Magistrate Christopher Pratt will rule, later today, on whether the points submitted on behalf of the defence are acceptable. If he rules in their favour the defence will proceed to argue that the prosecution has insufficient evidence for a prima facie caseagainst Nadeem, and that to allow his extradition would be unsafe.

Paul Garlic QC, of the Crown Prosecution Service making the Government of India's case, replying to Nichols yesterday morning started by saying: "We, not surprisingly, disagree (with Nichols)."

He said the wording of Section 27 makes the admission of written evidence from Commonwealth countries mandatory; it states that the if the document "purports to set out evidence given under oath" it "shall be deemed to be duly authenticated if it is purported to be certified by a judge, magistrate or officer (of the country) to be the original document or true copy." The court was adjourned until 2 pm today. CPS lawyers looked upbeat. Garlic turned to journalists and asked cheerfully: "Heads or tails?"

Asked to comment on news agency reports that the prosecution planned to produce witnesses, Maharashtra prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said this would depend on Garlic. He, however, confirmed that no potential prosecution witnesses were currently in London.Nikam refused to make any comment apart from saying: "We have a very strong prima facie case".

How long the case lasts and which way it proceeds will depend on the magistrate's ruling.

Garlic, a neat man with precise enunciation who has considerable trouble with Indian words and names and Indian English usage, emphasised that court business in India was routinely conducted in more than one language and that it would not be unusual to have more than one record of the proceedings. He said that in a case where both Hindi/Marathi and English were used the records in either language would be originals. He also drew the magistrate's attention to the fact that the translations had been attested by the witnesses.

Garlic emphasised that it was not for the English court to look behind the certification of the documents presented by the Government of India, although once they were admitted the court was free to decide what weight to put on the evidence contained in the documents. He said that the admission of thedocuments as evidence in an English court did not amount to a statement of guilt of the defendant. He said that in considering the matter the court should strike "a balance between the rights of a government to present evidence for its prima facie case and the rights of the fugitive."Clive Nichols QC, replying to Garlic, maintained that his argument stood. "The evidence on oath" he said irritably "must mean the oral evidence on oath … which was evidence in a foreign language... so to that extent Section 27 has not been complied with." He said that there was no evidence of translation, that is, no evidence that it was the original oral evidence that had been translated into English. He said: "there is no evidence of an interpreter as it simply does not exist." He also challenged the prosecution's statement that the English translations bore verifiable signatures of the witnesses. In the case of Mohammed Ali Hassan Sheikh he said the "squiggle" on this and other documents were of dubious origin.Nichols'colleague Lewis also argued that the documents might amount to "hearsay", because: "This is only what someone says was the evidence, we are not in a position to say tat this is or is not a true translation."

Lewis argued that "it would not be hearsay if the magistrate gave evidence that he was an expert in the language... and had done a translation (of the oral evidence)." He drew attention to the importance of expert evidence saying that under perjury law in England a translator or interpreter under oath would be guilty of perjury if he/she has failed to render a true and faithful translation of the oral evidence.