The Delhi High Court adjourned till tomorrow the hearing on Quattrocchi's plea for quashing the non-bailable warrants issued against him even as his counsel said CBI Special Judge Ajit Bharihoke, who issued the warrant, had ``identified himself with the prosecution''.

Quattrocchi's counsel Dinesh Mathur also asked whether it was a crime in India to have a photograph taken with the Prime Minister. ``They (the CBI) are trying to smudge the image of the Prime Minister and politicians,'' he charged.

Mathur asked under what law and under which section of the penal code had Quattrocchi been charged?

Continuing his arguments, before a division benchcomprising Justices Devender Gupta and N G Nandi, Mathur said that the CBI was trying to create confusion. ``At times they say AE Services and Quattrocchi are the same and at other times they say the two are different,'' he said. Mathur further alleged that the CBI had mentioned several irrelevant details and had not given answers to specific queries .

For almost two hours, Mathur tried to puncture holes in the CBI reply asking: ``If it is a conspiracy then there have to be two people to conspire. Who is the other person. Why is the CBI keeping quiet even after eight years of having registered an FIR. And why has nobody been charge sheeted so far?''

Commenting on references made to Rajiv Gandhi, Mathur said that if the CBI felt that he was the ``power'' that is said to have rushed the decision, then why were they not coming out with the details.

He said that the CBI had listed no penal provision under which Quattrocchi was required in India and cited a Supreme Court order in the Dawood Ibrahim-Kaskarcase whereby it was held that a trial court ``cannot issue arrest warrants to procure the presence of an accused for the sole purpose of aiding the investigation.''

Mathur further said in the present case the trial court had issued the order to help CBI interrogate Quattrocchi which showed that ``the judge has identified himself with the prosecution.''

Alleging that the CBI reply had irrelevant details, he said that even if the Government of India had taken a policy decision of not having middlemen, it was not the law. ``There is a difference between a policy decision and the law,'' he said.

Mathur said even if for the sake of an argument they concede that Quattrocchi received commission, ``then under what Section of the IPC is it a crime?''

And even if the commission was received then it is for the Indian Government to recover it from the Swedish gun manufacturer as per the agreement. ``Assuming that the money was paid to AE Services and later transferred to my account, how am I accountable to theIndian government and the Indian penal laws?'' Mathur asked.

Commenting on the CBI reply which spoke of intimate relations between the families of Rajiv Gandhi and Quattrocchi, Mathur asked if having a photograph taken with the Prime Minister was a crime. Or whether contacting bureaucrats and politicians on phone during one's stay in India was an offence?

On the ``unusual haste'' shown in clearing the gun and the 11 signatures (including that of Rajiv Gandhi) in 48 hours, Mathur asked how could it be linked to his client. On the CBI charge that Quattrocchi stealthily fled the country, Mathur said so did Win Chaddha and G P Hinduja. Senior counsel K K Venugopal appearing for the CBI will reply when Mathur concludes his arguments tomorrow.