PRAKASH P HINDUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition by the petitioner who is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 39/99 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi. The prayers of the petitioner are three fold, namely, (a) that the order dated 18.4.2002 of the learned Special Judge on the application dated 15.4.2002 be set aside; (b) cognizance taken and process issued pusuant thereto be revoked and (c) charge-sheet filed be rejected.

(2.) . Extensive arguments were addressed by learned counsel for both the sides. Both the sides relied upon and sought to interpret the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another. 1988 (1) SCC 226. The petitioner has called for strict compliance of paragraph 58 of this judgment laying special stress on sub-para 3. He contended that the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'C8I') after completing its investigation was bound to place the report before the Central Vigilance Commission (for short 'CVC') and having not done so, such charge-sheet cannot be acted upon by the court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the responsibility entrusted to the CVC in para 58 sub para 3 of the judgment of superintendence over the CBI's functioning is not of the nature as is sought to be contended by the petitioner, but of a general nature equivalent to that as is with the Government/Ministers in Section 4 of Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946 (for short "DPSE Act'). Before adverting to analyse the submissions of learned counsel, a brief background may be necessary. The Government of India in March, 1986 purchased from A.B.Bofors, a Swiss Company, 155 mm. guns at a price approximately rupees 1437 crores. In the following year, a report emerged that the deal was vitiated due to corruption and bribes passed on to responsible public servants including the late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi. Wide publicity was given which necessitated setting up of a prestigious Joint Parliamentary Committee appointed by the Parliament. This Committee went into the allegations elaborately and submitted its report on 26.4.1988. It reported to the nation that (a) no corruption was involved in the deal; (b) that no money had been paid to any Indian agent; (c) that the guns were the best possible and the price paid was lowest. It appears that on change of Government an FIR was recorded on 22.1.1990 by the CBI. Massive/extensive investigation was conducted both in India and abroad resulting in a charge-sheet dated 22.10.1999 placed before the court. In this charge-sheet, the petitioner was not an accused. The CBI claimed that the charge-sheet was incomplete and further investigations were in progress. Merely a year later, a second supplementary charge-sheet dated 9.10.2000 was filed. This has been challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner contending dishonesty, malice, without material on record and in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain 's case. The accused persons appeared before the court of the learned Special Judge and prayed that cognizance be not taken on the grounds, inter alia, that the filing of supplementary charge-sheet violated the Supreme Court's directions. The learned Special Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that an accused had no right to be heard at that stage. After summons were served on the accused, he executed bail bonds as was required of him. The matter had thus reached a stage before the Learned Special Judge for supply of documents which are relevant and essential to the issue of framing of charge.

(3.) . The petitioner herein filed an application dated 15.4.2002 drawing attention of the court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain's case. It is the case of the petitioner that these directions were issued to prevent escape of the guilty and harassment of the innocent. The gravamen of the contention of the petitioner was that the Supreme Court had entrusted the responsibility of ensuring complete honesty of investigation and propriety of launching prosecution to two higher functionaries, Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP ). The relevant directions were as follows ;