UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus W.N. CHADHA

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 17-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v.· 
W.N. CHADHA 
DECEMBER 17, 1992 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 166A, 166B and 448-Let-
ter rogatory-lssuance or-Principle of audi a/teram partem-Applicability 
of-Jurisdiction of High Court to quash FIR. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-High Coult in writ jurisdic-
tion-Whether entitled to quash FIR. 
Public Interest Litigation-Prosecution-:-Locus to initiate as well as 
resist withdrawal-Public interest litigation-:-Applicability to criminal proceed-
D ings. 
E 
Natural Justice-Doctrine of-Audi alteram partem-Rule-Ap-
plicability of-In issuance of letter rogatory. 
Criminal Trial-:-Bofors case-Jurisdiction of High Court to quash FIR. 
Practice and Procedure-Expunction qf remarks by High Court-When 
arises. 
Words and Phrases-Letter rogatory-Meaning of. 
F 
The respondent W.N. ~hadha was residing at Dubai in United Arab 
G 
Emirates (UAE). He had his first agreement in 1978 with M/s A.B. Bofors 
to provide representation services to it in India with regard to supply of 
arms and ammunitions to the Indian Government, and it was extended 
from time to time until the end of 1985. 
In January, 1986, Bofors and Anatronic General Corporation 
Private Ltd. which was promoted by the respondent entered into a consult-
ancy agreement with Bofors in respect of its business in India. The case of 
the respondent was that at no stage neither he nor any of hi~ concerns was 
made an agent of Bofors, nor did he enter into negotiation with the 
H Government of India on behalf of Bofors or commit or bind Bofors to any 
594 
~· -·. . 
'!'-' 
U.0.I. v. W. N. CHADHA 
595 
agreement or arrangement with the Government ~f India, and that he was A 
to render administrative consultancy services of Bofors. 
In August, 1980, the Ministry of Defence, approved a proposal 
forwarded by Army Headquarters recommending the introduction of 155 
mm Calibre medium guns both towed and self-propelled to. meet its 
defence operational requirements. The choice for purchasing the said B 
guns was shortlisted in December, 1982 to M/s Sofma of France, Mis A.B. 
Bofors of Sweden, M/s International Military Services of U.K., and Mis 
Yoest Alpine of Austria. 
. 
. 
. 
In April, 1984 the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs approved C 
the proposal for procurment of 155 mm guns along with reiated equip-
ments and ammunition at a total estimated cost of its. 1600 crores, and in 
May, 1984 a Negotiating Committee comprising the Defence Secretary, 
Scientific Adviser, Secretary Expenditure, Financial Adviser and Deputy 
Chief of the Army Staff was set up which. started its delibration in June 
1984 and decid~d that otters should be invited from the aforesaid four D 
shortlised firms, and on 4th March, 1986 the Negotiating Committee 
·expressed the view that Bofors gun had a clear edge over the Sofma gun 
of France with which view the then Deputy Chief of the Army Staff also 
agreed. 
On 12th March, 1986 the Negotiating Committee recommended that 
a letter of intent might be issued to Bofors to the effect that the Govern-
ment of India would be willing to award the contract to them subject to 
the condition of being satisfied on all aspects of the purchase, licenced 
production, credit and other arrangements. Finally, the order was placed 
E 
by the Government of India on 24th March, 1986 for the supply of 410 F 
numbers of 155 mm Field Hewitzer 77-B gun system. 
On 17th April, 1987, some newspapers in India gave pro~inent 
coverage to the Swedish Radio Broadcast made on the previous day, 
broadcasting that bribes have been paid to senior Indian politicians and 
key Defence figures to win the Government of India contract awarded to 
Bofors on 24th March, 1986. 
·G 
The aforesaid news item was again broadcast by Swedish Radio on 
17th April, 198'7 claiming that it had documentary proof of pay-offs in 4 
instalments to the Indian accounts in Swiss Banks. This news item was H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
refuted by Bofors denying the allegations of paying any kickback to Indian 
Politicians or officials in respect of the deal. 
On the 20th April, 1987 the then Minister· of Defence made a suo-
motu statement in the Lok Sabha that the Government of India did not 
employ any representative/agent for the contract and added that for ad-. 
B ministrative services ex. hotal bookings, transportation etc. the services of 
a local firm was used.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.