1992 (12) TMI 216 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent proceedings
2. Jurisdiction and validity of letters rogatory issued by the Special Judge
3. Compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard)
4. Application of mind by the Special Judge in issuing letters rogatory
5. Prima facie disclosure of any offense against the respondent in the FIR
6. Influence of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report on the FIR and investigation
7. Allegations of mala fide intentions and political motivations behind the FIR
8. Impounding of the respondent's passport and its relevance

Summary of Judgment:

1. Legality of the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent proceedings:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR despite acknowledging that it disclosed an offense against the named and unnamed accused. The FIR was based on various sources including media reports, the report of the Swedish National Audit Bureau (SNAB), and the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report. The Supreme Court emphasized that the FIR prima facie constituted the offenses alleged therein and should not have been quashed.

2. Jurisdiction and validity of letters rogatory issued by the Special Judge:
The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge had the jurisdiction to issue letters rogatory based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between India and Switzerland and Section 166A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The letters rogatory were necessary for obtaining assistance from Swiss authorities in freezing bank accounts relevant to the case. The Court found no fault with the validity of the letters rogatory.

3. Compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard):
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's finding that the principle of audi alteram partem was violated. It held that the rule of audi alteram partem is not attracted unless the impugned order deprives a person of liberty or property. The letters rogatory were issued for collecting evidence and did not affect the respondent's rights at that stage. Therefore, prior notice and an opportunity to be heard were not required.

4. Application of mind by the Special Judge in issuing letters rogatory:
The Supreme Court found that the Special Judge had applied his mind before issuing the letters rogatory. The orders were issued after satisfying that the FIR constituted a cognizable offense and a competent officer had made a request for judicial assistance. The Court rejected the High Court's conclusion that the letters rogatory were issued mechanically and without application of mind.

5. Prima facie disclosure of any offense against the respondent in the FIR:
The Supreme Court held that the allegations in the FIR prima facie constituted the offenses alleged therein. The Court emphasized that the FIR disclosed sufficient material connecting the respondent with the dealings of Bofors and the payment of bribes. The High Court's finding that no offense was made out against the respondent was set aside.

6. Influence of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report on the FIR and investigation:
The Supreme Court noted that the JPC report did not constitute a legal bar to the registration of the FIR or the continuation of the investigation. The JPC report itself indicated that Bofors did not cooperate fully and that the identity of the recipients of payments was not established. Therefore, the investigation should continue to uncover the necessary evidence.

7. Allegations of mala fide intentions and political motivations behind the FIR:
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the FIR was conceived with mala fide intentions and political motivations. It held that such allegations cannot be considered at the preliminary stage of investigation. The Court emphasized that the investigation should be allowed to proceed without hindrance to gather the requisite evidence.

8. Impounding of the respondent's passport and its relevance:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reliance on the impounding of the respondent's passport as a reason to quash the FIR was misplaced. The proceedings under the Passport Act were separate and did not affect the validity of the FIR or the investigation into the Bofors deal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment quashing the FIR, letters rogatory, and other proceedings. The investigation was allowed to continue to uncover the necessary evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigating agency to proceed without hindrance to ensure justice.

← Previous Next →