India opposes plea by Quattrocchi over order to suspend passport

During arguments, deputy public prosecutor Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, representing India’s case, objected to Quattrocchi’s plea and demanded that he should first comply with the ex-parte order and then ask for injunction, but judge Hamid Mohamad, who presided over the court, overruled it.

Justice Hamid also allowed counsel Cyrus V. Das and Steven Thiru, appointed by India, to present the case, overruling objection by Quattrocchi’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah that the Indian Government cannot have two representatives in the case.

Das told the court that the fact that Quattrocchi wanted the ex-parte order to be quashed proved that it has serious implication and was not academic as contended by his lawyer.

‘‘If the order is set aside, Quattrocchi may choose to come back to Malaysia and if it stays he may not come back.’’ Das also argued that lawyers from the attorney general’s chamber, who represented India’s case, were never given an opportunity by the sessions court to produce the necessary documents to back Quattrocchi’s extradition request.

He also challenged the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgement upholding the lower court verdict rejecting India’s plea for Quattrocchi’s extradition. Das submitted that high court judge Augustine Paul had erred in disallowing the attorney general from passing the fiat for the case to him during the arguments before him.

Quattrocchi’s lawyer told the apex court today that the ex-parte order was ‘‘academic’’ as his client had already left the country when it was passed.

Shafee also said that the deputy public prosecutor has failed in his duty to inform the apex court that Quattrocchi had already left Malaysia.

While reserving the order, the apex court did not say when it would pronounce the judgement. Quattrocchi, who had been living in Malaysia for the past few years, left for Italy on December 14 after winning the extradition case against him in the high court a day before.

High Court judge Augustine Paul had dismissed India’s plea for a review of the decision of the sessions court that had set Quattrocchi free without conditions. The attorney general of Malaysia then challenged the high court ruling in the Court of Appeal on the same day.