The Hindu : Quattrocchi case verdict likely tomorrow

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Dec 12, 2002

International

International

Quattrocchi case verdict likely tomorrow

By P. S. Suryanarayana

KUALA LUMPUR Dec. 11. The Malaysian High Court today completed hearings in a ``review'' petition against a lower court's refusal to allow the extradition of Ottavio Quattrocchi, an Italian businessman residing in Kuala Lumpur, in connection with the investigations and trial in the Bofors payoff case in India. Later, Justice Augustine Paul, who heard the ``review'' plea, is understood to have told the prosecution and defence lawyers in his chamber that his ruling would be delivered in court on December 13.

During the day's proceedings in open court, Justice Paul at one stage cautioned Malaysia's Deputy Public Prosecutor, Kamarulhisham Kamaruddin, against adducing arguments that might compel the Bench to ``aggressively disagree'' with the judges or even ``attack'' certain aspects of the judicial process in India in relation to the Bofors case as prosecuted there so far. Justice Paul reminded Malaysia's Prosecutor, who represented India in the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty, that case laws had shown that mere ``suspicion is not enough'', in the absence of a formal charge, to justify an extradition demand. The perceived absence of a precise or plenary charge against Mr. Quattrocchi has served as the critical mass of the legal material in the present case.

Mr. Kamaruddin, who was answering the arguments raised by Mr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, counsel for Mr. Quattrocchi, said there was no mandatory requirement of a full-fledged charge to press for the extradition of a person from one country to another. Arguing that the absence of a conspicuous charge was ``not fatal'' to the extradition plea, Mr. Kamaruddin disputed the contention that the case was flawed on account of the Indian authorities pronouncing only a prima facie case and not a formal cognisance in respect of Mr. Quattrocchi. The test of ``prima facie (evidence) is consonant with taking cognisance'' in a full legal sense, the prosecutor argued and emphasised that the test of prima facie was ``the threshold for taking cognisance''. Citing the Charron versus the USA case, Mr. Kamaruddin said the case law merely underscored that it would be a ``respectable practice'', as distinct from a ``mandatory'' one, to resolve an extradition question on the basis of a legal-grade charge.

In his deposition on behalf of the Italian national, Mr. Shafee said the Indian authorities had, contrary to their claims, proved ``no hatching of conspiracy'' by his client in conjunction with public servants in New Delhi, inclusive of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, in the Bofors case.

As for the allegations of cheating by Mr. Quattrocchi, only a ``prejudice'' could be inferred from the material produced by the Indian authorities, Mr. Shafee argued and maintained that it would be amiss to see ``something immoral about having an agent for lobbying'' in connection with business transactions.

Addressing the impression that Mr. Quattrocchi had ``fled'' from India at a sensitive juncture in the Bofors investigations, Mr. Shafee posed the question why the Indian authorities did not place his client in the legally relevant list of absconders. According to Mr. Shafee, Mr. Quattrocchi had bought an air ticket seven weeks prior to his departure from India, a fact that should speak for itself. It was at this stage that Justice Paul cautioned Mr. Shafee against a general and specific interpretation of ``political'' charges. Arguing that the extradition move was ``a breach of Criminal Procedure Code (apparently, in India as also Malaysia) and a breach of natural justice'', Mr. Shafee said it ``is a rule of common sense'' that a charge should have been preferred ``at least by the commencement of hearings'' in this case.

He said that ``we (therefore) blew our whistle before the game started''. According to him, ``we do not have a goal post (yet). They (the Indian authorities) are insisting that the game goes on (all the same). The goal post keeps on changing. This is not football or cricket. It is not a fair game at all''.

The Malaysian Government, which represented New Delhi, today refrained from pressing for a judicial remedy on the issue of yesterday's denial of a special counsel for India's Central Bureau of Investigation.

Answering questions from the media after the completion of today's legal proceedings, the Malaysian Prosecutor indicated that any further appeal, one way or the other, against the prospective ruling by Justice Paul would be a delicate issue that might have to be determined with great care. Should Mr. Quattrocchi gain a verdict against his extradition, the Interpol notice against him might lose its cutting edge, his lawyer suggested.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

International

Stories in this Section

Bangladesh rejects transit facility for India

Quattrocchi case verdict likely tomorrow

Proof of proliferation, says U.S.

Cherie Blair apologises but defiant

Pluralism on test in Jaffna

U.S. warns of 'n-response' to attack

Terror threat comes from Afghanistan, not Iraq

Setback to India