IMPORTANT POINTIn a criminal case registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings.

Headnote:Constitution of India 1950 - Art. 51-A - Bofors case - Investigation by CBI - CBI moved an application that the investigation of the case is to be conducted not only in India, but also in Switzerland, Sweden and other countries - Application allowed - Public interest litigation filed by an advocate requesting that no rogatory letter be issued on the formal request of the CBI unless the allegations against named persons are established- Further request made to quash the FIR - None of the named accused is specifically impleaded - Whether the petitioner was competent to fil Public Interest litigation? - (No) - Order to be made.
       Held: It is most relevant to note that none of the appellants before this Court save the Union of India and CBI is connected in any way with the present criminal proceeding initiated on the strength of the First Information Report which is not sought to be quashed by Mr. H.C. Chowdhary. Although in the F.I.R., the names of three accused are specifically mentioned none of them has been impleaded as a respondent to these proceedings by anyone of the appellants. Even Mr. Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s. A.B. Bofors, who was impleaded as a proforma respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 310/91 has been given up by the Solicitor General. Therefore, under these circumstances, one should not lose sight of the significant fact that in case this Court pronounces its final opinion or conclusions on the issues other than the general issues raised by the appellants as public interest litigants, without hearing the really affected person/persons, such opinion or conclusions may, in future, in case the investigation culminates in filing a final report become detrimental and prejudicial to the indicted accused persons who would be totally deprived of challenging such opinion or conclusions of this apex Court, even if they happen to come in possession of some valuable material to canvass the correctness of such opinion or conclusions and consequently their vested legal right to defend their case in their own way would be completely nullified by the verdict now sought to be obtained by these public interest litigants. (Para 15)
       Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. (Para 16)
       We, in the above background of the case, after bestowing our anxious and painstaking consideration and careful thought to al1 aspects of the case and deeply examining the rival contentions of the parties both collectively and individually give our conclusions as follows:
       1. Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi (a) to file the petition under Article 51-A as a public interest litigant praying that no letter rogatory/request be issued at the request of the CHI and he be permitted to join the inquiry before the Special Court which on 5-2-1990 directed issuance of letter rogatory/request to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of Switzerland; (b) to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under 5cctions 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 18-8-1990 of the Special Judge and (c) to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report dated 22-1-1990 and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the plea of preventing the abuse of the process of the Court.
       2. In our considered opinion, the initiation of the present proceedings by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India cannot come within the true meaning and scope of public interest litigation.
       3. Consequent upon the above conclusions (1) and (2), the appellants namely, Janata Dal, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Indian Congress (Socialist) who-are before this Court equally have no right of seeking their impleadment/ intervention. For the same reasons, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera also has no right to file the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 114 of 1991 as a public interest litigant.
       4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the suo moto action of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla in taking cognizance in exercise of the powers under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code based on the convoluted and strained reasoning and directing the office of the High Court of Delhi to register a case under the title Court on its motion v. State and CEI cannot be sustained.
       5. Consequent upon the above conclusion No. (4), we hold that the directions of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla calling upon the CBI and the State to show cause as to why the proceedings initiated on the strength of the First Information Report dated 22- I - I 990 be not quashed, cannot be sustained. (Para 17)
       Result - Ordered accordingly. The first part of the Order of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla holding that Mr. Chowdhary and other intervening parties have no locus standi is upheld. However, the second part of the order whereby he has taken suo moto cognizance and issued show cause notice to the State and CBI is quashed.

ORDER

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.— A brief resume of the facts which have given rise to the above appeals and writ petition would be necessary to appreciate the unsavoury controversies created by way of public interest litigations, though we have decided to give only our conclusions now and the detailed reasons later in order to avoid any delay in this matter for the reasons, namely, (1) in the application for direction filed by the Union of India through CBI on July 11, 1991 it is submitted that "the Swiss authorities would remove the blocking order on August 31, 1991 and the account holders would withdraw the large funds, running into millions of dollars (equivalent to crores of rupees)" and prayed that the judgment may be pronounced by the end of August 1991 lest miscarriage of justice would be caused, and (2) that the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr Altaf Ahmad appearing on behalf of the Union of India and CBI on August 23, 1991 reaffirmed the above statement of the Union of India and requested that the CBI should be allowed to proceed with the investigation without any interruption or hindrance so that the investigation may be speeded up thereby meaning that the wheels of investigation already started moving on, should be permitted to be proceeded with unfettered and untrammelled so that the valuable evidence may be obtained from the Swiss Bank through their authorities without further loss of time, otherwise the accounts in the Swiss Bank now frozen may be defrozen.

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation/Delhi Police Establishment/Anti-Corruption Unit-IV, New Delhi registered the first information report dated January 22, 1990 relating to Crime No. RC/(A)/90/ACU-IV under Section 120-B read with Sections 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) and 5(2)/5(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (herein referred to as P.C. Act) read with Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against 14 accused of whom 3 are named, they being (1) Shri Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s A.B. Bofors, Sweden (accused 1); (2) Shri Chadha alias Win Chadha, S/o Shri Assa Nand, President of M/s Anatronic General Corporation/Anatronic General Companies Ltd., C/4, Main Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (accused 3) and Shri G.P. Hinduja, New Zealand House, Hay Market, London SW-1 (accused 7). The rest of the 11 accused are stated in general as directors/employees/holders/beneficiaries of account code and public servants of the Government of India. The core of the allegations is that these accused, named and unnamed, entered into a criminal conspiracy, obtained illegal gratification in the form of money from BOFORS, a Swedish company through the agent firms/companies/ persons as motive or reward for such public servants who by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise dishonestly using their official position as public servants caused pecuniary advantage to themselves, BOFORS, the agents and others in awarding contracts to BOFORS for the supply of guns to the Government of India and in the transaction also committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating of Union of India, forgery and using of forged documents etc. It appears that the CBI has commenced its investigation during the course of which it has recorded statements of witnesses and took into their custody various documents and files relating to this Bofors deal.

3. While it is so, the CBI moved an application before the Special Judge, namely, Shri R.C. Jain stating inter alia that the investigation of the case is to be conducted not only in India, but also in Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, that an important aspect of the investigation which is to be conducted in Switzerland is to collect documentary and oral evidence relating to all aspects of the accounts in banks in Switzerland to which remittances were made by M/s A.B. Bofors from Sweden, that in particular, the authorised signatories and the be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document