Nirav Modi extradition case: UK judge admits CBI, ED evidence
London: A UK judge presiding over the extradition proceedings of Nirav Modi on Tuesday ruled that the evidence submitted by the Indian authorities to establish a prima facie case of fraud and money laundering against the fugitive diamantaire is broadly admissible.
District Judge Samuel Goozee heard the arguments for and against the admissibility of certain witness statements provided by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) at Westminster Magistrates' Court here and concluded that he considered himself "bound" by the previous UK court rulings in the extradition case of former Kingfisher Airlines chief Vijay Mallya.
He then adjourned the case for a two-day hearing on January 7 and 8 next year, when he will hear the final submissions in the case before he hands down his judgment a few weeks later.
"I consider myself bound by that decision (Mallya). There is no reason why points made by witnesses cannot be used as informed commentary," said Judge Goozee.
Modi is wanted in India to face trial in the estimated USD 2-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam case.
The 49-year-old diamond merchant followed the proceedings via videolink from Wandsworth Prison in south-west London, dressed in a prison-issue grey tracksuit and sporting a thick beard.
He will next appear from prison, by video link, for a regular brief 28-day remand call-over hearing on December 1.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing on behalf of the Indian authorities, stressed that the evidence, including witness statements under Section 161 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), meets the required threshold for the UK court to determine whether Modi has a case to answer before the Indian judicial system.
"The argument that this is a very specific case, distinguishable from Mallya is frankly nonsense," said CPS barrister Helen Malcolm.
That Mallya has a case to answer in India in his fraud and money laundering case has cleared various levels of the UK judicial system and is currently undergoing a "confidential" legal issue before UK Home Secretary Priti Patel can consider signing off on his extradition.
Modi's barrister, Clare Montgomery, who was also the defence counsel in Mallya's case, however, disputed that the Section 161 witness statements qualify as similar.
"The government of India case is not as strong as it was in Mallya," said Montgomery, as she raised a specific issue over a witness who was said to speak no English in his testimony for the CBI but signed a statement in English for the ED.
After Tuesday's ruling, the judge will decide how much weight he places on these documents amid the "37 bundles of evidence" to be considered for his ruling in the case expected early next year.
Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, with the CBI case relating to a large-scale fraud upon PNB through the fraudulent obtaining of "Letters of Understanding" (LOUs or loan agreements), and the ED case relating to the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He also faces two additional charges of "causing the disappearance of evidence" and intimidating witnesses or criminal intimidation to cause death added to the CBI case.
The jeweller has been in prison since he was arrested on March 19, 2019, on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard and his attempts at seeking bail have been repeatedly turned down. The charges against him centre around his firms Diamonds R Us, Solar Exports and Stellar Diamonds making fraudulent use of a credit facility offered by PNB or LoUs.
The CPS, on behalf of India, has told the court during the course of two separate sets of hearings in May and September that a number of PNB staff conspired with Modi to ensure the LoUs were issued to his companies without ensuring they were subject to the required credit check, without recording the issuance of the LoUs and without charging the required commission upon the transactions.
Modi's defence team has sought to counter allegations of fraud by deposing witnesses to establish the volatility of the gems and jewellery trade and that the LoUs were standard practice. His severe depression has also been raised as part of the arguments against extradition.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
FIR registered against BJP MLA Janardhana Reddy after clash over installation of banner
Ballari (PTI): An FIR was registered on Friday against BJP MLA Janardhana Reddy and 10 others in connection with alleged violent clashes that erupted over installation of banners ahead of a Valmiki statue unveiling programme in the city, police said.
Security was beefed up in Ballari, even as the situation remained peaceful, a day after clashes allegedly broke out between supporters of BJP MLA Janardhana Reddy and Congress MLA Bharath Reddy over the installation of banners, they said.
One person was killed during the incident on Thursday, police said.
ALSO READ: Congress and NCP (SP) to contest separately in Nagpur civic polls
"The situation was brought under control, and additional security has been deployed. At present, the situation remains peaceful, and all precautionary measures have been taken to ensure that no untoward incident occurs," a senior police officer said.
In his complaint, 47-year-old Chanala Shekhar stated that MLA Bharat Reddy is undertaking various development works in the city, including roads and public projects. As part of this, a grand programme was organised near SP Circle for the unveiling of a Valmiki statue.
"On January 1, between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm, the accused, Janardhan Reddy, Somasekhar Reddy, and others, allegedly damaged the banners put up for the unveiling ceremony near Janardhan Reddy's house," he alleged.
When he and Sathish Reddy questioned them, the accused, along with their supporters, picked up a fight and attacked them with the intention of killing them, the FIR stated. The complainant further alleged that the police officer, Srinivas, who intervened, was also injured.
Based on the complaint filed at Brucepet police station, the FIR was registered against Janardhana Reddy, Somasekhar Reddy, and nine others under sections of 109 (attempt to murder), 115 (2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 191 (2) (rioting), 189 (2) (unlawful assembly), 118 (1) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 190 (making every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offense committed), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 351 (2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, police added.
Videos circulating on social media showed a private gunman allegedly firing shots into the air as tension gripped the area.
The confrontation occurred ahead of a Valmiki statue unveiling programme scheduled to be held in the city on January 3.
According to police, supporters of Bharath Reddy were attempting to install banners in front of Janardhana Reddy's residence in the Avambhavi area, which was opposed by the latter's supporters, leading to a heated exchange.
What began as a verbal altercation soon escalated into a physical clash, with supporters from both sides allegedly resorting to stone-pelting. Police sources said stones were also hurled at personnel who rushed to the spot to bring the situation under control.
Several people were injured during the incident, and their number and identities were being verified, police said.
As the situation threatened to spiral out of control, police resorted to a lathi charge and had also fired bullets in the air to disperse the crowd and restore order.
Police said investigations are underway to ascertain the sequence of events and verify the allegations.
