Case: Union Of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja

. A contract was entered between Government of India and M/s. AB Bofors on 24.3.1986 for supply of 400 FH 77-B gun systems along with vehicles ammunition and other accessories 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. AB 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 21.4.1987 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.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 (3) Ottavio Quattrocchi (4) Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s. AB Bofors, and (5) M/s. AB 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 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 commission amounts are still pending execution. It was also mentioned that investigations concerning the role of GP Hinduja, Prakash Hinduja, Srichand Hinduja, Harsh Chaddha and Maria Quattrochi 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 pursuance 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 bearing No. 103 against GP Hinduja, Prakash Hinduja and Srichand Hinduja. 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. 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 a application before the Special Judge praying that "the charge sheets submitted by the CBI be dismissed and the cognizance taken and the process issued against the accused the 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 the prosecution and as such there was a non-compliance of the directions 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 Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. which was co-related with the first charge sheet.4. The learned Special Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties and noticing their contentions held that generally it was not in the province of the courts and particularly the Trial Court to see in what manner and to what extent the CBI is reporting the progress of investigation and this was within the province of CVC. It was further held that "the intent of the directions given in Vineet Narain is not to dismiss or throw the charge sheets when there is incomplete or partial compliance. The primary function of the Trial Court however is to proceed with expedition strictly on the merits of the accusations entirely in accordance with law uninfluenced by what happened during investigation and which counsel represent CBI". Learned Special Judge also observed that the Court was not powerless and if necessary, appropriate directions can be issued in terms of Vineet Narain to ensure a fair and efficient trial. The application was accordingly rejected by the order dated 18.4.2002.5. Thereafter, Prakash Hinduja filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.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 cognizance taken, to revoke the process issued and to dismiss the charge sheets. The other prayer made was that notice be issued to the Attorney General and his views on the effect of non-compliance of the directions be ascertained and notice 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 complied with in the case in hand. The petition was opposed and separate counter-affidavits were filed by CBI and CVC. The High Court has held that in terms of directions issued in Vineet Narain, CVC is entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence over the CBIs function. The CBI shall report to CVC about all cases taken up by it for investigation, progress of the investigation; cases is which charge-sheets are filed and their progress. The CVC cannot abdicate its functions nor CBI can violate the mandate and it was bound to place the final results of its investigation along with all material collected before the CVC for the purposes of review. It has been further held that in the present case CBI had not placed before the CVC the results of its investigations and had by-passed in 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. Finally, the High Court has held that in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court the Special Judge ought not to have entertained the charge-sheet filed in violation of the directives. On these findings the petition was allowed and the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge and all consequential proceedings were quashed.6. 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.

Reasoning:
find the High Court judgment to be quite confusing and self contradictory. In para 18(c) it is observed that "there is no requirement to seek clearance before charge sheets are filed" and in para 19 it is said that "the only requirement in this regard is of reporting and the role of the CVC on this would be to give its comments in its annual report". In para 20 it is said that "the direct power of review granted to the CVC is only of pending applications for sanction" and "the CVC is not cast with the role of reviewing as such the steps taken in the course of investigation and thereafter". In para 21 it is said that "the duty to report of the steps taken in the course of investigation is not and cannot be equated with the duty to obtain prior approval or consent of any other authority to these steps". Again in para 24 it is said that "the contention of the petitioner that a breach of these directions would render the action of the CBI void since the directions are to be rigidly complied with is equally misconceived". It is further said that "even the rigid compliance with these directions cannot be beyond the CVC over-viewing CBIs working and the CBIs reporting to the CVC."34. The High Court having arrived at the aforesaid findings, the only result which could logically follow was to dismiss the petition. There was absolutely no occasion for allowing the same and quashing the cognizance and further proceedings in the case.