The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a preliminary inquiry before initiating action under Section 340 Cr. P. C. and the need for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Special Judge. The judgment also emphasizes the sparing and cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) THESE proceedings are the side effects of long drawn infamous legal battle in bofors case. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, who at relevant time was the Minister of External Affairs, Government of India, under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence under Section 193 of the IPC in the said main proceedings (Bofors Case entitled State Vs. Martin ardbo, Former President of M/s. A. B. Bofors, Sweden and Others registered as Case no. RC. 1 (A)/90-ACB-1v/spe-CBI/ New Delhi ). It is not necessary to state in detail the facts of the main case or the history of the legal battle. Suffice it to note that CBI registered the case on 22. 1. 1990 against some named and unnamed persons including politicians and government officials alleging that they are involved in receiving Bofors bribe/kickbacks in the deal with M/s. AB bofors Sweden (hereinafter referred to as the `bofors') on 7. 2. 1990. The learned Special Judge issued a Letters Rogatory to the judicial authorities in the Confederation of Switzerland in connection with the said case. Through the said Letters Rogatory authorities were requested to collect certain documents from Swiss Ban k along with details of bank holders as well as certain other information.

( 2 ) THE petitioner who, as aforesaid, was the Minister of External Affairs, government of India at that time visited Davos, Switzerland in January- february,1992. This visit was for attending the Annual World Economic conference. It is alleged against the petitioner that during the period of that conference, on 1. 2. 1992 the petitioner sought an appointment with the Swiss foreign Minister Mr. Rene Felber or a few minutes in the Hotel and is said to have requested that there should be no witnesses. It is also alleged that in this meeting the petitioner gave an envelope containing an unsigned typed memorandum relating to the matter of execution of the aforesaid Letters Rogatory to Mr. Felber. It is also alleged that in his meeting with Felber, the petitioner said that he had new information about the Bofors case and that it was important for Mr. Felber to communicate that to the Swiss Government. Mr. Felber is said to have told the petitioner that he was not responsible for justice matters but he could take the document and pass it on to the Federal office of Justice.

( 3 ) THIS act on the part of the petitioner is perceived as interference in the course of Justice and an attempt on the part of the petitioner to influence the investigation and also an attempt to fabricate the evidence and, therefore, constituting the commission of offence under Section 192 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the memorandum was a fabricated document and contained certain false statement of facts, which intended the Swiss Judicial Authorities dealing with the execution of Letters Rogatory to cause them to form an erroneous opinion touching a point, material to the result of the proceedings in the Bofors case, namely the legality and propriety of the Letters Rogatory and in this way the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 193 of the ipc.

( 4 ) AS per the prosecution, in the course of execution of Letters Rogatory, statement of Mr. Rene Felber and others were recorded. Swiss authorities sent those statements as well as original memorandum in execution of the Letters rogatory. Thus this memorandum allegedly handed over by the petitioner to mr. Rene Felber had been collected by the CBI during investigation. On receipt thereof, the CBI filed the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal procedure against the petitioner praying the learned Special Judge to record a finding that the petitioner herein had committed an offence under Section 193 ipc and to make a complaint to the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THE learned Special Judge deemed it proper to hear the petitioner before passing any order on this application and, therefore, vid