Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 397, 401, 482-Revisional and inherent powers of High Court Scope and ambit of Single Judge of High Court-Assumption of suo motu jurisdiction to quash FIR in Bofors case-Legality of.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-PIL-Definition, concept and purpose of "Public interest", "litigation Construction Parameters for enter- taining PIL-Whether possible to lay down-Locus standi of a party-Impor- tance of Locus standi in private action and PIL-Difference of Petitions in the garb of PIL by persons interested Maintainability of.

Words and Phrases: "Public interest", "litigation", "Public interest litiga- tion-Meaning of.

Public Interest Litigation Definition, concept and purpose of Parameters for entertaining PIL-Whether possible to lay down Petitions in the garb of PIL by persons interested-Maintainability of.

Locus Standi-Significance in PIL and private action Petitions in the garb of PIL by persons interested Maintainability of.

Swedish Radio on 16.4.1987 broadcasted that to win the contact awarded on 24.3.1986 by the Government of India, Bofors of Sweden paid bribes to senior Indian Politicians and Defence officials. On 17.4.1987 some leading newspapers of India gave prominent coverage to the broad- cast.

On 17.4.1987 the Swedish Radio claimed in its broadcast that it had documentary proof of the pay offs in four instalments to Indian accounts in Swiss Banks and it also checked with the bankers of Bofors.

Bofors denied paying any kickbacks to Indian politicians or officials I in its statement issued on 17.4.1987.

On 17.4.1987 the Government of India also issued a statement denying the allegations contained in the news items based on the Swedish Radio and Television broadcast, as false, baseless and mischievous.

The Minister of Defence on 20.4.1987 on the subject stated in the Lok Sabha suo motu that the Bofors did not employ any Representative Agent in India for the project. However, they used the services of a local firm only for administrative services, e.g. hotel bookings, transportation, forwarding of letters, telexes etc. The Minister further stated that if any evidence was produced involving violation of the law, thorough investigation would be taken and guilty would be punished. On 31.4.1987 he also made similar statement in the Rajya Sabha.

On 20.4.1987, the than Prime Minister intervening in the debates in the Lok Sabha assured the Members that if any evidence relating to the involvement of middlemen, of pay-offs, bribes or commissions were shown, then strong action would be taken and nobody would be allowed to go free.

Several Members of the Parliament demanded a probe with full details by a Parliamentary Committee.

On 4.6.1987, the Swedish Embassy in India, forwarded a copy of a part of the Report of the Swedish National Audit Bureau's (SNAB) dated 1.6.1987. The rest of the Report was withheld by the Swedish Government on the bank secrecy requirements. The Report did not disclose the names of the recipients of kickbacks.

The then Prime Minister discussed the report with the leaders of the opposition parties on 11.6.1987. When the Government of India requested F the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, to set up on their own Join Parliamentary Committee (JPC), they declined. The then Prime Minister in his meeting with the leader of the opposition in Parliament on 17.6.1987 indicated that in the Monsoon Session of Lok Sabha. The Government would move for the motion for the appointment of a JPC to probe into the Bofors deal. On 29.7.1987, the motion was moved G by the then Defence Minister. While moving the motion on 3.8.1987, he stated that from the report of SNAB two fa emerged, viz (1) that sizable payments were made in 1986; and (ii) that the particulars of the recipients of the amounts paid by Bofors were not disclosed. In justification of the constitution of JPC, the Defence Minister stated that the Committee was set up to get at the truth.

The JPC was constituted consisting of 20 elected members from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha. Its Chairman was appointed on 28.8.1988. In the JPC five members were elected to fill the five vacancies due to death, resignation and expiry of membership.

On 22.4.1988, the JPC submitted its report. According to it there was no evidence to establish that the Bofors payment involved a violation of any Indian Law and that there was no evidence of any other payment by Bofors for winning the Indian Contract.

Even after the JPC Report, allegations of malpractices in the Bofors deal were relently agitated with the change of Government, the CBI registered a F.I.R. on 22.1.1990 and a case under section 120-B read with sections 5(2), 5(1) (d) and 5(2)/5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against 14 accused. Out of the 14 accused 3 were named. The rest 11 accused were stated in general.

The CBI commenced its investigation against the 14 accused for entering into a criminal conspiracy, for obtaining illegal gratification in the form of money from Bofors through the agent/firms/companies/per- sons; as motive or reward for such public servants who by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise dishonestly using their official position as public servants for causing pecuniary advantage to themselves, Bofors, the agents and others in awarding contracts to Bofors and for committing the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and using of forged documents in such transaction.

The CBI filed an application before the Special Judge requesting to issue a letter rogatory/request to Switzerland urgently for getting the necessary assistance so that the investigation could be conducted in Switzerland lest important and relevant evidence would remain uncollected and the cause of justice would be frustrated.

The Special Judge allowed the application. The Cantonal Court of Geneva returned the letter of rogatory for compliance of certain procedural formalities.

Respondent No. 1 filed a criminal miscellaneous case before the Special Court under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, praying not to issue any rogatory, letter on the formal request of CBI, and to permit him to join the inquiry in the capacity of public interest litigant.

The Special Judge dismissed the petition of the respondent No. 1 and issued Note of Compliance and Amended Letter of rogatory, against which the respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision before the High Court, under Sections 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

During the hearing of criminal revision of the respondent No. 1, several applications seeking impleadment, intervention were filed by various political parties and others.

As the High Court did not accept the prayers of the interveners, a special leave petition (Criminal) was filed before this Court; This Court directed the High Court to dispose of the pending criminal revision by hearing the parties, including the interveners.

The High Court dismissed the Criminal revision and intervention applications holding that the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to file the revision and the revision was not maintainable; that the appellants had no right to be impleaded; that the Special Judge should not have taken cognizance of the FIR filed by the CBI as it was in violation of the provisions of Section 154; that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain request for issuance of letter of rogatory; that the CBI was not a legally constituted force which is to be entrusted with the investigation and that the investigation on the face of it was biased and influenced by outside agencies.

All these present criminal appeals and writ application were filed before this Court against the High Court's judgment.

The appellants contended that the respondent No. 1 did not have any locus standi to initiate PIL; that the respondent No. 1 did not satisfy the definition of PIL; that he was acting as a proxy under the mask of public interest litigant for the benefit of all the real accused; the Union of India contended that very litigation itself was not within the definition of PIL and that respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to approach the Court by filling the petition under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The respondent No. 1 submitted that as in the present case he had espoused only real public interest and therefore his right of locus standi could not be questioned that the very registration of the case smacked of political vendentta.