EXTRADITION
1. INTRODCTION
International extradition is the surrender by one nation to another, for trial and punishment,
of a person accused or convicted of an offence within the jurisdiction of the latter. A request
for extradition is generally initiated against a fugitive criminal, who is formally accused of, or
is charged with, or is convicted of an extradition sentence.
Extradition is a system consisting of several processes whereby one sovereign, surrenders
to another sovereign, an individual sought after as an accused, criminal or fugitive offender.
This delivery of individuals to the requesting sovereign is based on treaties and/or bilateral
arrangements; however, sometimes this delivery of individuals occurs by reciprocity and
comity as a matter of courtesy and goodwill between the sovereigns. World public order is the
recurring theme based on which extradition is practiced by the States. But it is always gainful
to remember the observations made in the case of: U.S. v. Rauscher: ―… Apart from them
(treaties) there was no well defined obligation on one country to deliver up such fugitives to
anothe and it has never been recognised as among those obligations of one government towards
another which rest upon established principles of international law.
1.1. DEFNITIONS OF EXTRADIION
In Oppenheim’s International Law, the expression extradition has been defined as
follows:
Extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted individual to the State where he/she
is accused of or has been convicted of a crime, by the State on whose territory he/she happens
for the time to be.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, extradition means: ―
The surrender by one State or Country to another of an individual accused or convicted
of an offence outside its own territory and within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which,
being competent to try and punish him, demands the surrender.
Thus, in nutshell, extradition may be defined as: the act of sending, by authority of law, a
person accused of a crime to a foreign jurisdiction where the crime was committed, in order
that he may be tried there.
J.G. Starke defined the term extradition as follows: ―
The term „extradition‟ denotes the process whereby under a concluded treaty one State
surrenders to any other State at its request, a person accused or convicted of a criminal offence
committed against the laws of the requesting State, such requesting State being competent to try the
alleged offender. Though extradition is granted in implementation of the international commitments
of the State, the procedure to be followed by the courts in deciding, whether extradition should be
granted and on what terms, is determined by the municipal law of the land.”
Thus, extradition is founded on the broad principle albeit that, it is in the interest of
civilised communities that criminals should not go unpunished and on that account it is
recognised as a part of the comity of nations that one State should ordinarily afford to another
State assistance towards bringing offenders to justice.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of, State of West Bengal v. Jugal Kishore,
defined extradition as the surrender by one State to another of a person desired to be dealt with
for crimes of which he has been accused or convicted and which are justiciable in the courts of
the other State.
2. LAW RELATING TO EXTRADITION IN INDIA
The Extradition Act, 1962 and the Extradition Treaties obtaining between India and
other countries. By virtue of Section 34 of the 1962 Act, the Extradition Act of 1962 has extra-
territorial jurisdiction, that is, an extradition offence committed by any person in a Foreign
State shall be deemed to have been committed in India and such person shall be liable to be
prosecuted in India for such offence.
As per Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with the Constitution of India,
1950 (Schedule VII, List I, Item 18), extradition may be defined as, the action of giving up a
fugitive criminal to the authorities of the State in which the crime was committed.
Extradition treaty means, a treaty, agreement or arrangement with a Foreign State
relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals. Treaty State means, a Foreign State with which
an extradition treaty is in operation .Section 3(4) of the 1962 Act categorically states that, where
there is no extradition treaty made by India with any Foreign State, the Central Government
may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and a Foreign State are parties, as
an extradition treaty made by India with that Foreign State providing for extradition in respect
of the offences specified in that Convention. As per Section 2(f) of the Extradition Act, 1962,
only fugitive criminals‘, may be extradited.
Fugitive criminal, as per the extradition law prevailing in India means: a person
who is accused (or is convicted) of an extradition offence committed within the jurisdiction of
a Foreign State, and a person who while in India, conspires, attempts to commit, incites or
participates as an accomplice in the commission of an extradition offence in a Foreign State.
As per Section 2(c) of the Extradition Act, 1962, an extradition offence means, an offence
provided in the extradition treaty with Foreign States; an offence punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than one-year under the laws prevailing in India or of a
Foreign State. Section 2(a) of the 1962 Act defines a composite offence as, an act or conduct
of a person occurring wholly or in part in a Foreign State or in India, effect of which (or
intended effect which) taken as a whole would constitute an extradition offence in India or in
a Foreign State, as the case may be.
In the case of Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India,
expatiating over the importance of extradition law, stated the following, in authoritative terms:
―Extradition is a great step towards international cooperation in the suppression of crime. It
is for this reason that the Congress of Comparative Law at Hague in 1932, resolved that States
should treat extradition as an obligation resulting from the international solidarity in the fight
against crime.
3. PRINCIPLES OF EXTRADITION
3.1.Principle of Double Criminality:
This principle (also known as Dual Criminality‘) states that, extradition is available only
when the act in question is an offence in the jurisdictions of both the States (the requesting
State and the State requested). The rationale behind this principle is that, the requested State
should be at liberty to refuse to extradite the fugitive offender if they do not view the conduct
of the fugitive offender as a criminal act.
3.2.Principle of Speciality:
An extradited individual can be tried only for offences specified in the extradition request;
the object of this principle is to prevent blanket extradition requests. The requesting State
pledges to judge the requested person only for the crime for which extradition was requested,
and not for any other offence. As a matter of fact, post the surrender of a fugitive offender,
he/she can expressly waive the rule of speciality, and can be tried for offences in addition to,
or in furtherance of the offences qua which he/she was surrendered. Moreover, in certain cases,
the requested State can agree to the fugitive offender being tried for other offences, in addition
to offences apropos which the fugitive offender was surrendered to the requesting State.
3.3.Political Exception:
Request albeit extradition must be declined if the real purpose of the request made is to punish
the person requested for his political opinion rather than for the crime committed by him.
Political offences exception holds that a person cannot be extradited for an offence of political
character. The term political offences‘ has not been clearly defined in international law. What
shall construe as a political offence, usually, depends on the domestic law of the requested
State. It is generally accepted that, acts of terrorism do not fall under the exception of political
offences, even if they are committed with political motive.
4. PROCEDURE OF EXTRADITION
4.1.General- .
1. Extradition is governed by international treaties, bilateral or multilateral, enshrining the
principle, nulla extradition sine lege (no extradition without a law), this principle is
in fact a version of nullum crimine nulla pena sine lege (no crime and no penalty
without a law).
2. The State seeking the surrender of a person must present a formal extradition request,
which must identify the wanted person and the offence imputed on him/her. The
requesting State is required to submit certain documents in support of the request. The
kind and format of the evidence required, so also the standard of proof applied by the
requested State may differ significantly from one country to another. The formal
extradition request may be preceded by a provisional arrest warrant.
3. Principle of comity of nations captivates that, each Member State must comply with a
request from a court or prosecutor of another Member State for the execution of an
arrest warrant issued by it against an individual accused of an offence carrying a
minimum sentence of 12 months of imprisonment.
4. The arrest warrant needs to contain only a description of the circumstances albeit which
the offence was committed.
5. The judicial authorities and not the executive, is to decide upon the request of
extradition.
6. Certain acts, that is, military, political or fiscal offences, have been deemed
traditionally outside the realm of extraditable offences. Developments have added to
this list the political offence exemption‘.
4.2. India-
1. A requisition for the surrender of a fugitive criminal is to be made to the Central
Government by: (a) A diplomatic representation by the Foreign State, at Delhi; or, (b)
The Government of the concerned Foreign State may communicate with the Central
Government through its diplomatic representation in that State; or, (c) By other modes
settled by arrangements ensuing between India and other countries.
2. Upon requisition, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, can order for an inquiry
by a Magistrate. Magistrate‘ for the purpose of Section 5 of the 1962 Act, shall mean:
(a) A Magistrate of First Class or Presidency Magistrate (Section 2(g) of the 1962 Act);
and (b) The Magistrate, who would have jurisdiction to enquire into the offence if it
had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.
3. On receipt of an order under Section 5 of the 1962 Act, the Magistrate shall issue a
warrant for arrest of the fugitive criminal.
4. On appearance of the fugitive criminal before the Magistrate- the Magistrate shall: (a)
Enquire into the case; (b) Take evidence in support of the requisition; (c) Take evidence
on behalf of the fugitive criminal including- evidence that no extradition offence is
committed.
5. Evidence before the Magistrate: In any proceeding against a Fugitive Criminal,
exhibits, disposition (whether received or taken in the presence of the person against
whom they are used or not), official certificates of facts and judicial documents (if duly
authenticated), may be received in evidence before the Magistrate.
6. What may be termed as duly authenticated documents‘?: Warrants; the depositions or
statements on oath and copies thereof; certificates of, or judicial documents stating the
fact of, a conviction- signed or certified under the hand of a judge, magistrate or officer
of the State or by the official seal of a Minister of the State.
7. If a prima-facie case is made out in support of the requisition- the Magistrate may
commit the fugitive criminal to prison; shall report the result of inquiry to Central
Government; shall forward the written submission, if any, filed by the fugitive criminal
to the Central Government for consideration.
8. If a prima-facie case is not made out in support of the requisition, then, Magistrate shall
discharge the fugitive criminal.
9. Surrender of fugitive criminal to the Foreign State: Upon satisfaction qua the primafacie
report of the Magistrate, the fugitive criminal may be surrendered to the Foreign State.
Relief of Bail: As per Section 25 of the 1962 Act (Release of Persons arrested on bail)-
(a) In case of arrest or detention of a fugitive criminal under the 1962 Act, the provisions
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 relating to bail shall be applicable; (b) Magistrate
shall have the same powers and jurisdiction as a Court of Session under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; (c) Option of anticipatory bail, as well as, regular bail is
available to the accused fugitive criminal.
10. Restrictions on surrender of fugitive criminal: A fugitive criminal shall not be
surrendered or returned if, the offence is political in nature; the prosecution of offence
is barred by time in the Foreign State; if the person is accused of any offence in India,
other than the offence for which extradition is sought, or is undergoing sentence under
any conviction in India until after he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or on
expiration of his sentence or otherwise; and until the expiration of 15 days from the
date of his being committed to prison by the Magistrate.
11. Prosecution on refusal to extradition: Where the Central Government is of the opinion
that a fugitive criminal cannot be surrendered or returned, pursuant to request for
extradition by the Foreign State, the Central Government, if it deems fit and proper, it
can take steps to prosecute such fugitive criminal in India.
12. Provisional Arrest under Section 34B of the 1962 Act: Upon urgent request from the
Foreign State, the Central Government may request the Magistrate (having competent
jurisdiction) to issue an immediate provisional warrant for the arrest of the fugitive
criminal. It is necessary to mention that, the fugitive criminal is to be released upon the
expiration of 60 days if no request qua his surrender or return is received, within the
period of 60 days.
13. Punishment of life imprisonment albeit an offence, punishment for which, ordinarily in
India, is death penalty: Section 34C of the 1962 Act provides that, where a fugitive
criminal has committed an extradition offence punishable with death penalty in India
is surrendered or is returned by the Foreign State on request of the Central Government
(India); and the laws of the Foreign State do not provide for death penalty qua the
offence for which the fugitive criminal is convicted, then the fugitive criminal shall be
liable for the punishment of life imprisonment qua the offence.
14. Appellate Remedies: (a) There is no provision of statutory appeal vis-à-vis extradition
proceedings in the 1962 Act; (b) For redress of any grievance against any order vis-àvis
extradition proceedings, the writ jurisdiction of the High-Court concerned has to be
invoked.
Note: As of 31.07.2015, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) issued 650 red-corner notices
pressing upon accused individuals to face prosecution and serve penal sentences. Of the total
650 notices issued, 192 individuals were charged under laws that provide for death penalty as
punishment, under the following legislation, the Arms Act, 195920; the Indian Penal Code of
186021, the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 199922, the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 198523, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 196724, the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 198725, and the Prevention of Terrorism
Act, 200226.
5. Important Case-Laws:
1. Dr. Babu Ram Saksena v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 155: In the year 1869, the British
Government and the State of Tonk entered into a treaty which provided for the extradition of
offenders in respect of certain offences specified therein- called heinous offences‘, which did
not include per se offences albeit cheating and extortion. In the year 1903, the Indian
Extradition Act came into effect; the 1903 Act provided for extradition in respect of cases albeit
cheating and extortion, however, Section 1827 of 1903 Act, provided that nothing contained in
the 1903 Act shall derogate from the provisions of any treaty for extradition of offenders. Under
the Independence of India Act, 1947, the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States
lapsed, and with it all treaties and arrangements in force; but under a stand-still agreement,
between the Indian Dominion and the States (including the State of Tonk) all agreements
between His Majesty and the States were continued, including agreements apropos extradition.
State of Tonk acceded to the Dominion of India in 1947 and became a Member State of the
United State of Rajasthan. The appellant in this case was a member of UPCS (Uttar Pradesh
Civil Service) and his services were lent to the State of Tonk in 1948. After the appellant
reverted to Uttar Pradesh, he was charged with offences of cheating and extortion, alleged to
have been committed by him while he was in the State of Tonk and was arrested under an
extradition warrant issued under Section 728 of the 1903 Act. The appellant applied under
Sections 491 (Power to issue directions of the nature of a habeas corpus) and 561-A (Saving
of inherent power of High Court Division) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for his
release, contending that, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the 1903 Act and the
Extradition Treaty, 1869, appellant‘s arrest was illegal.
As per, H.J. Kania, Patanjali Sastri and Fazl Ali, JJ.: It was held that, even assuming
that the Extradition Treaty, 1869 subsisted after the merger of the State of Tonk in the United
State of Rajasthan; by providing for extradition for additional offences, the 1903 Act did not
derogate from the 1869 Treaty or the rights of Indian citizens there under, and the arrest and
surrender of the appellant under Section 7 of the 1903 Act was not unlawful qua the 1869
Treaty.
As per, B.K. Mukherjea, Fazl Ali, M.C. Mahajan and S.K. Das, JJ.: It was held that, the
Extradition Treaty, 1869 was not capable of being given effect to in view of the merger of the
State of Tonk in the United State of Rajasthan, and, as no enforceable treaty right existed,
Section 18 of the 1903 Act had no application; and so far as the conditions of Section 7 of the
1903 Act had been complied with, the warrant of arrest issued under Section 7 of the 1903 Act
was not illegal.
2. The State of Madras v. C.G. Menon, AIR 1954 SC 517: In this case it was held that, the
scheme of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, classifies fugitive offenders in different categories
and then prescribes a procedure for dealing with each class. A comparison between the
provisions of Part I (Return of Fugitives) and Part II (InterColonial Backing of Warrants, and
Offences) of the 1881 Act makes it clear that with regard to offences relating to which Part I
has application, a fugitive when apprehended could not be committed to prison and surrendered
unless the magistrate was satisfied that on the evidence produced before him there was a strong
probable case against him, while with regards to a fugitive governed by Part II of the Act it
was not necessary to arrive at such a finding before surrendering him. There was thus a
substantial and material difference in procedure of surrendering fugitive offenders prescribed
by the two parts of the 1881 Act. Regarding persons committing offences in the United
Kingdom and British Dominions and foreign countries in which the Crown exercised foreign
jurisdiction, the procedure prescribed by Part I of the Act was to be followed before
surrendering them and unless a prima facie case was established against them they could not
be extradited. Extradition with foreign States is, except in exceptional cases, governed by
treaties or arrangement made inter-se. Extradition of offenders between the United Kingdom
and the Native States in India is governed by the Indian Extradition Act. Under the provisions
of the Act no person apprehended could be surrendered unless a prima facie case was made out
against him. After the achievement of independence and coming into force of the Constitution
of India, 1950, India became a Sovereign Democratic-Republic, and is no more a British
Possession within the meaning of Section 12 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. India became
a foreign country, post-independence, so far as other British Possessions were concerned and
the extradition of persons taking asylum in India, having committed offences in British
Possessions could now only be dealt with by an arrangement ensuing between the Republic of
India and the British Government, and given effect to by an appropriate legislation. The Indian
Extradition Act, 1903 was adapted under the provisions of Article 372 of the Constitution of
India, 1950. The 1903 Act did not keep alive any of the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders
Act, 1881, which was an Act of British Parliament and which was not adopted post
independence, and therefore, Section 12 and Section 14 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881
does not applies to India.
3. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Ors., AIR
1955 SC 367:
It was held that in India the Foreigners Act, 1946 confers the power to expel foreigners
from India. It vests the Central Government with absolute and unfettered discretion and, as
there is no provision fettering this discretion in the Constitution of India, 1950, an unrestricted
right to expel remains. The law of extradition is quite different, because of treaty obligations it
confers a right on certain countries (not all) to ask that persons who are alleged to have
committed certain specified offences in their territories, or who are alleged to have committed
certain specified offences in their territories, or who have already been convicted of those
offences by their courts, be handed over to them in custody for prosecution or punishment. But
despite that the Government of India is not bound to comply with the request and has an
absolute and unfettered discretion to refuse. It was further held that, there are important
differences between the two Acts. Firstly, the Extradition Act applies to everybody, citizen and
foreigner alike, and to every class of foreigner, that is to say, even to foreigners who are not
nationals of the
country asking for extradition. But, because of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950, no
citizen can be expelled (as opposed to extradition) in the absence of a specific law to that effect;
and there is none; also, the kind of law touching expulsion (as opposed to extradition) that
could be made in the case of a citizen would have to be restricted in scope. That is not the case
where a foreigner is concerned because Article 19 does not apply. But a citizen who has
committed certain kinds of offences abroad can be extradited if the formalities prescribed by
the Extradition Act are observed. A foreigner has no such right and he can be expelled without
any formality beyond the making of an order by the Central Government. But if he is extradited
instead of being expelled, then the formalities of the Extradition Act must be complied with.
The importance of the distinction will be realised from what follows; and that applies to citizen
and foreigner alike. It was observed that, the Extradition Act is really a special branch of the
law of criminal procedure. It deals with criminals and those accused of certain crimes. The
Foreigners Act is not directly concerned with criminals or crime though the fact that a foreigner
has committed offences, or is suspected of that, may be a good ground for regarding him as
undesirable. Therefore, under the Extradition Act warrants or a summons must be issued; there
must be a magisterial enquiry and when there is an arrest it is penal in character; and – this is
most important distinction of all- when the person to be extradited leaves India he does not
leave the country as a free man; he remains under arrest throughout and is merely handed over
by one set of police to the next.
5. In Re: K.R.P.L. Chockalingam Chettiar, AIR 1960 Mad 548: In this case, the Full
Bench of the Madras High Court, after referring to various authorities observed that,
extradition is the delivery on the part of one State to another of those whom it is desired
to deal with for crimes of which they have been accused or convicted and are justiciable
in the courts of other State. Referring to 25 Corpus Juris, page 254, it was observed
that, extradition has been defined to be surrender by one State or nation to another of
an individual accused or convicted of an offence outside its own territory, and within
the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and punish him,
demands the surrender. It was observed that, extradition must be distinguished from
transportation and from deportation, which also results in the removal of a person from
the country. Further it was noted that: In re Arton, (1896) 1 QB 108, it was held that,
the foundation of extradition, which is the delivery on the part of one State to another
of those who have fled from justice, is founded on the principle that the reciprocal
surrender of criminals is in common interest of civilised communities.
The objects of the Indian Extradition Act are as follows: (a) to provide for the more
convenient administration of the Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873, and of the Fugitive
Offenders Act, 1881; (b) to amend the law relating to the extradition of criminals in cases to
which the Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873 do not apply.
5. Rajender Kumar Jain & Ors v. State through Special Police Establishment &
Ors, 1980 (3) SCC 435:
In this case the Apex Court observed that, politics are about Government and therefore,
a political offence is one committed with the object of changing the Government of a State or
inducing it to change its policy. To say that an offence is of a political character is not to
absolve, the offenders of the offence. But it will be a valid ground for the Government to advice
the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution. The public prosecutor may withdraw
from the prosecution of a case not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also in order
to further the broad ends of public justice and such broad ends of public justice may well
include appropriate social, economic and political purposes. It was further held that, the Indian
Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure do not recognise offences of political nature,
as a category of offences; they cannot, in the ordinary course of things. That does not mean the
offences of a political character are unknown to jurisprudence or that judges must exhibit such
naiveté as to feign ignorance about them. International law recognises offences of political
character and the Indian Extradition Act specifically refers to them.
6. Kubic Darusz v. Union of India, 1990 (1) SCC 568: Explaining the difference
between preventive detention and extradition, the Apex Court held as follows in this case-
―Preventive detention of a foreign national who is not resident of the country involves an
element of international law and human rights and appropriate authorities ought not to be seen
to have been oblivious of its international obligations in this regard. The system of extradition
of criminals represents an act of legal assistance by one State (the requestee) to another State
(the requestor) with the aim of carrying out a criminal prosecution, finding and arresting a
suspected criminal in order to bring him to court or for executing the sentence. In concluding
such convention the States base themselves on principles of humanitarianism in their efforts to
contribute to the more effective achievement of the objectives of the correction and re-
education of violators of the law. Where such conventions exist, the citizens of a State who
were convicted to deprivation of freedom in another signatory State are in accordance with
mutual agreement of the States, transferred to the country of which they are citizens to serve
their sentences. The transfer of the convicted person may take place only after the verdict has
entered into legal force and may be carried out on the initiative of either of the interested States.
The punishment decided upon with regard to a convicted person is served on the basis of the
verdict of the State in which he was convicted. On the strength of that verdict the competent
court of the State of which the person is a citizen adopts a decision concerning its
implementation and determines, in accordance with the law of its own State, the same period
of deprivation of freedom as was assigned under the verdict. While such ameliorative practices
may be available in case of a foreign national being criminally prosecuted, tried and punished,
no such proceedings are perhaps possible when he is preventively detained. A preventive
detention as was held in Rex v. Halliday, 1917 AC 268, “is not punitive but precautionary
measure”… There may, therefore, be cases where while a citizen and resident of the country
deserves preventive detention apart from criminal prosecution, in case of a foreign national not
resident of the country he may not be justifiably subjected to preventive detention in the event
of which no international legal assistance is possible unlike in case of criminal prosecution and
punishment.‖ In this case, taking note of the facts and circumstances albeit the case, the Apex
Court held that, ―the continued detention of the detenu has been rendered illegal by non-
consideration of his representation by the appropriate Government according to law resulting
in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution; and he is to be set at liberty forthwith in this
case.‖
7. Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, 2008 (2) SCC 417: In this case, taking note of the
particular facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court observed as follows: ―In a
proceeding for extradition no witness is examined for establishing an allegation made in the
requisition of the foreign State. The meaning of the word “evidence” has to be considered
keeping in view the tenor of the Act. No formal trial is to be held. Only a report is required to
be made. The Act for the aforementioned purposes only confers jurisdiction and powers on the
Magistrate which he could have exercised for the purpose of making an order of commitment.
Although not very relevant, we may observe that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
powers of the committing Magistrate has greatly been reduced. He is now required to look into
the entire case through a very narrow hole. Even the power of discharge in the Magistrate at
that stage has been taken away.
8. Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 9 SCC 551:
In this case it was held that, fundamental rights of a citizen, whenever infringed, the
High Court having regard to its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, as
also keeping in view that access to justice is a human right, would not turn the citizen away
only because a red-corner-notice29 has been issued qua him by the Interpol. The superior courts
in criminal cases are entitled to delve into the matter albeit the manner in which the red-corner-
notice is sought to be enforced and/or whether the local police threatening an Indian citizen
with arrest, is doing so without been legally entitled to do so, as except in terms of the 1962
Act.
9. Mohammed Zubair Fauzal Awam v. State (Represented by the Inspector of
Police & Another), 2011 Cri LJ 2975:
In this case, the Petitioner, a Sri-Lankan Tamilian temporarily residing in India,
claimed that he had been staying in India with due permission from the authorities concerned.
On strength of a red-alert-notice issued by Interpol (New Delhi), in pursuance of an arrest
warrant that was issued by a competent court at Sri-Lanka, a case was registered under Section
41(1) (g)30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner. The Court, in this
case, observed that, the consequence of a red-corner-notice is that the requesting State may
make a deportation request or may take a follow-up action with regards to the arrest of the
petitioner, but since formal request was still to be made by the Sri-Lankan Government for
extradition of the petitioner, arrest of the petitioner and registration of FIR (First Information
Report) under Section 41(1) (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 qua him, was not proper.
10. P. Pushpavathy v. Ministry of External Affairs, 2013 Cri LJ 4420: In this case it was
held that, if a fugitive criminal accused of an extradition offence is arrested pursuant to a legally
issued warrant of arrest by Magistrate who was directed by the Government of India to hold
necessary inquiry; then in such a case the detention ensuing cannot be termed as illegal or un-
lawful. When detention is not illegal or unlawful then no case can be made out for issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus.
