Friday, Dec 06, 2002
Friday, Dec 06, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By P. S. Suryanarayana
The adjournment followed a day-long hearing before the judge, Justice Augustine Paul, on whether or not a Sessions Court judge was right in rejecting India's extradition application at the stage of ``preliminary objections'' here on December 2. Today, the judge grilled the Malaysian Government's Deputy Public Prosecutor, Kamarulhisham Kamaruddin, who held New Delhi's brief here under the relevant legal practices on the crucial question as to why a formal charge had not been formulated against Mr. Quattrocchi whose extradition is being sought by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Justice Paul harped on this lacuna and suggested that India could at least have framed a ``draft charge'' in law that could be distinguished from a chargesheet or a police report. At one stage, the judge underlined that India could have at least ``tendered'' a ``tentative charge''. He said he could not see what the difficulty was about. The Malaysian prosecutor submitted that the Sessions Court judge ``did not have the jurisdiction to summarily dismiss'' the case at the stage of ``preliminary objections'' itself. Arguing that the judge's action was of a ``premature'' nature, he said that ``sufficient material'' had been brought forward even at that stage to enable the lower court to elicit the norm of ``double criminality''. However, according to the prosecution, it was not given the opportunity to explore the evidence to establish the applicability of ``double criminality'' insofar as Mr. Quattrocchi's alleged offences in relation to India could bear an ``equivalence'' of culpability for the purposes of Malaysia's Extradition Act, which was being invoked in the absence of a formal bilateral extradition treaty. Justice Paul repeatedly asked the prosecution to establish its case in law and on facts that Mr. Quattrocchi had entered into a ``conspiracy'' with ``public servants'' to commit the alleged acts of corruption and cheating. At one point, he observed that there could have been an argument about kickbacks in the case. That, in his view, was an aspect of (alleged) corruption, and he would like to know whom did Mr. Quattrocchi cheat, as alleged, and how. Later, counsel for Mr. Quattrocchi, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, told mediapersons outside the court chamber that the judge was certainly not hostile to the respondent's case against India's plea for his extradition from Malaysia. Actually, the judge ``seems to be favouring us'', the respondent's lawyer quipped. Mr. Kamaruddin said outside the court room that it was ``amazing'' that the judge should at this juncture appear to conduct a ``trial'' itself as regards the substantive issues at stake, whereas the question now was that of ``reviewing'' the lower court's order. Mr. Quattrocchi said: ``I have never received any money from Bofors nor am I connected with AE Services. ... Utmost I could have received a commission (as a businessman). ... I received neither a commission nor a kickback''. He also told The Hindu that he ``will be here up to the end'' of the legal proceedings. ``Why not?'' he said, buoyed by his unconditional discharge by the lower court.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
