CHAPTER 22 EXTRADITION* e principle of extradition.—Ordinarily each State exercises oo over all the persons within its territory. But sometimes there may be on after comm ing crime runs away to another country. In such a iy country affected | finds itself_helpless to exercise jurisdiction to punish the sg stuation is undoubtedly very detrimental for peace and order. In such a and order can be maintained only when there is international co-operation hit There is social need to punish such criminals and in order to fulfil this ‘sessly the principle of extradition has been recognised. ‘The inability of a State [Zs is jusdiction within the territory of another State would seriously undermine vatenance of law and order if there were no cooperation in the administration of the avareness among national decision-makers of the social necessity of co-operation is illustrated by the widespread practice of returning a person sensed or who has been convicted of a crime to the State in which the crime was laning and definition of the term extradition**. {Extradition is_ the ian accused or a convicted individual to the State on whose territory he is have been convicted of a crime, by the State on whose fave committed oF to 2leged criminal happens to be for the time being.”|? According to Starke, ‘The fn’ denotes the process whereby under treaty or upon a basis of reciprocity surenders to another State at its request a person accused of convicted of a Epa Committed agai ist the laws of the requesting State, such requesting eometent to try the alleged offender.3 In the view of eminent jurist Grotius, it ‘Teach State either to punish the criminals_or to return them to the States i nage omitted crime. Tn practice, however, States do not accept such sh Siar national Law, extradition is mostly a matter of bilateral treaty. In Hig considers it a right to give asylum t z\s\ a foreign national. ae oe - Fae fight to grant asylum to foreign individuals as an inference from their Ring 17“): those cases where a treaty imposes an Obligation to extradit them.” . ion, Wwersal tule of customary interna iI law in existence imposing the a ions of the 6 extraditic > rahe " Ourt held: “The principles of International Law recognize no right Md vo treaty While a covernvialt may, if agreeable . lis own goratttion bitte” *€rCise the power to surrender a fugitive from jus iti eo i — adition and the correlative duty to ie the legal right to dem: en created by treaty.” But as pointed him tg og jppcemandin ist only wh : SNS Interna eding State, exist o1 eT ee — “Mational Law,® there corp universally recognised practice t bra no universally Na 39.09), ©. No. 11 (hy; P.C.8. (1974), @. No. 10(d;P.C-S: (1881), 2 No, 8 (0) PCS. ee ig (1988), 0. 7) "POS national Law in a Changing World (1969), P. im in 972) Q. No. 4; P.C.S. (1968) Q. No. 3; alm’s. tarnauones Eaugn®tPational Law, Vol, |, Eighth Edition, p- 696 ees iierstone re )y/ol | Edited by Sir Rober Jennings and ; Led. t Intog coSR. 1992, pp. 948-949. ign 10 Intemational Law, Tenth 8.276 nal Law, note 2, p. 950. (2) 10 (g), PP. 186 to 189.INTERNATION, ALLA 336 for, some countries grant extradition wi can be no extradition except under a ae Extradition Act, 1962, Which govern ithout a rence may be made her the Act deals with the age a treaty. Refe ion in India. Chapter Ill of \c LUE of relating to extradition in In h ‘ountries with extradition arrangements. Chapt de criminals from Commonwealt! g is to foreign States and to Commonwealth Countig als with extradition of fugitive criminal. Under Section 4 of the Act, a requisition foe which Chapter Ill does not FoF a rel 1 State can be made to the Central Govern, the surrender of a fugitive criminal mat thinks fit, order for magisterial inquiry, Under ent The Central Government ney strat eis of the opinion that a prima facie case ig athe section (4) of Section 7, if ee a the foreign State or Commonwealth country, he ia out in support of the inna to prison to await the orders of the Central Government, a pare vs eer his inquiry to the Central Government. If on the receipt Of the said er statement, the Central Government is of the opinion that the fugitive criminal ought to be surrendered to the foreign State or Commonwealth country, it May issue 4 warrant for the custody and removal of the fugitive criminal and | for his delivery ata pl and to a person to be named within the warrant. Thus, extradition treaty is not the onl basis for extradition of a fugitive criminal.? Further, definition of the words extradition offence” in section 2 (c) includes “(ii) in relation toa foreign State other than a treaty State......an offence which is specified by notification under the second Schedule’. Thus the second Schedule enumerates offence in relation to foreign States other than treaty States or in relation to Commonwealth countries.'° It may, therefore, be concluded that although there is no universal rule of customary international law imposing a general duty of States in respect of extradition and jenerally extradition is granted on the basis of a treaty, it would be wrong to say that there canbe no extradition apart from a treaty. As remarked by the Supreme Court of India, “Extradition we eon States is, except in exceptional cases, governed by treaties or arrangements made.” Distinction between ‘expulsion’ (under Foreigners Act, 1946) and Extradition. In lans Muller of Nuremb i im) Presidency Jail, Calcutta and one's ‘he Supreme Court clarified the distinati een ‘expulsion’ and “extradition e Supreme Cou served that the Forei to_expe forel ners from India, z " aaa eigners Act confers the power xpe 7. Section 5, of the Extradition a, 8. Section 8, ibid, St 1962 (84 of 1962), 9. See also Section 31, ibid. 10. The Second Scher : Such as culpable homleme (Sonia e8 ot the jadian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and om v abduction, savary i forced labour (Ss. 360 to shone to murder (section 5 ni of ry lacolty (Ss. 378 to 402) ; Cheating (8s ay P@ and unnatural of destroying n the alr or attempting or conspiring to do eo" (SS: 418 to 420) and damaging of 11. The State of Madras v. C. G. Menon, A.\.R, 1954 S.C. 12. ALR. 1955 S.C. 367, maa at p. 518. 13. ALR. 1955 S.C. 367 at p. 374, dule enumerates ofTRADITION 437 Lenquiry and when there is an arrest it is penal in character and tt th 6 portant distinction of all when the Person to be extradited leaves India he does not leave F country as @ free man. The police in India hands him over to the police of the ig State and he remains in custody throughout. In the case of expulsion, no : ; inv ry, and ifa man is prepared to leave tth ers A not governed hy the provisi ie two are distinct and neither impinges on the other: Even if there B requisition and @ good case for extradition, Government is not bound to accede to the yest. It is given an unfettered right to refuse for section 3 (1) of the Extradition Act ys, “the Central Government may, if thinks fit.” Therefore, if it chooses not to comply the request, the person against whom the request is made cannot insist that it should, e right is not his; and the fact that a request has been made does not fetter the etion of Government to choose the less cumbrous Procedure to the Foreigners Act en a foreigner is concerned.'> in the present case, the petitioner, 0 Ww i ia‘and ig said to be a West German subject, tho was not a citizen of india @ on 18-2-196t and jas placed unger preventive detention “with a view to making arrangement for his kpulsion from India.” On 9-10-1954, the West German Government wrote to the West engal Government saying that @ wattant-of arrest was issued against the petitioner in lest Germany in connection with a number of frauds and that legal proceedings in pnnection with those warrants were still pending. The West German consul told the overnment of West Bengal that his government would apply for extradition of the elitioner and requested that in the meantime the petitioner be detained up to the date of is extradition to Germany. The Government of West Bengal accepted the request. But e order to deport the petitioner could be passed by the Gentral Government only. No order having been made by the Central Government up till the 20th of October, 1954, é petitioner applied to the High Court of Calcutta for a writ in the nature of habeas under Section 491, Cr. P.C. The High Court dismissed the petition on 10-12-1954. e petitioner thereupon preferred the present petition on the basis of the abgve bservations (and on other grounds also) but the Supreme court:dismisséd the petition) Essential conditions) of granting extradition or restrictions on urrender. —As pointed out earlier, under International Law extradition mostly ends on treaties among the States, However, the courts have also established certain rinciples and rules in regard to law of extradition. In other words, we may say that plowing are some restrictions.on_ surrender. of fugitive criminals. or essential conditions. extradition. ; (WNon-extradition of Political Crimina!**.—It is a very important principle Hints mationalLaw that extradition for political crimes is not allowed. “Most States refuse f commit themselves to extradite...any person charged with ‘political crimes’ that is to Fay crime committed for political purposes or crimes that are politically motivated, The bilculty of applying political exception 18 obviously a problenrthat regularly plagues the Puts.” "€ The practice of non-extradition for political crimes began with the French Elution of 1789. Later on other States also subscribed to this view. In the present "rod, almost all the States subscribe to this view although many difficulties arise in the “otcement Of this principle. The most difficult problem i definition of the term if 1 at p. 975, : Se atpe 75.976, Jeo) Pcs ‘ or C.S.E. (1992) Q.)6(b) ; P.C.S. (1995) U. 614) . 03) me Ho for PCs (1970), Q. No. 2(b) : P.C.S. (1982), Q. 6(a) ; P.C.G, (1984), @. No. 4. ; C.S.E, (1099) ta nd 91 (a) of Exward Collins international law in a Changing Wona (1969), p. 216: 808 also Boctions 20 an’ Extradition Aci, 1962 referred earlier.ne INTERNAT, mon ONAL gat 338 Uy del ited th # 9 the railway In aye widely accepted that Politi : no I: by Fran aa? 17 8 h the principle is now 1 lia ep, go ‘ ‘political crimes’.'” nee is probably no rule of ee international it nn & ves es ena should not be extra’ ior However, serious difficulties i the eomalng the conti Sr ian tort prevents their extradi ‘attempts have been made to define the term ‘polticg) ote : ise n ‘political crimes’. ae s ° ~ ser aa has 50 lat mes considered ‘political’ if committed from “A cri and feast it e 1 — act iti - i ne? sian Projec th from a political motive and for a political purpose of thereat Rus: committed both fro’ ainst the State_only, such a ica W murder, in th -8S high : the mu , 4 i t b) crime’ may bé Confined to certain offences ag : tf i onal conference a se majeste and the like. So far all attempts to formulate a satisfactory and gener pas not be conside lese majeste . iled.” 1 : = 8 both Greal agreed definition of the farm have Faled will usually be at the same time_an ordina ching a ize because De oe Se theft and the like, the practical difficulty in any Particular case g eee Swiss Solution | such as murder, arson, d political element is sufficient to give the ordinary crine ithe $ a th determine whether the allege Era the perpetrator protection from extradition, Thy | yn lw. Article TO Sos aaictent Political cata nee struck by the State from which extradition is requ inna. Arik a e palenee ei i-extraditi itical offender.” : more in applying its laws to Weg-entracin. Poll Castioni;® which is a leading case on ef surendered and di Peterence flea crimes. In this case the Swiss Government requested for usb wilt ther Buindesgeric ae EtG i who was charged with murdering a member of the State ce ool dition is not allo ea Canton of Ticinio. Political dissatisfaction was prevailing in the said canton) “ist 6) Similarly, for religious time. An armed crowd including Castion! attacked the Munici ited by Castion tw | elhe Rule of Specialit membaral ie i. There was evidence that the shi vas fire Queen's Bench of England held that Castioni w i F the country which ge oa political party anc eee only for the crime for he could not be extradited.“Another important case on the point is Re Meuniecy speciality.|th U.S. y case, the accused was an anarchist and was charged with causing two-e pr “Frade Britain on the ground i Paris Cate’ and two barracks. After committing the offence, he fled to Eng! erin wa inan merican ship demanded his extradition. The “accuse: contended that the nature of his be causi . Political and therefore he could not be extradited. The Court held that for an in the Si United political, it is necessary that there should be two or more than two parties P éach wanti establis! white States~of Am« iis Government in the is committed : Misdiction objective, it be called a : of the Cou : ‘ommited Such offence Tors oe Political offence. In the present case, the offence ¢ ho ence for which Was not a political offence, . Because of diff : is not likely 10% erent political systems and ideologies, this rule is ni 0 forsaken.?? Oppent ; empls heim has also Pointed out, “Up to the Present day all ata formulate a Satisfactory conception of the term hat Probably, for ever hing fe ve failed, and the reason ofber furthe exclude the péssibili i ig princi points out that wi i Joa nyo find | this pr" the "In th ‘as an ; t , jine the ‘ @; and thirdly, some writers conf t the State Oppenheim's Inte ep only, Ibid al Mational La onfine Td th Such as, high treason, lese majeste 4! W, Note 2, p, 963, Wed &t pp. 964-965, ~ (1891) 10.8 149, aot (1894) 2 QB gy. Alt fie Jimenez y Aristepule, no ser. £886 on extadition Tegarding the ground of pole on Exparte k 1 (1955) 1.0. B g4o'?, (1962); Sucha Singh's case, A. v. Governor Of “1963 55. i Av. Governor of 1 rraks. ( 4 Brizton P; arte Sht iW 23. Philip C. Jessy izton Prison, Exp: vy P. “The present tio! oer Essays (0973) p. 339 at pats ! Transnational Law’ in the Present State of Inteal g ilway 1 on the FaiNtn ance but the same was refused by the Bolgian sas yas 0 extradition of political criminals. With a view to deal aia sen regia “Attentat clause was. enacted. It provided that murder of the Head of wie ement, oF of 2 member of his family, should not be considered a political Gove y other European States also adopted such attentat clause a 1 eject of 1881.—In 1881, E ussian Project 0! sn 1 , Emperor Alexander II was murdered. TI Resrurder, in the same year (i.e, 1881) Russia invited other States to hold tt Brussels to consider the proposal that murder or attempt to beenational conference al or the r in ould not be considered as a political crime. But the Russian project failed to mu? Jize because both Great Britain and France refused to participate in the proposed , tion to the Problem in 1: 2.—In 1892, Switzerland enacted Swiss Solut 92 Article 10 of the sai recognised the principle of non-extradition of political minals. Article 10 also recognised that if the chief feature of the offence i n ordinary rather than a political crime, then political criminal d decision as to whether such criminal could be extradited or i Cour. Y 339 mon : ; ? of line between Lilla and Calais. The-extradition of the said tw 0 aration law. adition is not allowed for military criminals al (3) Similarly, for religious crimes also persons are not (4hehe Rule of Speciality*—An accused is extradited for a particular crime, and the country which gets back the criminal is entitied to prosecute that person ited, This is known as the rule of only for the crime for which he was extradited. speciality.| In_U. S. v. Rauscher,™* | America_got Rauscher extradited from Britain on the ground that he had. fled to Britai fer murdering a fellow. seer in an American ship. In America, Rauscher was tried not for. murder a i d Janssen. The Supreme Court 0 me id Janssen. 16 r causi name: t_whe' d Stat (meric L durisdiction erie Corea nes “he may be tried only for such offence ich his extraditi .** The same law prevals 10 India,25 : Rouble criminality***.—The crime for which extradition Is claimed should be crime in both the countries (the country claiming the. oncpen (6) Souniy extraditing). This Is called the rule of Double criminal ee sf cai here should be sufficient evi crimes relating to_extrac on rim eels, the crime should t evident’ should appear to be & 1 : Fer . ; cribed formalities show zaition it is also necessary that certain ot ribed forn 7 7 »_ 4 be fulfilled. ‘ - o 8) the “ardor and e terms mentioned in, the Extradition Tr kar Senerally fulfilled. In this connection, @ leading ae ing at ought 10 india 1). Savarkar was an Indian revolutionary extradited, ~ her pres! 8 al (agg)? 9F LAs, ‘ 8. (1 * ba) Nous te Q. 4(b). . Bae ral for Pos. be tig pe etlo (1971), Q. No. 10. jon 31 (8) 8V0 nal” B fa MY Chaat (@) section Ft ygitve Ceminal 7 Of the Extradition Act, 1962; contents FO ial : te for AS re! the heading “Restrictions 0° surre fecigs Tarashoy -01978): Q. 4 (a). diset tage Cag peli Extradition a (1963), the accused ie ss ese in exason Seay tthe ns Out against him. The evidence final od onsttule fog 10 8 snable ‘ fu i a eq, lowing ® tUSitive criminal. The Court obs nat sho sand Sia (M9 "eqUiremants are essential: (2,1 man in othe posure; (1962) § ae ane® Must ,1°9"8e of proof should be higher able Ap ted. Fee IMcontrovertibie leading 19 a Pape : $°° . the facts of this case s8¢ APPSINTERNATION, 340 uy i which he was alle: eo Ged, —- ihe Laem aout ‘at Marcelese, Sav; thar owt committed, When FrencH police. But the Capfain of t= but later on he was apprehended by 1 a a OF the Fee ap rturad Savarese Capa ore aa wrong impression that ives. 8 inment to return Savarkar on the nt of France requested the British Goverr t strictly observed Ground that the rules relating to his extradition were no’ stris ly served. his case was entrusted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Hague for its decision, The Court decided that International Law does not.impose any obligation upon the State whereby on the above ground the criminal may.be returned, Thatig to say, once a person is extradited, even though it was done in irregular way, the country receiving the fugitive or the Criminal is not bound under international law to return the accused. This decision has been Severely criticized by the jurists. In their view, it was not based on the sound principle of justice. 9) When a person is charged with having bee 2 committed in a foreign State which seeks his extradition, it is not necessary that at the time of offence the Said. person must be present.in.the said foreign State. This was held in Rex v. Godfrey?’ In this case Godfrey was a member of the firm which traded in England. The said firm obtained some goods in Switzerland on false assurances. At that time Godfrey was in England. Gh the request of Switzerland, the court ordered the extraditio e view was taken by the Supreme Court of India.in Mo Ali dv. State of Bombay. In this case the Supreme Court held, "The Tastening of criminal Viability on a foreigner in respect of culpable acts or omissions in India which are judicially attributable to him notwithstanding that he is corporeally present ide India at that time, is not ta give any extra-territorial operation to the Peet omae of an offence whose locality is in India, that the Kati ie perso i i if his f presence in India for the Tal se venment < rin this Coal Moba ty 1_an accessory in a crime > an be secured.” In this case( Mobarak All ‘fama. 1 Beeps underacing Nal for forgery and fraud in the Court of Sessins , fled to Pakistan“ 5 GoVernment of India , Fakistan_and thereafter he went to-England. The during the period wh thisargument was rf istani national and was out ~ the offence was a committed. ° a Indian Courts would have tiie Over aac out The Court held that “ n offence althou over a.case.in. which a person.commitl ____ beaten a Present in India at the time of the commission af 27. (1923) 1KB. 2a 28. A.A. 1957 S.C. 857 at p. 68, 29. The Government of india v M 20. Th # Supreme Coun Coes, obarak Ai Armed, (1952) 1 All E.R. 1060 a the facts that he is @ foreigner cor ONC It (L.e., off , * lgner co » offence) is tre in the objection to the exercise of municipal ay Present outside at the t Soren cs winssion 5 principle that exercise of criminal jurigaoye tO" UNder the Municip’ io eo oon asiges national of the alleged offender (exec te" depend on the locality at thes s nnat on M (ALR. 1957 8.C. 857 at p. 869), Futnerrt "2 few specified ¢ 2 offence gs a h "We hav “4S@8 such as Ambassdors, Prince ing Penal Code the Code does 8, therefore, a 20 fotwithstanding that he was rey - 8 foreigner who eae miat‘an’a'reading Sin indit - even on the assumption that ine’ eso% Outside.” (pig, Semmes, an_offence finally "2 8 a at p. 870]. The Court $ Pakistani national at the imo af the commission of tesyc®860d to be an’ indian cizen 28 eg under the Indian Penal Code notwithstanding his not being a2NCe. he must be held guilty and puro at p. 674) ‘9 Comporeally present in India at tne timerT N 341 inted out earlier, extradition is -asnerally a matter of bil (10) ee held that there must be a ‘formal mah 1a! “COI bilateral treaty * It \_formal treaty’ not simply ana aly. ! ; moll class Magi agree; notification. This was held by the First Glass iStrate in new re Tarashov Extradition case on _29-3-63, ' The Court made this observation while interpreting Section 31 (c) < adition Act, 1962, The Court discharged the accused on the ground no prima facie Made out against the accused. The facts and decision in this case may be summarised as follows : aa On 7th January, 1963, the Minister Counsellor of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. in India made a requisition under section 4 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, Govert ia to institute proceeding against V. Ss. Tarashov, a Soviet citizen who was alleged to have committed theft on high ‘ad been arrested on 28th November 1962 on the complaint of the Soviet Vice-Consul in Calcutta implicating him with the said offence but the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta had discharged him for want of evidence. He further contended that the Soviet Government had fabricated the said charge against him because he had sought pdlitical asylum from American Government. The Magistrate discharged the fugitive on the ground, inter alia, that the requirements of Section 31 (c) of the Act are not complied. Section 31 (c) of the Act required a formal treaty and not an agreement. The notification issued by the Government (extending the Provisions to U.S.S.R.) could in no case be called a formal treaty, tas (11) Generally States do not allow the extradition of their own citizens. In Regina v. Wilson,?2 it was observed that where the high contracting parties expressly Provide that their own subject shall not be delivered up as in the case of treaty between England and Switzerland, the power to arrest does not exist. Thus What was observed by Cockburn, C.J., in that case was a “serious blot” on the British System of extradition and the Royal Commission on extradition of which © was the Chairman recommended in their report that “reciprocity in this Matter should no longer be insisted upon whether the criminal be a British rubjet or not. If he has broken the laws of a foreign country his liability ought not to depend upon his nationality......The convenience of trying crimes in ie Country where they were committed is obvious. It is very much easier to transport the criminal to the place of offence than to carry all the Say and proofs to some other country where the trial is to be held.” *° Eviden nd ipmilar Consideration led to the passing of the Extradition Act {t 29a) bythe Ndian Legislature Providing for the surrender_of criminals ios Subjects for a variety of offences.** The Extradition Act, 1962 also.p Restrict” Surrender of criminals including Indian sue Bie ion 31 of ihe "iti ‘ons on Surrender under Indian_Law.— gn iminals. west Provides certain restrictions on surrender of fugitive. crim ct, T1962, 1 'S follows : aa : nehce of poli ical character. —A tugitive criminal shall pal hesaluence'oe a wh sed 10 a fo ate Commonwelath country if the offence lions are a sat or if he proves to the hiss i tis of a political character or if he prove oro Salistaction of the nes ae or court belore whom he Tay be produced ‘ction of the ma “Is there a ; For answer see also matter discussed under the heading mn? 1963), pp. 323-325 at p. 325. (Problem). 155 at p. 157.INTERN, eo ATIONAL Ly ment that the requisition or warrant for his surrender has, the Central Gove! to try or punish him for an offence of a poke fact, been made with a view character.°° i itive crimi tion for affence-being-barred-by-time:—A fugitive criminal shall p u . . 0 {ay Prosecutio tion for the offence in-respect of which. his surrender ed if prosecu' — 5 re Se cording to the law of that State or country barred by time. -xtradition treaty or provision by law of Foreign State that Fugitive Crimi ® shall not be ted or detained in that State for any offence committed ih 4 his surrender or return.—A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered returned to a foreign State or Commonwealth country unless, provision is mad by the law of the foreign State or Commonwealth.country or in the extradition” arrangement with the Commonwealth country that the fugitive criminal shaj not, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning to India, be detained or tried in that State or country for any offence committed prior his surrender or return other than the extradition offence proved by the facls of whieh his surrender or return is based.°” Rube |: ccused of some offence in India other than offence for which extradition 4 ‘A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered or returned if he ciolitey nN accused of some offence in India, not being the offence.for whi we surrender or return is sought of is undergoing sentence under any conviction Oe ; in India until after he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or on po oh oo of his sentence or otherwise. °* as After expiration of 15 days after being committed to prison.—Lastly a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered or returned until after the expiration of fiteen sc days from the date of his being committed to prison by the magistrate.” Unfettered power or discretion of Central Government to discharg’ any fugitive criminal.—Despite the isi iti 1962 i ; provisions of the Extradition Act, 1% Particularly section 3 and section 12, The Central Government has unfettered powers or return of a fugitive criminal n m ot being made in good faith or in the interests of jus! sre ea feeeons or otherwise it is unjust or inexpediat to surrender or return etumivenaiens by order at any time stay any proceedings under this Act, 'ssued or endorsed under this Act.to be cancelled andthe pers i ‘ose arrest the warrant ovided that nobhstandi been 'ssued or endorsed tobe discharged." It '§ ‘ he provisions of Contrary contained in section 3 oF S| 35. Section 31 (a) of the di __36._ Section 31 (0), 'e Extradition Act, 1962, 3 Section 31 (c) 38. Section 31 (d). 39. Section 31 (e), 40. Section 3 provides that : thi Act other than Chapter ee ont s + atl ‘emment may, by notiie i rows 8 = . d order, direct that the P! 0 Commonwealth county or part therect Yo <7)_\ Such foreign State or part there0! oF ae er. Section 12 runs C Chapter Ill does not apply as may D8 SP" oul rao by reason of an extradition anncPt® Ill shall apply only to any Coa commonweall on the Central Governme: eI i and the Central Govermen ey iy nae Further, evere Aiel pa at i re yal and Chapters |, IV and V, shall in Yon’ e2™® Of any subsequent metiicd ender direct tat fi equent notified order, direct (Oe modifications, exceptions, condition, 34M '0 any s " sublet Purpose of implementing te ae and qualtications ae Perea ay, a 9 ord 44 Section 29 igement. May think fit to specify , 42. Section 32,TRADITION ting to refusal to grant of extradition in Senet 1990, two Burmese students were ffm, sot, TheY had hijacked Thai International Airbus with 205 pas, ip! hhlight the cause of restoration of democracy in their Sil Si afl ds, written in blood, included restoration of democracy le, release of all political prisoners and a direct dialogue with the Burm: indian Government refused to hand them over to Burmese ene Government. ne er the Indian Government Qave charged them under Anti-Hij cRina a thoties pi rinal conspiracy. nti-Hijacking Act, 1982 and cl ome Indian Cases on extradition (1 Savarkar's case. —The facts and the decision of the Savarkar’s case has been ferred earlier while explaining the essential conditions of extradition. 2) Ram Babu Saxena v. State**.—This case deals with section 7 of Indian radition Act, 1903. Dr. Ram Babu Saxena was an employee under U. P. Civil Service ind was deputed to the Tonk State. Tonk was an Indian State and it had an Extradition reaty with the British Government according to which both States were bound to extradite tain persons who were accused of certain specified crimes. Dr. Ram Babu Saxena was ter on living in the district of Nainital. It was contended that while serving in Tonk State, committed crimes of Extortion under section 383 and cheating under section 420. Dr. Babu Saxena argued in defence that British Government had an extradition treaty ith the Tonk State and that treaty did not provide for crimes for which his extradition was ing claimed. Hence he could not be extradited under section 7 ofthe Extradition Act, 3. In this connection he made specific reference of section 18 of the Extradition Act, 3, which provided that no extradition could be made against the provisions of the aly. Since the treaty did not mention the specific crimes for which his extradition was ught, he contended that it will beyond the jurisdiction of the court afid whole 343 Co Burmese Students led to land at Calcutta ‘engers and 18-member Their six-point Charter Burma, ending military oa radition Act was rightly applied and he could be extradited. The n the Act does not derogate from any such treaty when it authorises the a Menment to grant extradition for some additional offences, thereby enlagi?, a ‘ ling, the power of the other party to claim surrender of criminals. Nor ae to gate in the true sense of the term from the position of an Indian sublet ation or Yl 1869.” “* B. K. Mukherjee, J., observed : “When as a result of aa mation ofa ay a State loses its full and independent power of action Tae the oS is Lordship neludeg ously concluded the treaty must necessarily oP siate and the British a Tonk tdeneueetne The Extradition Treaty between the ‘ent day in view of the N 1869 is not capable of being given effect to in the pre treaty rights exist, he Tonk State in th i Rajasthan. en e United State of Raj on 7 of the Act has be ied cic! Extradition Act has no application and as sect ts the Supreme Court emment j Qer of Missa Hie bs No ground upon which we can interfere. (3) see I. : mt ian rs rs GG. Monet? fs es Chapter 07 “Relationship SEN Inter ote facts and decision of the case, please se an eI ” ‘reared Law and Municipal Law. ii, Calcutta and oth this ki ——— tail earlle! discusset oreigners ct, 1946) i e have been dIsv" lown in this cas' pulsion (un es Tai Nder az a dition heading “Distinction between “EX 187-158 | See al Vol. Ill, P- 1535. LR, Iso Hyde on International Law. VO! Ain 1954 8.6 1955 Ss Cc nue °C. 367INTERNAT 344 ONAL Lay = 1957 *°.—The fact and pring; | Ahmad v. State of ay._1957 Principe down is cee have also been discussed earlier in this Chapter. ig (6) The Tarasov Extradition case, 196¥°.—This case has been discusseg eatery this Chapter. - ‘ . (7),Sucha Singh's case.—Sucha Singh was accused of murdering Pratap sing est Kairon, the former Chief Minister of Punjab a id y nthe me of the Government of India, the Govern a him in accordance with the law of Nepal, extradited him) : (8 ‘case.—Dharam Teja, who was the Managing Director of Jayany Shipping Corporation, committed embezzlement and bungling of crores of rupees anda fled away from India. He fled from one country to another to escape his arrest. When he was in Ivory Coast, the Government of India requested the Government of Wory Coast extradite Dharam Teja so that proceedings against him could be started in India. The Government of Ivory Coast refused to extradite Dharam Teja on the ground that there was no extradition treaty with India. Later on, when DharamTeja was in London.the Governmen orale cape Te Teow sbout his whereabouts and informed the British Government and quested it to apprehend Dharam Teja and to start proceedings of extradition against him, india has an Extradition Treaty with the Government of Britain under which both the countries are Gund to avradie is asclssd oT sath other who run away after committing crimes in either country. )Government of England accepted the request of India and oceedings were slarted against Dharam Teja in the court of law in Englang. The Coutd law in England came to the conclusion that Dharam Teja could be extradited. Consequently, Dharam Teja Was extradited to India. The Government of India started proceedings against him and Dharam Teja was convicted for having committed embezzlement and bungling of crores of rupees of Jayanti Shipping Corporation, while he was Managing Director of that Corporation. (9) Naval Officer Extradition case (July, 1975).—Commander Elijah Ebrahim Jhittad - ies Navy was charged by the Government of India with misappropriating Rs. 13 aks ie Ne Fund while he was functioning as the Judge Advocate-General of te investigation In een ' 1860. The matter was referred to the C.B.I. (i.e., Central Butea prize fund, An ere gentad had the responsibility of administering Ris. 70 lakhs off “fn ©csailor made a complaint that he had not received his share of the pil! ‘er accepting the India been extradited to India lakhs of the Naval Prize (10) Narang Broth ers Extraditi Government of India su acition Case (0, o ctobe, ober Manohar Narang and hit roa Concluded ¢ ition oktnd Ht : of cheating, i : 9 In connect : . ; Amin pillars in a village near Kurukshetra mae with two stolen antique pillars a thet aryana. A London Magistrate hel » the New York Jud dition i ige passed the extradi and wl ron Pleas in this regard, Thus Commander hited ‘i Fund, S09 trial of the charge of misappropriation of FS 49 ALR. 1957 S.C. 867 50. Onder of First Class Magistrate, (Ni } (New Delhi) dateg 2 9-3-1963,paniTioNn ase_for their trial and allowed the extradi a-facie © f-noharlal Narang who Was said to be t of ne aris was arrested in May by the British Polic “ EmbassY tigi pillars valued at 250,000 Pounds, Th peanut B- &. use in London. The Magistrate rejected Mano I focal ware fe 10, 1979, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal fiieg by mty-O7 SS ian Narang and Omi Narang) Guestioning the legality of the Warrants rang Cent Court for their extradition from London in a Case of breach of trust yed by a mh ue pieces which were recovered from London. The Court also turned ving two an q eal by Ram Lal Narang, challenging the issue of process by a Delhi similar ae the three brothers to appear before him in the case which is Pending agatate requir re by the Narang brothers was directed against the order of the Delhi pel The arin their applications for guashing the trial court Orders. The Division ert Court consisting of Mr. Justice N. L. Untwalia and Mr. Justice 0, Sa Reddy dismissed the two appeals and ruled that tl he investigating agency had acted out of any malice nor did it commit any illegality in the investigations.5* ition plication of the on financial Adviser to the psn e for handling the stolen pillars were fecovereg harlal's Plea for diplomatic }AA.R.C. Accord on Extradition son nN Rees State concerned thinks that it is not extradit the acc! d, there shall be no obligation {0 sxtradi : lion haeeco gation to extradit if the matter is ane Wes *tadition has not Seen made in good faith and is not in the interest rasan He acaan® COMVention it ig the obligation of the T™member States to ensured ei six shaped for prosacii ion under national laws. Under the Convention ' eee be Considered as Political crimes or crimes inspired by paliical can of 16 De® ‘lating to aircraft hijacking under the Hague Convent a ber, 1979 on Hijacking ; i if 23 Septempe'ating to aircraft hijacking under the Montreal Convention o ® 21,1971 on Hijacking; . ion Od i © Convention of 14 December, 1973 relating pabrevert S under STiMes against Internationally Protected Pers Pe anc nvr ( hich Sta *r ny Convention of which SAARC States are Fai Ae avcuaeds " Crimes aa artiés are under Obligation to prosecute or eo ne Atempt ey to murder, assault: making hostage ete. ; re & . beeerEntion ‘ 8nd advise the crimes etc., mentioned in (a) ee litical “RES concy®? Provides that the Member States shall not consider P ting Violence, on Ext off radition in e Secretary of ‘terest snuary, 1992 during his visit to India, Brie vadion and A tue, to ands Of te, Sign an ©xtradition treaty with India Toe Britain, This step My tiger drug tStists and rug Salfisieore-oppsting Som shmir. The Treaty ee The trlickings 4nd terrorists in Punjab and "8 gy Ia la, , ia had Earlier Indi as ralified on 15th November, 1993. YW Ji SMuary, 1979,ww 346 INTERNATGh, into i iti ith Canada. India is also maki entered into in 1986 an extradition treaty wl f in enter inta a similar treaty with the United States of Ameriga-~ extradition Treaty between India and Canada.—Desiring to mae effective the coopnration of the two countries in the suppression of crime 6 ‘ extradition of offenders, and recognising-that con, sion’ for the reciprocal alg isola to Combat terforism the Government of India and the Governne Canada signed an extradition treaty on the 6th of February, 1987. According to Artes ® i the treaty, each contracting state agrees to extradite to the other, subject 4, h conditions of this treaty any person who being accused or conyicted.of_an aa offence as described in Article 3, committed within the territory of one state, founding : territory of the other state, whether or not such offence was committed before or ate coming into force of this treaty. 9 EMdeai, According to Article 3 of the treaty, an extradition. offence _is.committed when, ethos poteen whose extradition is sought constitutes an offence-punishabiey | ° the laws of both contracting states by aterm of imprisonment for aperiod-of more than. year, : Ipdia, Hongkong Pact on Extradition.—Before Hongkong became a pat Chin, Hongkong and India entered into a treaty on extradition in.the mididle cof June 199 Since China has announced that China will abide by international treaties signed dung British rule, it is hoped that China will abide by this treaty. ! Indo-U.S. Treaty on Extradition.—India and America have been cooperaiiy with each other for a long time for curbing extremism and terrorism. In several cases past, America has cooperated with India in respect of extradition of criminal who ale” committing crime had fled away to that country. Recently America extradited Daj a Sit Lahoria at the request of the Government of India. A couple of more extraditions % expected soon. On 25th June, 1997 India and America entered into a treaty on extrauitt It is a modern treaty containing exhaustive provisions relating to new trends extradition. In accordance with Article-23 of the treaty, instruments of ratification "@ pxcnanoe aN Doth on Ae July, 1999. Thus the treaty came into force inne the instruments of ratification, Bo eR ret ete tet ee | Article 1 of the treaty provides tha adie 0 a pursuant, to the provisions of tee a ee whe are tori ny equesting State are formally accused of, charged with or convicted of an ext te offence, whethe! : 7 Treaty r such offence was committed before or after the entry into force punishsiistinie te eat states that an offence shall be an extraditable ottence f e laws in both the contracting states by deprivation of liberty imprisonment, for a period a i of offence shall also be an axtrodiitie te nos ht corte or an ahem Gore or commit, aidi ; offence if it consist: tor a CONF ieee eee co nselling or pioine he comme 0 ba Article 3 ct to, any offence described above. re mn person sought 5 rates eee shall not be refused if on the a political offence (Article 4) and de state. But extradition shall not he a wl granted when the prosecution ha itary offence (Article 5). Extradition shal ne uf the Requesting time (Article 7). 's become barred by lapse of time according 08" 10 In case of urgency, a i : n contractin, ie enon ' 1g State m al 4 provisional are Pehlng Presentation of the os meat se ak Se ty ple rest may be transmitted through the atom for oa tacili@s, an ational Criminal Police Organisation (Int iplomatic channel. TM pst request. (Article 12) nterpol) may be used t0 "4 w nal und nel”A ApITION ‘ ‘ 17 of the Treaty incorporates the Rule of Speciality. Artic A person extradited under this Treaty May not be detained. 5 17 provides Jjuesting State except for — "Wed oF punished in je Re’ ) the offence for which extradition has been Granted or a differ, (2) sed on the same facts on which extradition WaS granted pro ently denominateg nce miable or is a lesser included offence; Vided Such otfence - ) an offence committed after the extradition of the person: or ¢) an offence for which the executive authority of Requested st, son's detention, trial or punishment. For the Purpose of this sub-par. (i) the Requested State may require the Submission of the doc ile 9 and tradited may be detained by the f ii) the person extradite letained by the Requesting State for 90 d ch onder period of time as the Requested State May authorize, while the feciag ie ing processed : 2. A person extradited under this treaty may not be extradit ence committed prior to his surrender unless the Surrendering 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not prevent the detention, trial or nishment of an extradited person, or the extradition of that person to a third State if; (a) that person leaves the territory of the Requesting State after extradition and luntarily returns to it; or (b) that person does not leave the territory of the Requesting State within 15 days of @ day on which the person is free to leave. Last but not the least, Article 18 Provides for ‘Waiver of Extradition’, According to it the person sought consents to surrender to the Requesting State, the Requested State ay, Subject to its laws, surrender the person as expeditiously as possible without further 307 article late consents to the ‘agraph ‘uments called for in led to a third state for an State consents, oceedings. ; Extradition Treaty Between India and Germany.—With a view to combat ar eadla and Germany signed an extradition treaty at Berlin on 27th June, 2001. The will enable the two countries to extradite a person wanted in “extraditab P the treaty extraditable offences are the offences which are punishable under the poe both the states and are punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one fg wadition shall also be granted in respect of an attempt or conspiracy 10 cam i ting, inciting or participating as an accomplice in the cpmmiss “Aditable offence, Participating as an_acc heey ve ° - a T. oo Mtradition of Famous Music Director, Nadeem Se ntsc Director, Saifi Nadeem Akhtar, popularly know e Id ‘olice in India coul Im, he Ted weet of music baron Gulshan Kumar. Before the p' dition, India “rain po England The Government f In has Sou het am 15 rte SSPE ar oxtacton waty BD. Ts trea a oth counties. The : lines alter having been ratified by the Parliaments of Do Prosecution ‘ S filed. the chargesheet of the case in the British ‘Gow seals Court 4 Cutline the details of the extradition case before the Mumbai Police will ©rargesheet or arrest warrant is not sufficient. The nent for extradition Ufficient Corroborating evidence of Nadeem's level - ' it will have to be entabilshie oT ihe complex Brish ulshan Kumar. Taking advan! it is ; d. However | cus ‘on Nadeem is getting the decision in the ey lost the aC P Vv ee 99 back to India voluntarily, Nadeem rowvadtion. he may ha lum je" if he is successtul in blocking the Titain or shift to a third country. n as ‘Nadeem’ is‘oe 348 INTERNATIONAL Lay Case of Extradition of Pinto London based Brazilian business man A-E Pinto is accused of having played the middleman between the Turkish firm Karsan and Indian agent Sumbasiva Rao in Ure, Scam. Pinto has been under arrest in London for more than a year pending his extradition as the Indian Government has sought his extradition. The CBI filed the charges againg Pinto. alleging that the National Fertilizers (NFL) Executive Director (Marketing) D. ¢ Danwar unauthorisedly signed the contract for the supply of urea with Karsan on behat of NFL in July, 1995 and Tuncay Alankus was the signatory from the Karsan side. But the deal could not materialise and Karsan accused the NFL of failing to issue the “block fing papers” . Subsequent to the fiasco of the first deal, another contract was signed between NFL and Karsan on October, 1995. The entire amount of 38 million dollars was paid in advance but not a single grain of urea was received till the last date of fulfilling the contract immediately after the said expiry date, CBI registered the case and accused Pinto of having received 1. 2 million dollars out of 38 million dollars remitted to Karsan. The CBI also claims to have recovered several incriminating documents from Pinto's residence in London during the raids conducted there. Besides Pinto, Karsan executives Tuncay Alankus and Cihan Karance and some former NFL officials are also facing prosecution. The Bow Street Magistrate has already issued the order allowing the CBI plea for Pinto's extradition to India. Pinto’s appeal against the said order of the Magistrate has also been rejected. Pinto has filed a revision petition against the order. According to legal experts his extradition is only a matter of time.