Directorate Of Enforcement versus M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd And Ors | Order Dated Thu, 18 Nov 2021

Directorate Of Enforcement versus M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd And Ors - Order No: 16

Case and Order Information

Case Number: CR Cases/1/2019

Parties: Directorate Of Enforcement versus M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd And Ors

Order Number: 16

Filing Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018

Order Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021

Order Description: COPY OF ORDER

Status: Arguments on Charge

Stage: Arguments on Charge

Download Authenticated True Copy
Your authenticated true copy is ready for download.

Order Content

CNR No. DLCT11-000452-2019 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 & Power Ltd & Ors. Offence u/s 3 and punishable u/s 4 PMLA, 2002

Vide office order No. Power Gaz/RACC/2021/25523-25622-C dated 29.10.2021 of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, the undersigned is directed to hold physical court today.

The hearing of the present matter is being taken up in hybrid form i.e. physically as well as via Cisco WebEx Platform (on the request of Ld. Prosecutor/Counsel) in the presence of:

18.11.2021

Present: Ld. Counsel Sh. Rajesh Batra along with Ld. Special PP Sh. N.K. Matta along with IO AD Arun Kumar (all through VC).

Ms. Seetha Palagummi Balu, Ms. Javvaji Spandana and Sh. K. Tirumala Rao are present in person in connected matter (CC No. 248/2019).

A-12 Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal along with Ld. Counsel Sh. Siddhesh Kotwal (through VC).

Sh. Anshuman Nandi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused No. 12 Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal in person.

I. APPLICATION DATED 15.11.2021 SEEKING PERMISSION TO TRAVEL ABROAD ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO. 12 SH. RAJEEV AGGARWAL.

Vide present application, applicant/accused no. 12 seeks permission to visit Phoenix, Arizona USA from 09.12.2021 to 07.01.2022 for the purpose of meeting his son.

The applicant/accused no. 12 has mentioned in his application, the details of present whereabouts of his son in USA.

Reply to aforesaid application has been filed on behalf of ED. Copy has already been supplied to Ld. Counsel for A-12 Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal.

It has been mentioned in the reply that trial proceedings in the present matter shall commence and the presence of applicant/accused no. 12 Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal shall be required before this court. It is also mentioned in the reply that there is an apprehension that the applicant/accused may misuse the permission and it is presumed that the applicant/accused may flee to avoid trial.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant/accused is entitled to permission of the Court to travel Phoenix, Arizona USA from 09.12.2021 to 07.01.2022.

The conditions for this permission shall be as under:-

  •  He shall furnish FD for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs Only)
  •  He shall inform to the IO and the Court about his arrival in India mentioning the details of the places visited by him alongwith 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 is not a direction to any authority except the permission from the side of the Court .
  •  His Advocate Sh. Siddhesh Kotwal shall undertake to accept notice from the Court/IO, if any, on behalf of the applicant in his 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.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

II. APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE SHRI MADHUSUDAN RAO MANIKONDA FROM BEING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ACCUSED NO. 5 M/S SOWBHAGYA MEDIA LTD.

Present application has been preponed for today from 29.11.2021 as same application is listed before this Court in connected matter of CBI vs M/s JSPL having CC No. 248/2019.

Today, Ms. Seetha Palagummi Balu, Ms. Javvaji Spandana and Sh. K. Tirumala Rao are present. Whereas, Ms. Javvaji Spandana and Sh. K. Tirumala Rao has stated that they are not even aware that they are directors in this company being illiterate persons, Ms. Seetha Palagummi Balu has stated that she was Director only for namesake and has never attended the meeting of Board of Directors of A-5 M/s SML. Signed photocopies of their photo identity proof filed on record.

It has been submitted by Ld. ALA that Sh. Madhusudan Rao Manikonda be not discharged unless and until any new AR is substituted for A-5 M/s SML.

It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel Ms. Filza Moonis that Sh. Madhusudan Manikonda Rao has been removed from the Board of Directors in the year 2019 so he be discharged as AR of A-5 M/s SML.

Considered.

It is relevant to note the provisions of Section 305 of Cr.PC, which are as under:-

'305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended.

  • (1) In this section," corporation" means an incorporated company or other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860 ).
  • (2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation.
  • (3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence

of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative or read or stated or explained to the representative, and any requirement that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined.

  • (4) Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub- section (3) shall not apply.
  • (5) Where a statement in writing purporting to be signed by the managing director of the corporation or by any person (by whatever name called) having, or being one of the persons having the management of the affairs of the corporation to the effect that the person named in the statement has been appointed as the representative of the corporation for the purposes of this section, is filed, the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such person has been so appointed.
  • (6) If a question arises as to whether any person, appearing as the representative of a corporation in an inquiry or trial before a Court is or is not such representative, the question shall be determined by the Court.'

The purpose of securing personal presence of all the directors of the company in the court was to find out from them that as Madhusudan Manikonda Rao, AR of the company is seeking to be discharged as the AR of A-5 M/s SML, who would be the AR of the company in his place. However, the present directors have expressed their helplessness in this matter for the reasons recorded above.

Sh. Madhusudan Manikonda Rao was appointed the AR of the company by the Board of Directors of A-5 M/s SML. In case he wants to be relieved of this responsibility, he has to approach the board of directors of the company.

Ld. Counsel requested that she be discharged from this case. The Ld. Counsel is at liberty to file suitable application in this regard.

Put up on date fixed i.e. 25.11.2021.

(Arun Bhardwaj) Special Judge, (PC Act) (CBI), Coal Block Cases-01, RADC New Delhi/18.11.2021.

CNR No. DLCT11-000452-2019

CRC No. 01/2019 (Old CRC No. 08/18)

ECIR No. 12/DLZ0/2014

Branch: Delhi Zonal Office, Zone-ll.

ED Vs. M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd & Ors.

Offence u/s 3 and punishable u/s 4 PMLA, 2002

Vide office order No. Power Gaz/RACC/2021/25523-25622-C dated

29.10.2021 of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC

Act), CBI, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, the undersigned is

directed to hold physical court today.

The hearing of the present matter is being taken up in hybrid form

i.e. physically as well as via Cisco WebEx Platform (on the request of Ld.

Prosecutor/Counsel) in the presence of:

18.11.2021

Proceedings

Present: Ld. Counsel Sh. Rajesh Batra along with Ld. Special PP Sh. N.K.

Matta along with lO AD Arun Kumar (all through VC).

Ms. Seetha Palagummi Balu, Ms. Javvaji Spandana and Sh. K.

Tirumala Rao are present in person in connected matter (CC No.

248/2019).

A-12 Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal along with Ld. Counsel Sh. Siddhesh

Kotwal (through VC).

Sh. Anshuman Nandi, Ld. Counsel for applicantiaccused No. 12

Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal in person.

  1. APPLICATION DATED 15.11.2021 SEEKING PERMISSION TO

TRAVEL ABROAD ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/IACCUSED NO. 12 SH.

RAJEEV AGGARWAL.

Vide present application, applicant/accused no. 12 seeks permission

to visit Phoenix, Arizona USA from 09.12.2021 to 07.01.2022 for the purpose of

meeting his son.

The applicant/accused no. 12 has mentioned in his application, the

details of present whereabouts of his son in USA.

Reply to aforesaid application has been filed on behalf of ED. Copy

has already been supplied to Ld. Counsel for A-12 Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal.

Page 1 of 4

It has been mentioned in the reply that trial proceedings in the

present matter shall commence and the presence of applicant/accused no. 12 Sh.

Rajeev Aggarwal shall be required before this court. It is also mentioned in the reply

that there is an apprehension that the applicant/accused may misuse the permission

and it is presumed that the applicant/accused may flee to avoid trial.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant/accused is

entitled to permission of the Court to travel Phoenix, Arizona USA from 09.12.2021 to

07.01.2022.

 He shall furnish FD for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs

Only)

 He shall inform to the IO and the Court about his arrival in

India mentioning the details of the places visited by him

alongwith 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 is not a direction to any authority except the

permission from the side of the Court.

 His Advocate Sh. Siddhesh Kotwal shall undertake to accept

notice from the Court/IO, if any, on behalf of the applicant in

his 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.

Page 2 of 4

  1. APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE SHRI MADHUSUDAN RAO

MANIKONDA FROM BEING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ACCUSED NO.

5 M/S SOWBHAGYA MEDIA LTD.

Present application has been preponed for today from 29.11.2021 as

same application is listed before this Court in connected matter of CBI vs M/s JSPL

having CC No. 248/2019.

Today, Ms. Seetha Palagummi Balu, Ms. Javvaji Spandana and Sh. K.

Tirumala Rao are present. Whereas, Ms. Javvaji Spandana and Sh. K. Tirumala Rao

has stated that they are not even aware that they are directors in this company being

illiterate persons, Ms. Seetha Palagummi Balu has stated that she was Director only

for namesake and has never attended the meeting of Board of Directors of A-5 M/s

SML. Signed photocopies of their photo identity proof filed on record.

It has been submitted by Ld. ALA that Sh. Madhusudan Rao Manikonda

be not discharged unless and until any new AR is substituted for A-5 M/s SML.

It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel Ms. Filza Moonis that Sh.

Madhusudan Manikonda Rao has been removed from the Board of Directors in the

year 2019 so he be discharged as AR of A-5 M/s SML.

It is relevant to note the provisions of Section 305 of Cr.PC, which are

as under:-

“305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused.

Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be

defended.

(1) In this section," corporation" means an incorporated company or

other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860 ).

(2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused

persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the

purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be

under the seal of the corporation.

(3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any

requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence

Page 3 of 4

of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the

accused, shall be construed as a requirement that that thing shall be

done in the presence of the representative or read or stated or

explained to the representative, and any requirement that the

accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that

the representative shall be examined.

(4) Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any

such requirement as is referred to in sub- section (3) shall not apply.

(5) Where a statement in writing purporting to be signed by the

managing director of the corporation or by any person (by whatever

name called) having, or being one of the persons having the

management of the affairs of the corporation to the effect that the

person named in the statement has been appointed as the

representative of the corporation for the purposes of this section, is

filed, the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that

such person has been so appointed.

(6) If a question arises as to whether any person, appearing as the

representative of a corporation in an inquiry or trial before a Court is

or is not such representative, the question shall be determined by

the Court.”

The purpose of securing personal presence of all the directors of the

company in the court was to find out from them that as Madhusudan Manikonda Rao,

AR of the company is seeking to be discharged as the AR of A-5 M/s SML, who

would be the AR of the company in his place. However, the present directors have

expressed their helplessness in this matter for the reasons recorded above.

Sh. Madhusudan Manikonda Rao was appointed the AR of the

company by the Board of Directors of A-5 M/s SML. In case he wants to be relieved

of this responsibility, he has to approach the board of directors of the company.

Ld. Counsel requested that she be discharged from this case. The Ld.

Counsel is at liberty to file suitable application in this regard.

(Arun Bhardwaj)

Special Judge, (PC Act) (CBI),

Coal Block Cases-01, RADC

New Delhi/18.11.2021.

Page 4 of 4

Document information last updated: Wed, 17 Sep 2025, 02:32 AM IST