Extraterritorial arrest warrant power rejected where no statute authorised extradition procedure or executive circular support.

A warrant of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could not be routed through State and Central executive authorities for execution abroad to secure extradition, because the Code operated within India and conferred no extraterritorial warrant power. A Government of India circular could not validate that procedure, as it had no statutory force and could not override the Code or the Extradition Act, 1962. The Extradition Act, 1962 was treated as a complete code, but it did not authorise the requisition for surrender from Hong Kong on the facts shown. The warrant and all consequential proceedings were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could issue and route a warrant of arrest for execution abroad through the State and Central executive authorities for the purpose of extradition; (ii) whether a Government of India circular could justify or validate that procedure after the coming into force of the Extradition Act, 1962; (iii) whether the Extradition Act, 1962 supplied any legal basis for the requisition made for surrender of the petitioner from Hong Kong.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could issue and route a warrant of arrest for execution abroad through the State and Central executive authorities for the purpose of extradition.

Analysis: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was held to operate within India, and the scheme of the provisions governing warrants of arrest confined execution to places within India. The warrant in question was not merely issued in the ordinary form contemplated by the Code; it was sent to the State executive for onward transmission to the Government of India and then to Hong Kong for extradition, a course for which the Code provided no authority. The use of Section 75 of the Code in that manner was treated as a colourable exercise of power and an impermissible attempt to achieve an extraterritorial effect that the Code did not confer.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to issue the warrant in the manner adopted, and the warrant was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether a Government of India circular could justify or validate that procedure after the coming into force of the Extradition Act, 1962.

Analysis: The circular was held to have no statutory force and could not enlarge judicial power or override the Code or the later extradition statute. It was also noted that the circular itself contemplated operation only until the new extradition law came into force. Since the Extradition Act, 1962 had already commenced, the circular could not supply authority for the steps taken. Executive directions could not displace the statutory scheme governing arrest and extradition.

Conclusion: The circular did not validate the warrant or the subsequent steps, and it could not be relied upon as legal authority.

Issue (iii): Whether the Extradition Act, 1962 supplied any legal basis for the requisition made for surrender of the petitioner from Hong Kong.

Analysis: The Act was held to be a complete code for extradition. The provisions relied upon did not permit the course adopted in respect of Hong Kong because no notified order had applied the relevant chapter to that territory, and the statutory conditions for requisition were not satisfied. The Central Government therefore could not act dehors the Act, and the requisition made in aid of extradition had no foundation in law.

Conclusion: The Extradition Act, 1962 did not authorise the requisition for surrender of the petitioner from Hong Kong.

Final Conclusion: The warrant of arrest and all proceedings taken pursuant to it were without legal authority and were quashed, with the rule made absolute in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A warrant of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot be used as a device to secure extradition abroad unless a statute expressly authorises that course, and executive circulars or directions cannot substitute for such statutory authority.

---