RC No.1(A)/90 (“
CBI V/s Ottavio Quattrocchi
”) DOD: 04.03.2011
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
RC1(A)/90CBI/ACUIV/SIG/ND (Bofors Case)CBI V/s Ottavio QuattrocchiUnique Case ID No.: 02401R6227212004
04.03.2011
O R D E R:
By this order, I shall dispose off application U/s 321 Cr.P.C, filedby learned Special Public Prosecutor of CBI, Shri U.S Prasad, seekingwithdrawal of the case against accused Mr.Ottavio Quattrocchi (hereinafterreferred to as “
Q
”). This application was filed on 03.10.2009. Alongwith theapplication, a letter dated 28.09.2009 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions was also filed, whereby the Central Governmenthas conveyed its “
approval
” to the proposal of CBI for moving this court forobtaining consent to withdraw prosecution against “
Q
”.2. This application was opposed by two persons namely Shri AjayKumar Aggarwal, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as “
Aggarwal
”) and ShriSiddharth Gupta, Advocate (in the capacity of President of a society namely“
Nirdhan Nishulk Kanooni Sahayata Samiti
”) (hereinafter referred to as“
Gupta
”).
Order on Application U/s 321 Cr.P.C filed by CBI (“
Application Allowed
”) Page 1 of 73
RC No.1(A)/90 (“
CBI V/s Ottavio Quattrocchi
”) DOD: 04.03.2011
3. When the arguments on this application commenced, the learnedAdditional Solicitor General of India, Shri P.P Malhotra, raised a preliminaryobjection that “
Aggarwal
” and “
Gupta
” do not have “
locusstandi
” to opposethis application and argued that application U/s 321 Cr.P.C is necessarilybetween the Public Prosecutor and the Court. However, in the larger interestof justice, this court permitted “
Aggarwal
” and “
Gupta
” to advancearguments as “
Amicus Curiae
”. However, at that stage, it was left open as towhether they had “
locusstandi
” to oppose this application or not. I will dealwith this aspect a little later.4. This case has a chequered history. The facts of the case in brief,required for the disposal of this application, succinctly stated are as under:
FACTS ABOUT BOFORS CONTROVERSY:
5. The Indian defense purchase policy, till 1984, allowed foreignbidders to have their Indian gents. However, they were required to furnishdetails of their Indian agents, if any, to the Government, in a prescribedproforma. Subsequently, the Govt. of India in consultation with the DefenceDepartment, made a uniform policy, prescribing that “agents” were not to beallowed in Indian defense purchases. If any bidder had maintained one, theamount so payable to agent by the supplier, was to be reduced from the quoteddeal. The revised policy was to ensure that the deal was on a principal toprincipal basis, to avoid undesirable consequences which may arise out of
Order on Application U/s 321 Cr.P.C filed by CBI (“
Application Allowed
”) Page 2 of 73
RC No.1(A)/90 (“
CBI V/s Ottavio Quattrocchi
”) DOD: 04.03.2011
such arrangement, to save the cost to the defense budget and thus to the publicexchequer.6. In respect of the Bofors gun deal, at the relevant time, there werefour bidding firms involved in the bidding of the gun deal, namely, M/s Sofma(France), M/s Bofors (Sweden), M/s International Military Services (Britain)and M/s Voest Alpine (Germany). These bidders had furnished therequisite information about their agents in India.7. M/s Bofors of Sweden also, in its declaration dated May 19,1984, under the signature of Hans Ekblom, Vide President (Marketing), hadinformed that – W.N. Chadha of M/s Anatronic General Corporation, C4,Main Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057, was their agent, and that,apart from W.N. Chadha, Hersh W. Chadha, Marketing Director of M/sAnatronic General Corporation, B.B. Bhatnagar (retired) and Brig. A.L.Verma (retired) were designated:
i) to liaise with the Government of India for the contract;ii) to liaise with the Indian Authorities.
8. Consequent to the changed defense purchase policy, the DefenseDepartment, asked M/s Bofors on May 3, 1985, to dispense with the servicesof its declared agent and comply with such Indian Defense policyrequirements. Bofors did not respond immediately and as late as on March10, 1986 informed the Defense Secretary that, Bofors “do not have any
Order on Application U/s 321 Cr.P.C filed by CBI (“
Application Allowed
”) Page 3 of 73
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
49. It is worth noting that H.S Chaudhary's case (supra), relates to for Bofors Order-Ottavio Quattrocchi Order
Order discharging Ottavio Quattrocchi
3.7K
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
