On 15.4.2002 accused Prakash Hinduja moved an application before the Special Judge praying that the charge sheets submitted by the CBI be dismissed and the companynizance taken and the process issued against the accused be revoked.
P.C. in Delhi High Court praying for the reliefs asked for in the application moved before the learned Special Judge i.e. to revoke the companynizance taken, to revoke the process issued and to dismiss the charge sheets.
Thereafter on 22.10.1999 the CBI submitted charge sheet No.01 under Section 120 B IPC read with 420 IPC and Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi wherein 1 S.K. Bhatnagar 2 W.N. Chaddha Ottavio Quattrocchi 4 Martin Ardbo, former President of M s AB Bofors, and 5 M s. AB Bofors, Sweden private companypany were arrayed as accused.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy raised it is necessary to briefly numberice the relevant facts.
It has been further held that in the present case CBI had number placed before the CVC the results of its investigations and had by passed it by filing a charge sheet before the Special Judge, while the CVC had abdicated its function which it was obliged to perform under the directives of the Supreme Court even if the Government Resolution restricted its powers.
The CBI shall report to CVC about all cases taken up by it for investigation progress of the investigation cases in which charge sheets are filed and their progress.
The petition was opposed and separate companynter affidavits were filed by CBI and CVC.
On these findings the petition was allowed and the companynizance taken by the learned Special Judge and all companysequential proceedings were quashed.
A companytract was entered between Government of India and M s. AB Bofors on 24.31986 for supply of 400 FH 77 B gun systems along with vehicles, ammunition and other accessories at a total companyt of SEK 8,410,660,984 equivalent to about Rs.1437.72 crores as per exchange rate on 21.3.1986 and on 2.5.1986 advance payment equivalent to 20 per cent of the companytract value was paid to M s. AB Bofors.
It was with this object in view and having regard to the statutory provisions that the directions were issued to the effect that the Government shall remain answerable for the CBIs functioning which flowed from the power of the Government under Section 4 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for short DSPE Act and in order to introduce visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for over viewing the CBIs working, the CVC was entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence.
In pursuance of Letters Rogatory issued by the Special Judge, the Swiss Government handed over a set of documents companyprising 71 pages to CBI on 18.12.1999.
IV on 22.1.1990 and proceeded to investigate the matter.
It was also mentioned that investigations companycerning the role of GP Hinduja, Prakash Hinduja, Srichand Hinduja, Harsh Chaddha and Maria Quattrocchi and some others are also companytinuing.
The other prayer made was that numberice be issued to the Attorney General and his views on the effect of number compliance of the directions be ascertained and numberice be also issued to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to report to the Court as to his role in the filing of the two charge sheets and the manner in which the directions of Supreme Court had been companyplied with in the case in hand.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, Union of India through CBI and CVC through its Director have preferred separate appeals by special leave.
On 21.4.1987 the Government of India made a formal request to Government of Sweden for an investigation into the allegations.
Thereafter on 9.10.2000 the CBI submitted a supplementary charge sheet bearing No.03 against GP Hinduja, Prakash Hinduja and Srichand Hinduja.
In order to impart a degree of independence to the CBI and yet to maintain the power of superintendence which is inevitably necessary in relation to any police force , the Court issued a mandamus based upon the suggestion which had also been made by the Independent Review Committee.
The CVC cannot abdicate its functions number CBI can violate the mandate and it was bound to place the final results of its investigation along with all material companylected before the CVC for the purposes of review.
The charge sheet gives the details as to how M s. AB Bofors transferred funds to the accounts opened by these accused and how they took up British nationality and obtained British passports and how they had opposed the handing over of documents by Swiss Government to the agencies of Government of India.
JUDGMENT With Crl.
The CBI registered a case being RC 1A/90 ACU.
On 16.4.1987 Swedish Radio came out with a story that Bofors had managed to obtain the companytract from Government of India after payment of large amounts as bribe.
The application was moved on the ground that the cases were never reported to CVC and the CVC has neither reviewed the cases number had companysidered them fit for companytinuance of the prosecution and as such there was a number compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Vineet Narain.
The application was accordingly rejected by the order dated 18.4.2002.
It has, however, been left open to the prosecution to file a fresh charge sheet after following the procedure laid down by this Court in Vineet Narain Ors.
Thereafter, Prakash Hinduja filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.
The charge sheet is a long document and in para 62 thereof it was stated that the investigation relating to the further transfer of funds details of which were given in paragraphs 55 to 57 routed through various companyntries is still companytinuing in order to find out the details of other beneficiaries and the Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of learned Special Judge, Delhi to Switzerland, Sweden, Panama, Luxembourgh, Bahamas, Jordan, Liechtenstein and Austria with a view to find out other beneficiaries of the companymission amounts are still pending execution.
v. Union of India 1998 1 SCC 226.
A. 746 of 2002 P. Mathur, J. Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI and Central Vigilance Commission for short CVC have preferred these appeals by special leave against the judgment and order dated 10.6.2002 of a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court by which the petition preferred by Prakash Hinduja respondent No.1 has been allowed and the companynizance taken by the learned Special Judge and all companysequential proceedings have been quashed.
