Nadeem extradition trial begins

The Magistrate, Christopher Pratt, accepted Nichols8217; argument that the evidence was unlikely to be used in the case and if it was, adjournment at a later point may be considered.

Opening arguments for the CPS, QCPaul Garlic set out the charges of murder and conspiracy to murder against Nadeem Akhtar Saifi. Tripping uncomfortably over names of people and places, he presented the written evidence tracing Nadeem8217;s association with Gulshan Kumar and their falling out over the promotion of an album on which Nadeem had sung. Garlic also set before the court sworn affidavits of witnesses who said they had seen him threaten Gulshan Kumar, and of his meeting with alleged co-conspirators in Dubai to plan the murder.

Garlic said there was evidence that Nadeem had spoken with underworld don Abu Salem and told him to quot;finish Gulshan Kumarquot;. He said that by May 1997, the killers had received revolvers and a car to carry out the crimes; and that Nadeem handed over quot;Rs 25 millionquot; confusion between lakhs and millions has been rife through this trial to persons in a car in Andheri in Mumbai.

Garlic went through the forensic evidence, the statements of the analysts and concluded the case for the Government of India with Nadeem8217;sstatement when he turned himself over to Charing Cross Police Station in London: quot;I am totally innocent of the charges they have made against mequot;.

Opening the case for the defence, QC Clive Nichols set out briefly on how he intended to proceed. His first tack, he said, would be to test the admissibility of the translations from Hindi and Marathi of witness statements presented by the CPS as evidence. He would then move on to the admissibility or otherwise of hearsay in crucial witness statements. Nadeem, dressed in a brown striped suit, looked relaxed. He smiled at journalists and said, quot;You must write for justicequot;. Also in court was Maharashtra prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, looking withdrawn but insisting the CPS had strong arguments to counter Nichols8217; trouncing of translated evidence.

Majeed Memon, representing Nadeem, was present through out as was Nadeem8217;s wife, dressed in a black and white salwar kameez, she said she kept her faith in god.

Nichols concentrated on the fact that under Section 27 ofthe 1989 Extradition Act, only translations by interpreters or competent translators done under oath were admissible as evidence. And that only original documents or true copies of originals were acceptable. In this respect, he said that the evidence of crucial witnesses, Mohammed Ali Hassan Sheikh, Selvraj Joseph and Arif Lakdawala, was not admissible. Their statements were taken variously in Hindi and Marathi; however, only copies of the English translations done by the sitting Magistrate were presented as evidence.

This he said was also the case for three other witnesses, Mrs Gulshan Grover, Ramachandra Lavangare and Dhuliya. Nichols commented, quot;These rules really ought to be known, this is not the first Indian extradition requestquot;.Nichols8217; colleague Lewis took up the case from there and asked the Magistrate to consider the written evidence before him as he would a witness in the witness box. He said that for instance, if a witness started by saying, quot;I was toldquot;, he would immediately be stoppedbecause what he was about to say would be hearsay.

Lewis, using the evidence of Jyotindhar Desai, who claimed in his statement that Abu Salem had called asking to speak to Gulshan Kumar as a case in point, said that if Desai was in court he would be asked how he knew the caller was Abu Salem, how he knew that Salem was a co-conspirator in the murder and a co-conspirator of Nadeem8217;s. The CPS8217;s Paul Garlic accepted Lewis8217; argument.

If the Magistrate is satisfied with these arguments, he will address the issue of the general sufficiency of evidence; if he is not, he will bring in other evidence, such as how the witness statements were procured, and whether they are admissible under Section 78 of the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994. Everything else failing, he would argue that religion may be a factor in Nadeem8217;s not receiving a fair trial.