Bofors buried as govt drops case against Quattrocchi

NEW DELHI: The Bofors case that led to Congress's defeat in the 1989 Lok Sabha polls has been given an official burial, with the government formally declaring its intention to drop proceedings against the key accused, Ottavio Quattrocchi.

The decision to lay off Quattrocchi, an Italian businessman accused of taking bribes from a Swedish gun manufacturer to facilitate the sale of the Bofors howitzers to India in 1986, was announced in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. "The Red Corner Notice against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi was withdrawn a year ago. There is not a rubble of evidence in the case to keep it prolonging in the trial court. We have decided to withdraw all prosecution and close the case," solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam informed SC.

"The CBI pursued the case because of the pendency of the Red Corner Notice, which was withdrawn on November 25, 2008. We will pursue the case if any new evidence comes to light. But for the present, there is not even a vestige of evidence because of which we faced a reversal in getting Quattrocchi extradited, first from Malaysia and then from Argentina," he told a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan.

The decision to give a burial to the Bofors case, in which the FIR was filed during the V P Singh regime in 1991 and the chargesheet during NDA government's reign in 1999, was taken by the UPA government three days ago, during the Puja vacation, on the basis of a fresh opinion given by attorney general G E Vahanvati. As a logical corollary to the announcement, the public prosecutor in the case will move an application for closure before the trial court, which is scheduled to hear the case on October 3.

Though trial courts have the power to decline prosecution's requests, they don't exercise it very often. Subramaniam's bold tone contrasted sharply with the furtive moves Congress regimes allegedly made to help the accused in a case that remained a bone of contention between the party and its opponents for close to two decades. Still, few would have been surprised by it.

A closure of the case had looked imminent since UPA-I allowed Quattrocchi to take out his money -- allegedly his share of the Bofors kickbacks -- from accounts with a bank in London. It followed that up by not pressing hard for his extradition from Argentina and by, subsequently, telling Interpol that he was no longer wanted in India.

Interestingly, Subramaniam cited Interpol's decision to take him off its own "wanted" list to back up the Centre's argument to wind up the sputtering case against Quattrocchi. Though the case was not getting anywhere with investigating agencies reaching a dead end, both the BJP and CPM attacked the government for its stand before the apex court. "This was bound to happen.

This government has always been trying to protect Quattrocchi," BJP spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad said, referring to the moves under UPA-I to give a clean chit to the Italian and help him access his money. "Quattrocchi knows too much and he has been receiving patronage," Prasad further said in thinly veiled reference to the Italian's links with Congress leaders. CPM general secretary Prakash Karat reacted by calling the decision an "example of how legal devices and delays are used to scuttle the case".

Congress was defiant and dismissed the protests with disdain. "It is a good step, though taken rather late. The Opposition has been bringing out the phantom of Bofors from the cupboard and slaying it again and again for the last 23 years," party spokesperson Manish Tiwari said. Though both the BJP and CPM are expected to persist with their attack strategy, Congress has little reason to be perturbed. The memory of the kickbacks -- the first proven one concerning a defence deal -- has faded and the party has skilfully used the failure of the efforts under the BJP-controlled NDA to kickstart the investigations to defend itself against the charge of subversion of the case.

On Tuesday, Tiwari again stressed the same. "The case did not stand legal scrutiny in any court in India or abroad." He further said, "It is time that the era of character assassination over the issue going on in Indian politics for the last 23 years is brought to an end." In the Supreme Court, the SG argued that with the decision taken by the Centre and CBI to close the case, there was no reason for the apex court to keep pending the PIL filed by advocate Ajay Agrawal questioning the consent given by the government to the British crown prosecution to defreeze Quattrocchi's London bank account, which was frozen on the allegation that part of the kickbacks in the Bofors deal was deposited there.

Agrawal said, "The CBI has been treating Quattrocchi as its son-in-law and the government was hand-in-glove in facilitating the escape of the Italian businessman from the clutches of law." He said it was a serious matter and hence the court should hear his PIL at length raising several important questions. The Bench fixed further hearing on December 11.

Attorney General Vahanvati appeared to have agreed with his predecessor Milon Banerjee, who had opined closure of the case. However, UPA-I could not act on the opinion to close the Bofors case as elections were round the corner and hence had to seek fresh legal opinion on the issue from the present AG. Subramaniam said the decision was also driven by the fact that two Delhi High Court judgments, one in 2004 and the other in 2005, broke the basis of the chargesheet by terming that the evidence did not make out a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that there was no conspiracy among the accused. Because of the two judgments, the government failed to extradite Quattrocchi, who was arrested on the basis of the pending Red Corner Notice, from Malaysia and Argentina, the SG said.

"We had to take a call at some time. We failed in Malaysia and in Argentina. All payments for Bofors guns were made in 1990. The ammunition purchased then had been fired and gone. The government had to take a call. And it had taken a call, that is not to keep the matter in an ambivalent state. If there is no corruption, what is the point in pursuing the matter," he said.

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN 30 September 2009, 02:12am IST