Court rejects Chandraswami plea to examine Arab arms dealer

By IANS

New Delhi : The Delhi High Court Monday dismissed self-styled godman Chandraswami’s plea for recording the testimony of Saudi Arabia-based international arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi as defence witness in a Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) violation case.


Support TwoCircles

Justice S. Murlidhar rejected the plea of Chandraswami after a trial court had rejected the same last year.

In his application Nemichand Jain, known as Chandraswami, requested the court to examine Khashoggi, who lives in Riyadh, through video conferencing.

His counsel K.K. Manan informed the court that Khashoggi’s examination as a defence witness was vital in establishing that his client had no knowledge of the transaction that he is supposed to have made.

Chandraswami is being tried on a complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for acquiring and transferring pounds sterling 6,000 in violation of FERA provisions.

According to the ED, Chandraswami had filed a defamation suit against Lakhu Bhai Pathak before the Queen’s Bench division in London.

The London court had in November 1986, directed Chandraswami to deposit 6,000 pounds as security for the defendant’s costs.

According to the ED, the deposit, allegedly paid by the godman’s devotees, was violative of section 8(1) of the FERA act, which prohibits acquiring or otherwise transacting in foreign exchange without obtaining general or special permission from the Reserve Bank of India.

However, countering the ED’s complaint, Saudi billionaire Khashoggi, in an affidavit filed in the Delhi court, has stated that it was he who had deposited the amount in the London court.

Khashoggi, who claims to be a close friend of the godman, admitted in the affidavit to having deposited the sum without informing Chandraswami, as it was a “small amount” for him.

The godman has contended that Khashoggi’s deposition in the court would help establish that he had no knowledge of the transaction.

Meanwhile, appearing for the ED, counsels A.K. Vali and N.K. Matta argued that the international arms merchant could not be summoned as a witness in the case.

In the event of Khashoggi submitting false evidence, they said there was no way he could be prosecuted for perjury, since India does not have an extradition treaty with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where he currently lives.

SUPPORT TWOCIRCLES HELP SUPPORT INDEPENDENT AND NON-PROFIT MEDIA. DONATE HERE