ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Delhi HC dismisses Quattrocchi's plea in Bofors case

The Delhi high court today upheld the Central Bureau of Investigation's assertion that evidence against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi prima facie revealed receipt of Rs 640 million as kickbacks by him in the Bofors gun deal and that his arrest and interrogation were necessary to bring out the truth in the controversial contract signed in 1986.

In a 57-page judgment, the court also refused to quash the non-bailable arrest warrant and the Interpol red corner alert notice, issued by a special CBI judge in New Delhi.

A division bench, comprising Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice N G Nandi said there were grounds to accept the CBI arguments that Quattrocchi received the money for himself and on behalf of certain public servants. His arrest and interrogation were required for ''expeditious probe of the case and to reveal the entire truth,'' the judges felt.

The CBI had, in a detailed affidavit filed before the bench, linked the Italian middleman to former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and his family. It was during the tenure of Gandhi as prime minister that the Rs 14.36 billion deal was signed for supply of four hundred 155-mm howitzer guns to India by the Swedish firm Bofors AB.

The judges observed, ''The averments made by CBI do constitute making of sufficient allegations pointing out that the evidence so far collected prima facie reveals that the petitioner was recipient of fraud committed in the Bofors gun deal, which he received for himself and on behalf of certain public servants.''

''Having considered the respective submissions of the CBI and Quattrocchi and having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no merit in the petition, which deserves dismissal,'' the order said.

The CBI has been making efforts to arrest the Italian businessman ever since the special court issued the non-bailable warrant, but without any success. Malaysian authorities in Kuala Lumpur, where Quattrocchi is residing now, had rejected the CBI request for arresting him. A CBI team headed by the then chief of the special investigation team, L Revanna Siddaiah had visited Kuala Lumpur to secure his arrest.

Apprehending arrest, Quattrocchi approached the high court in April this year for quashing of the arrest warrant and the red corner alert notice issued by special judge Ajit Bharihoke on the grounds that the judge had no jurisdiction and power to pass any such order.

However, the bench felt that ''the special judge was justified and had jurisdiction in issuing the non-bailable warrant. He had the power to issue warrants to the petitioner because of the satisfaction recorded by him that there was prima facie evidence before him that the petitioner was connected with commission of the offence.''

''In case such warrant is to be successfully executed, there is no doubt that the CBI could approach diplomatic channels in order to secure the arrest of the petitioner and for his production before the special judge,'' the judgment said.

Talking about the orders passed by the trial court, the judges said, ''The special judge simply directed the issuance of the NBW. It was addressed to a competent person. Therefore it was for the respondent (CBI) to get it executed in any manner, known to law. The procedure which is adopted in obtaining the arrest of the petitioner from a country with whom India does not have an extradition treaty by approaching the diplomatic channel is not one which is prohibited in law. The team of officers of the CBI sought to execute the NBW of arrest through Interpol and appropriate diplomatic channels.''

The judgment said on February 17 last year, the Interpol officials issued red corner notice prompting the petitioner to approach Interpol challenging the basis on which the notice was issued. His representation was subsequently rejected at a meeting of the Interpol authority held at Lyons in France on September 29 and 30 last year.

''Because of the contents of the FIR and the result of the probe, at this stage, we are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the material was scanty and no particular offence was stated in the CBI application, which might have been committed by him or that there was no conspiracy or that with whom the petitioner had entered into any conspiracy,'' the judges said.

The judgment made it very clear that the Interpol red corner alert notice would continue to be in force and the CBI, which had been continuing efforts to nab Quattrocchi, was free to arrest him.

It was the CBI's case that prima facie an offence under Section 120-B, read with Section 420 of the IPC was made out by the facts brought from the materials gathered through the investigation conducted so far.

According to the CBI, the basis of Bofors AB, with whom the deal was signed by the government, constituting Quattrocchi as an agent was the undoubted influence which he wielded as on the political and bureaucratic circles which would facilitate Bofors AB in obtaining the contract to supply 400 155-mm howitzer guns to India.

In the first instance, the bid of the competitor Sofma of France was the preferred one. The situation changed dramatically later. The deadline for AE Services, a front company of Quattrocchi, to receive the commission was March 31, 1986.

The CBI said, ''The prime minister (Rajiv Gandhi) of India visited Sweden on March 15, 1986 and announced there that the contract has been awarded to Bofors AB. On March 24, 1986, the contract with Bofors AB was in fact signed. The deadline of March 31, 1986, was therefore met by Ottavio Quattrocchi.''

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report