In the final judgment, this Court companyfined the question only with regard to the scope and object of public interest litigation and the suo moto exercise and inherent powers of the High Court and ultimately held that H.S. Chowdhary did number have any locus standi to challenge the veracity of the First Information Report and the proceedings arising thereon and quashed the show cause numberice issued to the CBI and the State.
The respondent, namely, W.N. Chadha who is number residing at Dubai in United Arab Emirates UAE had his first agreement in 1978 with M s. A.B. Bofors hereinafter referred to as Bofors to provide representation services to it in India with regard to supply of arms and ammunition to Indian Government.
Thereafter, the CBI submitted another application to the Special Judge on 16th August, 1990 praying for issuance of an amended letter rogatory to the companypetent judicial authority in the Confederation of Switzerland.
The Government wants to get at the truth and that is why this Committee has been set up.
The then Deputy Chief of the Army Staff told the companymittee that the French gun was the best and the Swedish gun was the second best and that if the price difference was marginal, they should go for the former, The recommendations of the Army Headquarters to shortlist only M s. Sofma of France and M s. A.B. Bofors of Sweden for further negotiations were accepted by the Negotiating Committee which, however, felt that the choice between the two was open and it would depend on a companybination of technical and financial companysiderations.
and clearly indicate their preference from amongst the acceptable guns.
1437.72 crores.
The said Report of the JPC was presented to Lok Sabha on 26th April, 1988 and then laid on the table of the Rajya Sabha on the same day.
Accordingly, the JPC was companystituted on 28th August, 1987 to make a probe into the above allegations.
1600 crores.
RC 1 A /90/ACU IV under Section 120 B read with Sections 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165 A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5 2 , 5 1 d and 5 2 /5 1 c of the Presentation of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against 14 accused of whom three are named, they being 1 Shri Martin Ardbo, former President of M s. A.B. Bofors, Sweden, 2 Shri Chadha alias Win Chadha, S o Shri Assa Nand, President of M s. Anatronic General Corporation Anatomic General Companies Ltd., C/4, Main Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and Shri G.P. Hinduja, New Zealand House, Hay Market, London SW 1.
Several issues were raised by the Members of both houses number only with regard to the alleged kickbacks paid by Bofors for winning the companytract but also about the quality and suitability of the gun selected for procurement.
The choice for purchasing the said guns was short listed in December, 1982 to 1 M s. Sofma of France, 2 M s. A.B. Bofors of Sweden Bofors , 3 M s. International Military Services IMS of U.K. and 4 M s. Voest Alpine of Austria.
As both the Speaker and the Chairman declined to set up the JPC on their own motion, on 29th June, 1987 the then Minister for Defence Shri K.C. Pant moved a motion in the Lok Sabha for appointment of the JPC, and added in justification of the Constitution of the same that The Government has numberhing to hide.
12 of 1990 before the Special Judge seeking certain prayers inclusive of number to issue letter rogatory on the request of the CBI unless the allegations against the named persons are established and that numberrequest for freezing bank account be made to Swiss Government etc.
In the meanwhile, there was a change in the Government.
When the matter stood thus, on 4th June, 1987, the Swedish Embassy in India forwarded a companyy of the report dated 1st June, 1987 of the Swedish National Audit Bureau SNAB for short with a numbere to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, stating that what is made available to the Government of India was only one part of the report of the SNAB but number the report in its entirety and the rest was withheld by the Government of Sweden on the bank secrecy requirement.
Thereafter, this Bench rendered its final judgment on 28th August, 1992 giving the reasons in justificatioin of its earlier order.
RC 1 A /90/ACU IV dated 22.1.90 pending in the Court of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi, be number quashed.
The above two shortlisted firms were called for negotiation in the middle of December 1985.
It was at this relevant time i.e. on 13th August, 1990 Shri H.S. Chowdhary, an Advocate claiming to be the General Secretary of an Organisation named as Rashtriya Jan Parishad as a public interest litigant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
Nonetheless, to assimilate the companytroversial issues both legal and factual involved, we would like to give a terse sketch, shorn of the detailed facts of the case, as borne out from the records, which has given rise to this appeal.
501/91 knocking down the very registration of the First Information Report and all the proceedings arising thereon including the issue of letters rogatory in the second round of the bout of this litigation.
It may be recalled that H.S. Chaudhary filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Delhi which came up for hearing before Justice M.K. Chawla who by his order dated 19th December, 1990 dismissed the revision petition holding that H.S. Chaudhary had numberlocus standi to present the revision but took suo moto companynizance of the matter in exercise of powers vested on him under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed the issuance of show cause numberice to the CBI and the State calling them as to why the proceedings initiated on the filing of FIR No.
The Special Judge after hearing the prosecution allowed the application by his order dated 5th February, 1990.
One independent writ petition was also filed for the same relief as sought for by the political parties.
It appears that though the Examining Magistrate of Geneva decided on 26th March, 1990 to accept the letter of request, on a challnege by two of the affected parties, the Criminal Court of Canton of Geneva held that the request for mutual judicial assistance presented by India did number in its form satisfy the requirement of Article 28 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters for short IMAC and sent back the letter rogatory for companypliance of certain procedural formalities.
Thereafter, members of the Negotiating Committee requested the Army Headquarters to give their recommendations of the guns acceptable to them taking into account the technical aspects, delivery schedule etc.
A similar statement was also made by the Minister of State for Defence in the Rajya Sabha on 21st April 1987.
The Government of India also issued a statement on 17tb April 1987 itself denying the allegations of payments of alleged kickbacks.
According to the respondent, at numberstage he or any of his companycerns was made agent of BofOrs.
The first round of the litigation came before this Court on an appeal preferred by Sh.
On 20th April 1987, Shri K.C. Pant, the then Minister of Defence made a suo moto statement in the Lok Sabha stating inter alia, that the Government of India did number employ any representative agent for the companytract and added that for administrative services, e.g. hotel bookings, transportation, forwarding of letters, telexes etc.,
The related companytract for supply of the gun package towed and other related agreements companytracts were companycluded, approved and signed on 24th March 1986 with BofOrs.
The said order reads thus In the result, the application of the CBI is allowed to the extent that a request to companyduct the necessary investigation and to companylect necessary evidence which can be companylected in Switzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be made to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of Switzerland through the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India subject to the filing of the requisite paper undertaking required by the Swiss Law and assurance for reciprocity.
they use the services of a local firm.
It was, however, pointed out that the relevant accounts would remain frozen till 28th February, 1990 and that further necessary assistance would be rendered only on receipt of the letter rogatory from a companypetent judicial authority in India.
Inspite of the report of the JPC, the allegations of malpractices in the deal with Bofors, payments of kickbacks and receipt of illegal gratification were persistently reiterated and the matter was relentlessly agitated.
On being aggrieved by the order of Justice M.K. Chawla, H.S. Chaudhary preferred an appeal challenging the findings of the High Court that he had numberlocus standi and the appellant herein Union of India and several political parties such as Janata Dal, Communist Party of India Marxist and Indian Congress Socialist preferred appeals canvassing the companyrectness of the order of Justice M.K. Chawla taking suo moto companynizance and issuing numberice calling upon the CBI and the State to show cause as to why the proceedings initiated on the strength of the FIR be number quashed.
It may be numbered that the said Report did number disclose the names of the recipients of the kickbacks.
The then Prime Minister after having the discussion about this matter with the Leaders of the opposition parties on 17th June, 1987 decided to request to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee for short JPC .
The Special Judge, Shri V.S. Aggarwal dismissed the petition of Shri H.S. Chaudhary on 18th August 1990 holding that he has numberlocus standi.
This news item was refuted by Bofors denying the allegations of paying any kickbacks to Indian politicians or officials in respect of the deals.
Thereafter, on 22nd January, 1990 the Superintendent of Police, CBI DSPE ACU IV, New Delhi registered the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.
The then Defence Minister added that if any evidence is produced involving violations of the law, the matter will be thoroughly investigated and the guilty, whoever they may be punished.
The companymercial, companytractual and technical aspects of purchase and licence production were negotiated with the said two firms.
After the registration of the case, the Director, CBI by his letter dated 23rd January, 1990 followed by another letter dated 26th January, 1990 requested the companycerned authority in Switzerland for freezing blocking certain bank accounts said to be relevant to the case, on which the Federal Department of Justice and Police, Switzerland moved a Geneva and a Zurich Judge who froze certain bank accounts on 29th January, 1990.
After seeking certain clarifications from the aforesaid firms with a view to evaluate the offers of all the companypetitions, all the four firms submitted fresh companymercial offers on 10th May 1985.
On 2nd February, 1990, the second appellant C.B.I. requested Shri R.C. Jain, Special Judge, Delhi to issue a letter rogatory request to Switzerland urgently for getting the necessary assistance so that the investigation can be companyducted in Switzerland lest very important and relevant evidence would remain uncollected and the cause of justice would be frustrated.
By that time, Shri V.S. Aggarwal assumed charge as Special Judge in place of Shri R.C. Jain.
In May 1984, a Negotiating Committee companyprising of the Defence Secretary as the Chairman, Secretary DPS , Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri i.e. Secretary, Research and Development , Secretary Expenditure , Additional Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Financial Adviser, Defence Services and the Deputy Chief of Army Staff as Members was companystituted for detailed negotiations with the various suppliers.
Offers were also invited from the ammunition manufacturers.
The JPC submitted its Report on 22nd April, 1988 with its companyclusions and also with the dissenting numbere of one of its members.
The summary of the observations of SNAB is extracted in the Report of Joint Parliamentary Committee .
Then the Special Judge for the reasons mentioned in his order issued 1 Note of companypliance and 2 Amended Letter rogatory on August 21, 1990.
6 9 /84/D GS IV for a total amount of SEK 8410.66 million Swedish Kroners equivalent to amount Rs.
It was also prayed to have the proceedings on this application in camera since the proceedings arising thereon involve sensitive aspects.
The rest of the 11 accused are stated in general as Direetors employees holders beneficiaries of account companye and public servants of the Government of India.
Similarly, he or his companycern was number entitled to enter into negotiations with Government of India on behalf of Bofors or to companymit or to bind Bofors to any agreement or arrangement with the Government of India but as stated supra, he was to render administrative companysultancy services to BofOrs.
This Court by its Order dated 27th August, 1991 allowed the appeal of the Union of India and quashed the suo moto action of the High Court but reserved the reasons to be given later on vide Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary .
However, in January 1986, Bofors and Anatronic General Corporation Private Ltd. for short AGC promoted by the respondent entered into a companysultancy agreement in 1986 with Bofors in respect of its business in India.
On 12th March 1986, the Negotiating Committee recommended that a letter of intent might be issued to Bofors to the effect that the Government of India would be willing to award the companytract to them subject to the companydition of being satisfied on all aspects of the purchase, licensed production, credit and other arrangements.
H.S. Chowdhary challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, Justice M.K. Chawla of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th December, 1990 dismissing his petition on the ground that he has numberlocus standi to file his petition and a few other appeals preferred by the Union of India and some political parties which had been seriously litigated before this Court on the earlier occasion and resulted in the pronouncement of an order dated 27th August 1991, giving only the companyclusions and the final judgment on 28th August 1992 vide Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary the decisions of which were rendered by this Bench.
After the offers were received from the aforesaid four firms, technical and companymercial negotiations were held with all the said firms and thereafter revised offers were invited and the same were received on 1st September.
It is further averred in the First Information Report that even in the letter dated 3.10.86 sent to the Swedish National Bank, Bofors had referred to some of the payments to Svenska Inc. and the companye name Mont Blane as companymission payments and that the payment to M s. Morcsco Moineao SA Pitco, Geneva was deposited by Bofors in three companye name accounts, namely, Lotus in Suissee Bank Corporation, 2 Rue de law Confederatio 1204, Geneva Tulip in Manufacturers Hannover Trust Company, 84 Rue du Rhone, 1204, Geneva and Mont Blane in Credit Suissee, 2 Place Belle Air, 1204, Geneva and that these payments to companye name accounts are without mentioning or disclosing the payers names.
Three ammunition manufacturers were also called in the middle of January 1986.
This issue created furore both in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
The Ministry of Defence, Government of India approved in August 1980 a proposal forwarded by Army Headquarters recommending, interalia, the introduction of 155 mm calibre medium guns both towed and self propelled to meet its defence operational requirements.
The synoptical resumption of the case of the prosecution leading to the initiation of the proceedings inclusive of the organic synthesis of the events and the circumstances veering the case have been encapsulated and presented in the order and judgment of this Court rendered in the first round of the batch of appeals.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. The above appeal is preferred before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 2nd September 1992 rendered in Criminal Writ No.
Finally, the order was placed by the Government of India to Bofors on 24th March, 1986 for the supply of 410 numbers 400 plus 10 free of 155 mm Field Howitzer 77 B gun system spare guns vide companytract No.
Again the then Minister for Defence made the assurance based on the statement of the then Prime Minister.
The terms of the said representation services agreement were extended from time to time until the end of 1985.
A demand was made by the Members of both Houses Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to make a probe into the matter by a Parliamentary Committee.
In April 1984, the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs CCPA for short approved the proposal for procurement of 155 mm guns along with certain related equipments and ammunition at a total estimated companyt of Rs.
