<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (12) TMI 482 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181364</link>
    <description>Extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962 and the India-US Extradition Treaty were treated as a prima facie enquiry, not a full criminal trial. The Magistrate could rely on certified documents, affidavits and other authenticated information produced in support of the requisition, and strict proof under the Indian Evidence Act was not required unless the governing statute or treaty expressly demanded it. Non-supply of the foreign statute did not vitiate the proceedings because no specific prejudice was shown. The extradition material was therefore capable of valid consideration, and the challenge based on insufficiency of evidence and lack of prejudice failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2023 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 482 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181364</link>
      <description>Extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962 and the India-US Extradition Treaty were treated as a prima facie enquiry, not a full criminal trial. The Magistrate could rely on certified documents, affidavits and other authenticated information produced in support of the requisition, and strict proof under the Indian Evidence Act was not required unless the governing statute or treaty expressly demanded it. Non-supply of the foreign statute did not vitiate the proceedings because no specific prejudice was shown. The extradition material was therefore capable of valid consideration, and the challenge based on insufficiency of evidence and lack of prejudice failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>