UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH P HINDUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 judment 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 cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge and all consequential proceedings have been quashed. It has, however, been left upon to the prosecution to file a fresh charge-sheet after following the procedure laid down by this Court in Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy raised it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts. A contract was entered between Government of India and M/s. A.B. Bofors on 24-3-1986 for supply of 400 FH 77-B gun system along with vehicles, ammunition and other asscessories at a total cost 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 contract value was paid to M/s. A.B. Bofors. On 16-4-1987 Swedish Radio came out with a story that Bofors had managed to obtain the contract from Government of India after payment of large amounts as bribe. On 21-1987 the Government of India made a formal request to Government of Sweden for an investigation into the allegations. The CBI registered a case being RC 1A/90-ACU. IV on 22-1-1990 and proceeded to investigate the matter. Thereafter, on 22-10-1999 the CBI submitted charge sheet No. 1 under Section 120B 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 (3) Ottavio Quattrocchi (4) Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s. A.B. Bofors and (5) M/s. A.B. Bofors, Sweden (private company) were arrayed as accused. 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 countries is still continuing in order to find out the details of other beneficiaris and the Letters Rogatorybissued by the Court of learned Special Judge, Delhi to Switzerland, Sweden, Panama, Luxembourgh, Bahamas, Jorden, Liechtenstein and Austria with a view to find out other beneficiaries of the commission amounts are pending execution. It was also mentioned that investigations concerning the role of GP Hinduja, Prakash Hinduja, Srichand Hinduja, Harsh Chaddha and Maria Quattrocch and some others are also continuing. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence on 4-11-1999 and Crl. Case No. 39/1999 was registered in his Court. In purusance of Letters Rogatory issued by the Special Judge, the Swiss Government handed over a set of documents comprising 71 pages to CBI on 18-12-1999. Thereafter on 9-10-2000 the CBI submitted a supplementary charge sheet bering No. 03 against G.P. Hinduja, Prakash Hinduja and Srichand Hinduja. The charge sheet gives the details as to how M/s. A.B. 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. The learned Special Judge thereafter summoned the three Hinduja brothers by the order dated 12-12-2000.

(3.) On 15-4-2002 accused Prakash Hinduja moved an application before the Special Judge praying that "the charge sheets subnmitted by the CBI be dismissed and the cognizance taken and the process issued against the accused be revoked." The application was moved on the ground that the cases were never reported to CVC and the CVC has neither reviewed the cases nor had considered them fit for continuance of thre prosecution and as such there was a non-compliance of the diretions issued by this Court in the case of Vineet Narain. The application was opposed by the CBI by filing a written reply wherein it was stated, inter alia, that the allegations made by the accused to the affect that the case was never reported to the CVC was not correct; that a copy of the investigation report was sent to CVC on 14-7-1997 and further developments were also brought to the notice of CVC from time to time, that a special counsel for prosecuting the case had been appointed on the recommendation of Attorney General for India and that in para 62 of the first charge sheet it was mentioned that investigation regarding the role played by Hinduja brothers was in progress, and that the supplementary charge sheet had been filed under Section173(8), Cr.P.C. which was co-related with the first charge sheet.