![]() Wednesday, Dec 18, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By P. S. Suryanarayana
At one level, the order issued on Monday by Malaysia's Court of Appeal in Kuala Lumpur remains valid, insofar as the counsel for the Italian businessman, Ottavio Quattrocchi, is said to have been given 10 days' time to address the more immediate issue in a suitable manner. The urgent question at stake relates to the Court's order that Mr. Quattrocchi's passport be ``deposited'' with this apex judicial forum ``pending a hearing'' on the appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur that there was no ground to sanction the extradition of Mr. Quattrocchi to India in connection with the Bofors payoff investigations and trial. The petition was brought before the Court of Appeal by the Malaysian Government's public prosecution which has been acting on behalf of India in the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty. With Mr. Quattrocchi having left Malaysia before the Court of Appeal could on Monday take cognisance of the petition filed on behalf of India, the order concerning his travel documents assumed the proportions of an ``academic'' matter. However, the Indian authorities have quickly sought to reactivate the Interpol notice that was, in the first place, put out against Mr. Quattrocchi on the wider international plane. It is this sub-text of India's move that keeps the issue of his passport in focus. Technically, should Mr. Quattrocchi return to Malaysia in these circumstances, armed as he is with a non-nullified judicial verdict in his favour and against his extradition to India, the Court of Appeal in Kuala Lumpur might be able to process the petition filed at India's behest. However, a ``stay'' of Mr. Quattrocchi's judicially-reconfirmed ``right to liberty'' has neither been sought before the Court of Appeal nor obtained from it, according to counsel and legal experts conversant with this case. This aspect of a reality check might still enable Mr. Quattrocchi's counsel to try and convince the Court of Appeal to ``set aside'' its order concerning his passport (with or without his presence in Malaysia). So runs the argument. As for the substance of the Indian petition before the Court of Appeal, much will depend on its view on the ``finality'' of the High Court's jurisdiction as regards ``review'' cases under Malaysia's Extradition Act of 1992. India has lost a ``review'' petition against a lower court's refusal to endorse Mr. Quattrocchi's extradition to India. Diplomats and analysts in the South East Asian region underline the importance of globalisation as an aspect of the overall ambience in which the final judicial word might be pronounced on this case.
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
|