With the Supreme Court set to hear a plea seeking restoration of charges against the Hinduja brother in the Bofors kickback case next week, spotlight is back on the three-decade old controversy, especially after Fairfax Group chairman Michael J Hershman's interview to the DNA, in which he claimed that the then Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress government had sabotaged his investigation.
While Hershman's fresh allegation on Bofors matter has kicked up a political row, documents available with DNA show how different officers in the CBI then took different stands on the issue and while a number of officers were in favour of filing an SLP against the Delhi High Court judgment to drop charges against the Hinduja brothers, others chose to ignore these views.
Among those who disagreed was the then Director of Prosecution (DoP) SK Sharma, a Congress-led UPA government appointee.
The plea for restoration of charges against Hinduja brothers filed by lawyer Ajay Agrawal, a BJP leader who unsuccessfully contested against Congress President Sonia Gandhi from Raebareli in last Lok Sabha polls, is set to be heard next week.
Documents, including a note recorded in the file by Joint Director, Economic Offiences Wing), CBI, in August 2005, show that therecommendation of all the officers connected to the case investigation, including the investigating officer, was that an SLP should be filed in the Supreme Court of India to get set aside the HC judgment and for"restoration of the case from the point immediately after framing of charges in the trial court."
As per the note, a CBI officer also said that, in his view, the relevant issues, which should have been considered were whether Justice RS Sodhi, who deliver the HC judgment, had jurisdiction to recall the earlier order of Justice JD Kapoor of the Delhi High Court, who had on February 4, 2004 and also whether the High Court was justified in examining the case in depth, with reference to authenticity of documents at the stage of framing of charges.
The officer also called for seeking the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice/Attorney General of India.
The then DOP SK Sharma, who, incidentally, was given several extensions post-retirement by the UPA Government, opined on September 2, 2005 - almost a fortnight before the limitation for filing the SLP was to expire, saying,"Viewed from every angle, I am of the view that the judgment of the High Court lays down the correct proposition of law and accordingly, I am not inclined to recommend the SLP against the order."
Sharma, also, however, said that keeping in view the importance and sensitivity of the case, he would like to suggest that reference may be made to Ministry of Law and Justice through Department of Personnel and Training to determine the issue authoritatively in consultation with the then Additional Solicitor General B Dutta, who had appeared for CBI in the Delhi High Court.
Later KP Pathak, another Additional Solicitor General, in his opinion dated October 7, 2005, said that even with regard to Ottavio Quattrochi, the Italian businessman who faced criminal charges for acting as a conduit for bribes in Bofors scandal, there was no authentic evidence to connect him with the alleged offence and that the case against him would not stand scrutiny in a court of law.
Talking to DNA, advocate Agrawal alleged that it was due to the influence of the UPA government that the SLP was not filed against the judgment of the High Court.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bofors")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}