You are here: Home » News-ANI » International » World
Business Standard

Laughter in court as Mallya's defence questions reliability of Indian evidence

ANI  |  London (U.K.) 

appeared imperturbable as ever in the dock. He was accompanied by his wife Lalwani and son

Today's short afternoon proceedings were related to the admissibility of documentary evidence submitted by the Indian as part of the prosecution case.

After hearing the argument, the has extended Mallya's bail to April 2.

In a long and technical submission filled with legalese, Mallya's defence questioned the admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of documentation submitted by the of India, in particular, the witness statements submitted by a wide array of witnesses such as officials.

Section 84 of the United Kingdom's Extradition Act provides strict regulations that pertain to the reliability and quality of documentary evidence.

Montgomery requested to check the documents submitted by the of for admissibility.

Montgomery produced a large stack of papers with detailed annotations, which she said were statements made against and the and compiled by the that are demonstrably unreliable and as such did not meet admissibility standards under the UK law.

"Many of the documents that the relies on are unsubstantiated assertions which have been proven to be unreliable or false while others are hearsay or narrative accounts or statements made ex-post facto", Montgomery said.

Mallya's also protested the fact that the Indian government's documents and statements included submissions that had no relevance to the case - which is the central axis on which the extradition trial hinges.

She also pointed to numerous glaring anomalies in the prosecutions documents and witness statements, including some which she said had been "cut and pasted" and submitted as being from different witnesses.

"Some of these statements not only had the same words by the same typos. For example, there are similar anomalies in witness statements made by different individuals weeks apart", Montgomery said, prompting laughter in the court, much to the discomfiture of representatives of the

Montgomery also pointed to numerous instances of statements obtained by witnesses where no recordings or any other evidence existed of an questioning a witness. In other instances, witnesses appear to have been given "pro-forma" statements that were signed off by those witnesses.

"Much evidence suggests that officers, in this case, have not behaved in a reliable manner. For instance, they have completely failed to reveal to the the background of how the lending was approved by various banks, have submitted misleading statements, pro-forma statements and statements that were false", Montgomery said.

She also pointed to a number of Indian that have "unanimously" agreed that investigators often "project" their biases on to witnesses.


(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Fri, January 12 2018. 02:48 IST