Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Bofors deal: Massive cover-up, says judge

Bofors deal: Massive cover-up, says judge

Author: J. Venkatesan
Publication: The Hindu
Date: November 16, 2002
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/11/16/stories/2002111604641200.htm

The CBI court here has held that there was a secret design by the former Prime Minister, the late Rajiv Gandhi, and the former Defence Secretary, S.K. Bhatnagar (since deceased), to ensure that the AB Bofors company was awarded the Bofors gun deal by abusing their official position.

The Special Judge, Prem Kumar, held that the Bofors company had used corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of office by public servants, S.K. Bhatnagar, former Defence Secretary and Chairman of the Negotiating Committee, Rajiv Gandhi (he was included as an accused not sent up for trial), to obtain the contract.

The judge was severe on Rajiv Gandhi by observing that his post-contract conduct showed that a massive cover-up operation had been launched. He said it was a unique case involving serious allegations of abuse of positions by high public servants in a deal having international ramifications.

The judge was of the view that the object of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (which probed the matter) seemed to be to quell the political storm at that time and not to arrive at the whole truth. Rather, the constitution of the JPC and the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and its report seemed to be part of a massive cover-up exercise after the exposure of the scam by the media.

He said the Bofors scandal was a case of deep-rooted conspiracy and political pay-offs and bristled with all manner of complexities and complications. He referred to the statement made by Rajiv Gandhi in the Lok Sabha that there were no middlemen in the deal, that if anyone gave the Government any evidence it would take stern action and that nobody would be allowed to go scot-free. But Rajiv pretended to be a maverick and did not show any sincerity to find out the truth, the judge said.

Regarding the role played by AB Bofors, he said that it had entered into a criminal conspiracy along with the other accused to obtain the contract by illegal means, by deceiving the Government of India by fraudulent representation about the price and quality of the said guns and gun system that they were superior and cheaper than `Sofma' and that no agent/middlemen would be used in the negotiations.

After obtaining the contract, AB Bofors had paid a commission of SEK 50.46 millions to Ottavio Quattrocchi through AE Services Ltd; SEK 192.15 millions in the name of Svenska Inc, Panama and SEK 80.79 millions to Hinduja brothers through Mc Intyre Corporations three accounts through Hanover Trust, Yew York, Geneva; SEK 31.98 millions through Swiss Bank Corporation, Geneva and SEK 11.77 millions through Credit Suisse, Geneva and thereby to cheat the Government of India by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of official position by public servants, S.K. Bhatnagar and Rajiv Gandhi to award the aforesaid contract.

The judge also noted that around May 1987 AB Bofors had made false/forged document between it and Svenska Inc dated January 2/13, 1986 mentioning therein about the payment of commission on the award of contract for sales related to the Bofors gun deal by ante-dating the agreement knowing well that the contract had already been granted. Thereby, AB Bofors had enabled Svenska Inc to claim commission knowing well that such commission was not payable as no agent was to be engaged in the deal.

The judge noted that the company did so with the intent to cause damage or injury to the Government of India to the extent of commission payable therein. The company and the Hinduja brothers had committed various offences under the IPC Sec. 120 B (conspiracy), 420 (cheating), Sec. 464 read with 465 and Sec. 5 (1) (d) (misconduct by public servant) and 5 (2) (providing for punishment) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) in the 1988 Act), the judge held.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements