Tuesday, May 31 2005 17:36 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court today (May 31, 2005) against Europe-based three Hinduja brothers and Swedish arms manufacturer A B Bofors in the Bofors case.

"No case can be proceeded against the Hindujas or the Bofors Company in the absence of original documents. I quash the framing of charges by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the Hinduja brothers and the A B Bofors Company", Justice R S Sodhi said in his order.

The verdict came barely four days after Additional Solicitor General B Datta conceded that CBI was unable to get either the authenticated or originals of Swiss documents on the basis of which the agency had proceeded against the accused.

Hinduja brothers, Srichand, Gopichand and Prakashchand, had approached the court seeking recall of its earlier order on charge against them, which upheld cheating charges against them while dropping corruption charges.

Similarly, Bofors Company had sought recall of the court's direction to the CMM to frame forgery charges against it.

The accused had pleaded that in the absence of original documents they could not be proceeded against.

Allowing their petition, the court said the documents on which CBI relied were "useless and dubious material since the veracity of the said documents could not be ascertained".

The person who wrote certain hand notes have not been identified and as such the proceeding was a "sheer persecution, waste of public money and useless prosecution", Justice Sodhi said in the order.

The court also criticised the media for creating what it called "a huge bubble" which burst when the matter came before the court.

Justice Sodhi lamented that the case resulted into a loss of Rs 250 crore to the exchequer and a "disaster" for accused persons.

The suffering was personal, professional as also economic for the accused, some of them died during the 14 years of the case carrying the stigma with them, the court observed and advised CBI that in future the agency should "proceed more carefully in such types of matters."

The court took note of the fact that despite having been given opportunity to produce evidence, the agency could not do so.