Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

51. The second letter is dated 27.6.2001 from the Ministry of Justice Stockholm, Sweden, to the Embassy of India. This letter reads as follows :-

''Request for Legal Assistance.
With reference to previous communication concerning a request for legal assistance regarding the ''Bofors case'', please find enclosed documentation from the Local Prosecution Authority of Stockholm. When additional documentation arrives from the prosecute on authority, it will be forwarded to the Embassy. The Prosecutor General's Office has pointed out that the documents submitted is covered by articles in the Swedish Official Secrets Act.'' This refers to a request for legal assistance by the Embassy of India. No execution of any Letters Rogatory of 1998 was taking place at that time.

52. The third letter is dated 6.7.2001 from Embassy of India to the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi. This document reads as under :-

''Please find enclosed a set of documents related to Bofors case received from the Local Prosecution Authority of Stockholm through the Swedish Ministry of Justice in response to a request from Shri O.P. Galhotra, Dy. Inspector General, CBI, SIG, New Delhi.''

53. These three documents make it clear that the whole of Volume-XXII which was received in India emanated from the Prosecution Authority of Stockholm through the Sweden Ministry of Justice in response to a request from Shri Galhotra of the CBI. This letter makes no sense of the claim that these documents were being dispatched in execution of Letters Rogatory issued by any Indian court. They are expressly sent in response to a request from the CBI contained in Galhotra's enclosed letter of 6.6.2001. This is the same request for legal assistance as is referred to in the letter of 16.8.2000 mentioned above.

59. In the case of the Bofors Company, it was submitted, they challenged the order framing charge under Sections 464 and 465 IPC along with other charges under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, Section 5 read with Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420 and Section 161 IPC read with Section 165A IPC by a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was disposed of by a common judgment dated 4.2.2004 by Kapoor, J, quashing several charges against the Bofors company while upholding charge under Section 465 IPC framed by the learned Special Judge on the assumption that the originals of the purported forged documents would be made available and produced as and when called for by the court during trial.

65. Counsel seeks to rely upon the arguments made in the Hinduja Brothers' case as to the veracity of proceedings in the trial in the absence of certified copies or originals of the documents alleged to have been forged. The learned Additional Solicitor General has chosen not to address arguments in the case advanced by the Bofors Company since, according to him, question of law and admissibility of xerox copies is common and would govern both the cases.The question of law having been discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the conclusion is but obvious.