Not an acquittal

It has taken more than 15 years for the country's legal system to deliver judgment on a case that accused the Hindujas and Bofors of entering into a conspiracy to cheat the Indian government in the Rs 1,437 crore deal in which the Swedish arms manufacturer sold mobile field howitzers to the Indian army.

Add to this the Rs 250 crore of expenses the government incurred on investigating the case (many times larger than the money that was said to have been squirrelled away), and it becomes obvious that the Delhi High Court's judgment on the subject will find resonance in many quarters.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is in the dock for failing to prove yet another high-profile case, and faces the ignominy of being told that it based its case on unverified photo-copies of original documents that are not available.

It is almost as though the CBI has replaced the Hindujas in the dock. Some sixteen months ago, in February 2004, the court gave a clean chit to the late Rajiv Gandhi and quashed all charges of corruption and bribery against the Hindujas.

The trial against arms agent Win Chadha and former Bofors chief Martin Ardbo could not proceed as the two had passed away. The only accused who is yet to face trial is the Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocci, who is in Malaysia because the CBI has not been able to get him extradited.

It is ironic that a case that helped unite the opposition to fight the Congress in the late 1980s, led to its defeat at the hustings, and caused significant political realignments, has failed to make any headway even after 18 years of investigations.

But it will be equally naïve to believe that the judicial pronouncements have put an end to the kickback controversy. For one, the arguments used to quash the charges are premised on the court's doubts with regard to the authenticity of the evidence documents procured from the Prosecutor's Office in Sweden.

The former CBI chief, Joginder Singh, has stated that what the investigating agency presented before the court were attested copies of original documents.

On the other hand, the court has held that the documents used in the case were photo-copies procured from the Swedish government and not from any judicial authority in Sweden.

The CBI needs to throw fresh light on this issue and if it has a case, it should consider moving the courts again with proper authenticated documents.

Nothing more should be read into a judgment that appears to be based substantially on the question of documents not being in order. This is not an acquittal, even if interested parties try to present it as such.