``I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify a committal'' of Nadeem on the charges set out, Magistrate Christopher Pratt said in his interim ruling. The magistrate would deliver his final ruling on October 6.

The music director of the Nadeem-Shravan fame, who was present in the court, submitted to the magistrate that he would try to stay here and fight to prove his innocence.

Mohammed Ali Shaikh, a key prosecution witness, made a statement in a Mumbai magistrate's court confessing to being involved in a conspiracy to murder Gulshan Kumar and implicated Nadeem in the conspiracy. He later retracted the confession in a writ petition, claiming that it was obtained by means of intimidation and torture and was totally false.

In hisruling on Tuesday, Magistrate Christopher Pratt said the issues before him were whether the evidence before him was sufficient to commit Nadeem on the charges as set out and whether there was sufficient evidence as to his identity.

``The only evidence against Nadeem comes from an accomplice, Ali Shaikh, who in exchange for a free pardon, made a confession to his part in the conspiracy and implicated Nadeem. Subsequently, Ali Shaikh retracted his evidence alleging intimidation, pressure and improper methods by both the police and prison officials,'' Pratt said.

``The fact that Ali Shaikh is an accomplice and that his evidence is uncorroborated cannot of itself render the evidence worthless. The fact that Ali Shaikh has retracted his original evidence does not of itself render it worthless or wholly unreliable and incapable of forming the basis of committal,'' he said.

He ruled that it might be the later retraction rather than the earlier evidence which was not worthy of belief.

Magistrate Pratt said itwas suggested by the defence that Ali Shaikh only gave evidence implicating Nadeem under the inducement of being offered a free pardon in exchange of what would otherwise follow upon conviction -- death penalty.

``That being so, it seems curious that he should wish to retract his evidence, lose the offer of a free pardon and place himself once again in jeopardy of the severest penalty,'' he said. Pratt said it was possible that Ali Shaikh's original evidence was wholly false.

However, it was equally possible that his retraction of that evidence came about as a result of fear from gangsters, a matter about which Ali Shaikh raised the clearest concerns leading up to the making of his confession, the magistrate said.

He ruled that a ``properly directed tribunal could find Ali Shaikh's original evidence capable of belief. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify a committal''.

Regarding the second issue, he ruled, ``I am satisfied that the evidence of identity before me issufficient to establish a prima facie case against Nadeem Akhtar Saifi.''