EXPLOSIVE: Corrupt CBI officers took money to compromise coal scam probe?


In a explosive revelation, it has emerged that even the Supreme Court monitored coal scam investigations were severely compromised after officers allegedly took bribe to fix companies involved.


According to a report in Indian Express, at least one investigating officer (IO) has complained to the agency director of “huge amounts” of money having “exchanged hands” and “corrupt” senior officers contaminating some probes.

The complaint, who’s chosen to remain anonymous, has alleged that some seniors in the agency are taking bribes from companies to fix cases.

The letter sent to the current CBI Director, Anil Sinha, has been signed by “Honest IOs, CBI.”

According to the revelation, some senior officers within the federal probe agency are pressuring IOs to “weaken” cases where payoffs have been purportedly made.

In one case, the complaint says, the case was re-opened even after closure was reported to the Supreme Court just because the director of the company being investigated refused to pay a bribe.

The three-page letter, addressed to CBI director Anil Sinha, reached the agency late March. However, Sinha, received the letter only in early April.

The complaint further says, “Huge amounts have exchanged hands in name of DCBI (Director, CBI) and a few selective officers are beneficiaries. These officers are intimidating other officers not to speak the truth in court.”

Following are some of the alleged irregularities reported in the complaint:

  • Closure report was preferred in the Supreme Court but a regular case (RC) got registered a month later in the same case based on the same facts after the company’s director refused to pay bribe.
  • In one case, even after the CBI Director (DCBI) approved registration of a RC, the approval for registration of RC was later changed and the matter was closed with the same facts.
  • Seven cases were closed by selectively not using CIL experts’ report on net worth while the report was invoked to register cases against others.
  • RCs were not registered in at least seven cases despite the companies’ misrepresentation on availability of land.
  • Misrepresentation on preparedness has not led to registration of RCs in seven cases whereas CBI has filed chargesheets in other cases on the same grounds.
  • One case has been closed in spite of misrepresentation on account of financial competence, net worth, land and existing capacity.
  • Public servants were prosecuted in some cases for not checking misrepresentation and not verifying claims of company. When a company was to be helped, public servants were not prosecuted because that “saves everybody from the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
  • If IOs recommended prosecution of public servants against wishes of seniors, they were threatened with departmental proceedings and discouraged to speak the truth in court.