Westminster Magistrates Court Didn't Consider All Evidence in Extradition Case: Mallya's Counsel

London, February 11: The Westminster Magistrates Court's Chief Magistrate Judge Emma Arbuthnot, who ordered the extradition of Vijay Mallya in 2018, considered only selective evidence related to the case, the embattled liquor baron's counsel Clare Montgomery told the Royal Court of Justice on Tuesday. Clare made the remark during the hearing on an appeal by Mallya against Westminster Magistrates Court's order extraditing him to India to face alleged fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crore.

Clare told the court that Arbuthnot reached the conclusion that Kingfisher and its representative had "misrepresented the accounts" without considering all the evidence. Arbuthnot in London gave the 2018 ruling after finding merit in the charges of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering registered against him in India and rejecting Mallya's contention that he ran a "real risk of suffering a flagrant denial of justice" in India. Vijay Mallya Cites PM Narendra Modi's Remark to Affirm Recovery of All Bank Dues.

In her ruling, Judge Arbuthnot said: "I find that the allegations set out in the Request are extradition offenses within the meaning of Section 137(3) of the Extradition Act 2003." Clare claimed: "The statement by Magistrate Judge Emma Arbuthnot was incorrect. As you know that Magistrates Court Judge said she was not going to consider all the evidence against him and his favour but 'I am going to see whether it is a prima facie case'."

"District Judge requires all of the evidence rather than some of the evidence. She reached the conclusion that Kingfishers and its representative had misrepresented the accounts. When the two figures mentioned are actually the pre-taxed and post taxed figures. She didn't look at them because they weren't included in the Government of India's papers."

Clare told the judge that the Arbuthnot missed a lot of the evidence. "Had she taken all of the evidence into account it would have altered the decision she made." The Judge, hearing the case, interrupted Clare saying that he does not think that Arbuthnot did not consider all of the evidence into account. Clare said Emma considered entirely selective evidence of emails between the bank and Kingfisher. Clare says the emails are not admissible.

Judge asked if Clare thinks that the emails are fake. The Mallya counsel denied. "I am not saying they are fake but they are incapable of bearing weight," she said. Clare said the District Judge failed to understand the relevance of what was being said in the emails.

"E-mails are but a small part of what happened between the banks and Kingfisher. There were also meetings between Mallya and the banks' officials and KFA officials. The real objection we have is although we see at para 67-68 she accurately identifies part of the least of the task that confronts her."

Mallya is facing money-laundering charges to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore and left India in 2016, following which, India initiated extradition proceedings against him. The matter of Mallya's extradition has now been referred to the UK's Secretary of State.