2007 (12) TMI 482 - SC - Indian Laws

Extradition request upheld: Prima facie case established, no rights violated, procedural compliance confirmed.

Sarabjit Rick Singh Versus Union Of India

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the extradition request adhered to the Extradition Treaty and the Extradition Act, 1962. It found the ... Extradition Act, 1962 - formal request for extradition did not satisfy the requirements of Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty as well as Section 7 of the Act - filed an application for supply of deficient documents and requested supply of copies thereof to lead his defence - declined by the learned Magistrate - legality and validity of the Order - recommended the extradition of the appellant to United States of America - Drug trafficking and money laundering - Sale and supply of MDMA - controlled substance and other offensive substances - Appellant is an Indian citizen - holds an Indian Passport - also a resident of United States of America - order of extradition on the basis of the material which would constitute 'evidence' and as some of the documents - HELD THAT:- 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. If evidence stricto sensu is required to be taken in an enquiry forming the basis of a prima facie opinion of the Court, the same would lead to a patent absurdity. Whereas in a trial the court for the purpose of appreciation of evidence may have to shift the burden from stage to stage, such a procedure is not required to be adopted in an enquiry. Even under the Code of Criminal Procedure existence of strong suspicion against the accused may be enough to take cognizance of an offence which would not meet the standard to hold him guilty at the trial. In a case of this nature the second part of Section 10 of the Act would apply which does not contemplate production of any oral evidence by the Central Government. No fact needs to be proved by evidence. What is necessary is to arrive at a prima facie case finding that a case has been made out for extradition from the depositions, statements, copies and other informations which are to be gathered from the official certification of facts and judicial documents that would include the indictment by the Grand Jury. Section 10 of the Act provides as to what would be received in evidence. The marginal note although may not be relevant for rendition of decisions in all types of cases but where the main provision is sought to be interpreted differently, reference to marginal note would be permissible in law. [See Deewan Singh and Ors. vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and Ors.[2007 (1) TMI 551 - SUPREME COURT]. The use of the terminology 'evidence' in Section 7 of the Act must be read in the context of Section 10 and not d'hors the same. It is trite that construction of a statute should be done in a manner which would give effect to all its provisions. Section 10 of the Act clearly provides that any exhibit or deposition which may be received in evidence need not be taken in the presence of the person against whom they are used or otherwise. It also contemplates the copies of such exhibits and depositions and official certificates of facts and judicial documents stating facts would, if duly authenticated, be received as evidence. We, therefore, are of the opinion that an information need not be a documentary evidence or an oral evidence as is understood under the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Scope and ambit of the provisions of International Treaty vis-a-vis the Extradition Act, 1962.2. Compliance with Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty and Section 7 of the Extradition Act.3. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence for extradition.4. Procedural irregularities and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.5. Jurisdiction and powers of the Magistrate under Section 7 of the Extradition Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Scope and Ambit of the Provisions of International Treaty vis-a-vis the Extradition Act, 1962:The case involves the interpretation of the Extradition Treaty between India and the United States, particularly how it interacts with the Extradition Act, 1962. The Treaty, entered into on July 21, 1999, obligates the contracting states to extradite individuals accused or convicted of offenses punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.2. Compliance with Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty and Section 7 of the Extradition Act:The appellant argued that the extradition request did not satisfy Article 9 of the Treaty and Section 7 of the Act, which require detailed documentation and evidence. The court noted that the request contained all necessary documents, including a certificate of authentication and an affidavit detailing the charges, procedural history, and potential sentences.3. Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence for Extradition:The appellant contended that the affidavits of accomplices and other documents did not constitute 'evidence' under Section 7 of the Act. The court clarified that in extradition proceedings, the term 'evidence' includes documents and affidavits, even if they are not formally proved as in a trial. The court emphasized that the Magistrate's role is to form a prima facie view based on the documents provided, not to conduct a full trial.4. Procedural Irregularities and Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:The appellant argued that his fundamental rights under Article 21 were violated due to procedural irregularities, including the denial of certain documents. The court held that the procedural requirements were met, and the appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the non-disclosure of specific documents. The court also noted that the superior courts' jurisdiction in such matters is limited to judicial review and does not extend to re-evaluating the evidence.5. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Magistrate under Section 7 of the Extradition Act:The court discussed the jurisdiction and powers of the Magistrate, emphasizing that the inquiry under Section 7 is not a trial but a preliminary examination to determine if a prima facie case exists for extradition. The Magistrate is required to take evidence in support of the requisition and on behalf of the fugitive criminal, but the standard of proof is not as stringent as in a trial. The court also highlighted that the Extradition Act is a special statute and prevails over general procedural laws.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the extradition request complied with the Treaty and the Act, and the evidence presented was sufficient to form a prima facie case for extradition. The procedural requirements were met, and no fundamental rights were violated. The Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction and powers under Section 7 of the Extradition Act.