.gif)
Suva lawyer Rajendra Chaudhary yesterday questioned the credibility of the main witness in the case against a senior official of the Nasinu Town Council, branding the witness as “hostile”.
Chaudhary was defending his client Jaswant Kumar who is on trial for misappropriation of funds and abuse of office while employed as the Nasinu Town Clerk,
In his cross-examination of Vinita Prasad, Chaudhary said “it is evident there were policies and procedures in place within the Council where the authority to issue cheques vested with his client”.
Chaudhary said his client had written the name of the payee on the cheque butt and told the jury that “if someone had the intention to misappropriate a cheque, why would they write the name of the payee on the cheque butt.”
He pointed out that the prosecution themselves had said “Vinita’s answers were an extreme departure from her previous statement and that she was neither here nor there”.
“Vinita Prasad’s statement is questionable with loss of credibility.”
Chaudhary also highlighted discrepancies in the audit report carried out by Adrian Prasad, who Chaudhry claims had purposefully included financial figures from 2006 in the Council’s 2004 audited accounts.
“How can someone include a 2006 audit report in a report that is clearly for the year ending 31 December, 2004?”
“It is difficult to rely on evidence that has been discredited and this has been seen throughout the case,” Chaudhry said.
