Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., while addressing a matter, expressed that,

Under Principles of Natural Justice, it is settled law that (a) where at the stage where an authority is merely required to form an opinion as to whether an enquiry should be held into allegations or contraventions, it is not required to give to the notice details of nature of evidence and documents, and (b) where a hearing for determination of guilt is to be held de novo, without any reference to any preliminary enquiry report, then the report need not be disclosed to the party affected.

Petitioner approached the Court praying for mandamus to the respondents to make full disclosure of the evidence collected during investigation of the crime of rape registered against the petitioner in London.

Question for Consideration

Whether petitioner is entitled to disclosure of evidence qua the extradition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

Analysis, Law and Decision

Extradition is a formal process by which one state requests another to deliver/handover an individual accused of having committed an offence for the purposes of trial or prosecution in the requesting state. Extraditable persons may include those charged with a crime but not yet tried, those tried and convicted who have escaped custody, and those convicted in absentia.

High Court expressed that, an essential condition that is mandatory for the process of initiating extradition is that those crimes of which an individual is accused of, must be punishable by law in the requesting state and be committed outside the state of the offender. Along with this, the necessity is that two countries have entered into the Extradition Treaty.

In the instant case, the evidence envisaged under Section 10 of the Extradition Act was produced before the Magistrate for inquiry into extradition proceedings. Court has to arrive at a conclusion where there is prima facie evidence that an extraditable offence may have been committed.

Further, the Court stated that, there is ample jurisprudence to suggest that the scope of inquiry of this Court should be limited unless there are exceptional circumstances, as was held in Pragnesh Desai v. Union of India, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 68.

Hence, the only circumstances where the petitioner’s concern of ‘lack of disclosure of evidence’ would require an intervention from this Court would be if such alleged lack of disclosure amounts to a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, which was not the case in the present circumstances.

Bench found no violation of the duty to adequate disclosure in the present case.

“…within the domestic law, whereas the courts recognize and act against the presence of “actual bias‟ as a Principle of Natural Justice, “a mere apprehension of bias” is not enough to claim relief by the parties.”

High Court added to its observation that,

A mere unsubstantiated apprehension of discrimination or bias cannot be held to be a sufficient reason to mistrust the state functionaries of the United Kingdom, hence, a case for claiming relief under Article 9 of the Treaty is not made out.

Court also noted that the petitioner had been escaping arrest on frivolous grounds and the present petition was one such attempt.


  • the petitioner has been evading the process of law
  • requisite evidence for extradition proceedings against the petitioner has already been supplied
  • only a prima facie case is to be seen by the ACMM in the course of extradition proceedings
  • no case of violation of scheme or provisions of the Extradition Act or Treaty has been made out
  • there is also no justiciable proof of the petitioner being arraigned due to racial discrimination

Hence, in view of the above writ petition was dismissed. [Jose Inacio Cota v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1417, decided on 11-5-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the petitioner:

Arpit Batra and Abhilasha, Advocates

For the respondent:

Rekha Pandey, SPP for UOI

Nishi Raman, CGSC for R-2

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court:  N. Nagaresh, J., addressed the petition seeking to direct the State to implement International Arrest Warrant and to handover the accused to the Government of Dubai as per the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962.

The petitioner was an NRI businessman in Dubai; the accused befriended him on the pretext of being a business partner of a well known Hotel in Dubai. The accused borrowed an amount of Six Million UAE Dirhams from the petitioner and promised to repay the said amount before 10-06-2015. But, before the said stipulated date, the accused absconded to India without repaying the amount. Counsel for the petitioner,  T.K. Vipindas submitted that the accused had borrowed money from several banks and other individuals in UAE and had absconded from UAE to India without discharging his debts. There were 8 criminal cases registered against him by Dubai Police and the Dubai Court had convicted the accused for imprisonment for a term of two years. Also, an International Arrest Warrant was issued against the accused on 16-05-2018. The petitioner contended that, Government of India has executed the Extradition Treaty with the Government of United Arab Emirates. As per Article 2 of the said Treaty, a person sentenced by the court of the requesting State with the imprisonment for six months in respect of an offence, is liable to be extradited.

The respondent submitted that in the case of extradition of an Indian national from India to UAE, the provisions contained in Article 5 of the Extradition Treaty would be applicable. Article 5 of the Extradition Treaty reads as follows:

“The nationals of the Contracting States shall not be extradited to the other Contracting State provided that the requested State shall submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution if the act committed is considered as an offence under the laws of both Contracting States.”

 The respondent relied on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 9 SCC 551, wherein the Supreme Court had held that, arrest of a fugitive criminal can be made at the instance of Central Government only when request to this effect is received from foreign country and not otherwise.

 The Court observed that, it was evident that nationals of Contracting States should not be extradited unless there was a request made by the State concerned. Since no such request had been received from the Government of UAE seeking extradition of the accused; therefore, going by the Extradition Treaty, the accused could not be extradited. Article 8 of the Extradition Treaty had prescribed that the request for extradition should be made in writing and dispatched through the diplomatic channels with supporting documents and particulars. Therefore, the Court dismissed the instant petition, holding that an International Arrest Warrant by itself would not suffice to arrest an accused and extradite him to UAE. [Rakhul Krishnan v. Union of India,  2020 SCC OnLine Ker 8409, decided on 21-12-2020]