Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bofors case in Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning Ab And ... vs State Through Cbi on 4 February, 2004Matching Fragments
(iv) International counter trade in common parlance is Barter system and includes Multilateral Barter and Clause 31.1 is demonstrative of such a system.
(v) In counter-globe trading it is not only the seller who undertakes to purchase other commodities in lieu of sale of their commodities but also gives them liberty to persuade other importers and also appropriate agency who purchase other commodities for the purchase of their goods. In the instant case, Bofors has used the services of Hindujas towards consultancy fees of discharging the obligation cast upon the Bofors by Clause 31.1.
(vi) Merely because the result of the conspiracy is continuing does not make the conspiracy of continuing nature. To constitute a continuing conspiracy there must be continuity of action to produce the unlawful result. Similarly extra judicial statement of a co-conspirator is not admissible in evidence where it is not made in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy charged but made in furtherance of an alleged implied and uncharged conspiracy.
(vii) Oral commitment was to exclude the Indian agents. Hinduja was not Indian agents and therefore Bofors excluded him. It is nobody's case that Hindujas participated or had acted clandestinely in their capacity as agent by contacting the public servants or the officials of the Government or the Army Officials. Whatever they paid was towards the obligation of the Bofors to them ranging from 1979 for various services provided by them.
110. Once final decision was taken that the India should go only for Bofors gun it was immaterial whether the signatures of concerned persons were obtained within 48 hours of the Negotiating committee having recommended Bofors gun though in this case announcement of the decision by Sh. Rajiv Gandhi who visited Sweden on 15th March, 1996 in connection with funeral of Swedish Prime Minister Mr. Olof Palme about awarding the contract in favor of Bofors was nothing but good will gesture. Even otherwise in commercial contracts of defense matters political and diplomatic considerations play a part, other things being equally important. France was also a supplier of arms to Pakistan. In case of need the supply of Sofma could have squeezed.
(iii) Charge for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC for having made false documents as referred in the impugned order shall be framed against M/s A.B. Bofors.
142. Since the cases were brought within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge merely by including the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on account of criminal misconduct by public servants by abusing their official position by awarding the contract so as to gain pecuniary advantage to Bofors and its agents and themselves and all other offences were friable by the Magistrate and since the charge for this offence has been held to be unsustainable the cases against the petitioners including those of Martin Ardbo and Mr. Quattrocchi shall stand transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for framing of charges as observed in this order.