WASHESHAR NATH CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against First Information. Report bearing crime No.RCI(A)/90/ACU-IV registered against certain unnamed persons and three named persons, namely, S/Shri Martin Ardgo, former President of Bofors A.B. (for short called 'Bofors'), G.P.Hinduja of London and the petitioner W.N. Chadha @ Win Chadha alleging commission of offences under sections 120B read with Sections 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 5(2)/5(l)(d) and 5(2)/5(l)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 409, 420, 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid First Information Report and the proceedings and the orders passed thereon and arising therefrom including the letter rogatory issued by the Special Judge, Delhi. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner, who is a citizen of India and is residing and working for gain at Dubai had arrangement with Bofors of Sweden to provide representation services to it in India with regard to supply of arms and ammunition and had been charging commission for the services rendered by him in terms of service agreement executed between the said Company and the petitioner from time to time till the end of 1985.

(2.) However, in January 1986 Bofors and Anatronic General Corporation Private Ltd., (for short called 'AGC') a Company promoted by the petitioner entered into an administrative consultancy agreement with Bofors in respect of its business in India. In terms of the said agreement of 1986, the petitioner through his Company was to render administrative consultancy services to Bofors in India and he was to charge SEK 1 lakh per month for these services. The petitioner was not entitled to enter into negotiation with the Government of India on behalf of Bofors or to commit on behalf of Bofors to any agreement or appointment as he was required to render ony administrative consultancy services. In April 1984 the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs ( for short called 'CCPA') approved the proposal for procurement of 155 MM guns along with certain related equipments and ammunition at a total estimated cost of Rs.l6 crores and their subsequent licensed manufacture in India. In May 1984 a Negotiation Committee comprising of the Defence Secretary as the Chairman, Secretary (DP&S), ScientiFic Adviser to Raksha Mantri (i.e. Secretary R&D), Secretary (Expenditure), Additional Secretary (Department of Economic Affairs), Financial Adviser (Defence Services) and the Deputy Chief of Army Staff as members was constituted for detailed negotiations with the various suppliers.

(3.) The Negotiating Committee started its deliberations in June 1984 and decided that fresh sealed technical and commercial offers should be invited from p:3 the four firms, IMS of U.K., Sofma of France, Bofors of Sweden and Voest Alpine of Austria. After the offers were received from the aforesaid four firms, technical and commercial negotiations were held with all the said Firms and thereafter revised offers were invited and the same were received on 1st September, 1984. Offers were also invited from the ammunition manufacturers. After certain clarifications were sought from the aforesaid firms with a view to evaluate the offers of all the competitors, all the four firms submitted fresh commercial offers on 10th May, 1985. Thereafter members of the Negotiating Committee requested the Army Headquarters to give their categorical recommendation on the guns acceptable to them taking into account the technical aspects, delivery schedule etc., and also clearly indicate their preference from amongst the acceptable guns. The then Deputy Chief of Army Staff told the Committee that the French gun was the best and the Swedish gun the second best and if the price difference was marginal, they should go in for the former.