![]() Wednesday, Jun 12, 2002 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By J. Venkatesan
Justice R.S. Sodhi, drew the attention of the CBI to the contention of the former Union Law Minister, Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel for the petitioners Srichand, Prakshchand and Gopichand about the long delay in filing the main and supplementary chargesheets against the accused and how the trial court had treated both chargesheets as one. The Judge also pointed out about the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) which went into the allegations elaborately and submitted its report on April 26, 1988. According to the JPC report, no corruption was involved in the Bofors gun deal; no money had been paid to any Indian agent and the guns were the best possible and the price paid was the lowest. Further the death of the main accused, S.K. Bhatnagar, former Defence Secretary and Win Chadha, Dubai-based former Bofors agent; the CBI's admissions in their correspondence with the Swiss authorities; the Swiss Federal Police's representation to the Swiss judge, on the basis of which further materials were supplied. The Judge was also of the view that according to the petitioners' contention earning commission was neither illegal nor morally wrong. He also pointed out the fact that the Union Cabinet had recently sanctioned that employment of agents and payments of commission in defence deals. The Judge said it would be open to the CBI to consider the feasibility of carrying on with this case in view of the above circumstances and in accordance with law. The Court rejected the contention of the CBI that reporting to the Central Vigilance Commission would hamper investigation and quashed the chargesheet against the Hindujas as the CBI had not obtained approval from the CVC before filing the chargesheet. It noted that the CVC was not required to interfere in the investigation but it was certainly required to review the results of investigation before the same was placed before the Court.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|