The Central Bureau of Investigation has approached the Supreme Court in appeal in the Bofors case. The CBI came in appeal against the 12 year old Delhi High Court verdict which closed the case.
It may be recalled that the Attorney General of India had opposed filing an appeal in the case. However the CBI moved the SC on the basis of new evidence. The CBI approached the AG and informed him about fresh evidence following permission was orally given to file an appeal.
Currently there is also an appeal filed by advocate Ajay Agarwal which is pending in the Supreme Court.
A few days back the AG, K K Venugopal had advised against the filing of an appeal. Following this Agarwal had written to the AG to direct the CBI to file an affidavit in the case.
The advocate-petitioner Ajay Agarwal urged the AG to direct the CBI to file an affidavit immediately in the Bofors case with all necessary documents.
The AG while giving his opinion advised the government not to file an SLP in the Supreme Court on the ground that it is likely to be dismissed. Venugopal said the CBI should present its stand in a similar case pending before the court, in which the agency is also a party.
The CBI said it wanted to file an SLP challenging the Delhi High Court order of May 31, 2005, quashing all charges against the Europe-based Hinduja brothers in the Bofors case.
The CBI had on January 22, 1990, registered a First Information Report (FIR) for alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Martin Ardbo, then president of Swedish arms manufacturer Bofors AB, alleged middleman Win Chadha, and the Hindujas.
The DoPT had sought legal opinion from the Attorney- General on the CBI's request that it be allowed to file the SLP, PTI reported while quoting sources.
In a letter to the Secretary, DoPT, Venugopal said, "Now, more than 12 years have elapsed. Any SLP filed before the Supreme Court at this stage, in my view, is likely to be dismissed by the court on account of the long delay itself." He said the record did not reveal any significant events or special circumstances that could be said to constitute sufficient cause for not approaching the Supreme Court within the 90 days permitted by law, or at any time thereafter in the past so many years.