COAL BLOCK CASES-01, RADC,
NEW DELHI/17.05.2023.
Page 8 of 8