Delhi High Court
Salwant Singh Sandhu vs State Of Delhi & Others on 23 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001IVAD(DELHI)576, 2001CRILJ3030, 91(2001)DLT577, 2001(59)DRJ116
Author: R.C. Chopra
Bench: R.C. Chopra
ORDER R.C. Chopra, J.
1. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" only) read with Section 25 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is for grant of bail to the petitioner arrested under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code in pursuance of a warrant of arrest dated 30.9.1999 issued by the Court of a Magistrate at Singapore on a charge under Section 420 of the Penal Code of singapore.
2. I have heard Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Anil Soni, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that a warrant for the arrest of petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code of Singapore was issued on 30.9.1999 by a Magistrate at Singapore. It was a non-bailable warrant directed to the Commissioner of Police and all other police officers of singapore to arrest the petitioner and produce him before the court. It appears that on the basis of a copy of the said non-bailable warrant, a private detective apprehended the petitioner on 27.2.2001 at New Delhi and produced him at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, which put him under arrest under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code vide D.D. No.24-A dated 28.2.2001. It was specifically recorded in the D.D. entry that the petitioner was being produced before the police on the allegations that there were warrants against him from Singapore ion a case of cheating and the warrants issued through Interpole had already been delivered to Dr.K.K.Paul, Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police. The S.H.O. confirmed this fact from the Joint Commissioner of Police and thereafter put the petitioner under arrest. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. The bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by the Magistrate and thereafter by learned Additional District Judge, New Delhi vide orders dated 17.3.2001.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while praying for bail, has challenged the powers of the private detective as well as the police to apprehend and arrest the petitioner without any warrants from the Magistrate in terms of the provisions of the Extradition Act. Learned counsel argues that since the Act is a special Act prescribing complete procedure and mechanism for the arrest, inquiry and extradition of a fugitive, the powers of arrest, as envisaged under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code were not available to the police officers and as such, the arrest as well as detention of the petitioner was illegal. According to him, the petitioner could be arrested only after obtaining warrants of arrest from the Magistrate under Section 6 or Section 9 of the Act. He also argues that even provisional warrants of arrest could be obtained under Section 34(b) of the Act if immediate arrest of the fugitive was required. It is also submitted that on the date when the petitioner was arrested, neither there was a requisition under Section 4 of the Act nor any orders had been passed by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely on the basis of a photocopy of a warrant supplied by an agent of a private complainant, powers under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code ought not to have been invoked as it was not a credible information.
5. Referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the Code and the judgments in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh, (1962) 1 Crl.L.J. 106, Sharangdhar Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1992 Crl.L.J.2063 and Union of India & Others Vs. Sadha Singh, , learned counsel for the petitioner argues that general powers of arrest, as contained in the Code, stand superseded as the provisions of the Extradition Act, which is a special law, have an over-riding effect. He also prays for release of the petitioner on bail on suitable terms and conditions till disposal of the extradition proceedings against him.
6. Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 has placed before this Court the relevant file of the Ministry of External Affairs, which reveals that a requisition under Section 4 of the Act has already been received by the Central Government from Singapore Government. The required documents including summary of facts, warrant of arrest and depositions on which requisition is based, have also been forwarded by the Republic of Singapore to the Government of India. The documents on the file show that the petitioner is a fugitive wanted in Singapore on cheating charges under Section 420 of the Penal Code to the tune of over 5 lac Singapore dollars.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently argued that the doctrine of eclipse comes into play only when there is a conflict between the general and special law. He argues that the laws are supplementary and complementary to each other and if any general law supplements the special law and helps the concerned authorities in achieving its aims and objects, it can always be invoked in aid of the special law. According to him, Section 41(1)(g) of the Code and Section 43(2) of the Code fully justify and protect the arrest of fugitive criminal by a private person and his re-arrest by the police for production before a Magistrate. According to him, these provisions, which are meant for meeting urgent situations arising on account of sudden spotting of a fugitive, fully authorise a police officer to put him under arrest without a warrant, if he is satisfied that the said person is concerned or there is a reasonable compliant against him or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India. It is submitted that no provision under the Extradition Act provides for immediate apprehension and arrest of a fugitive for the reason that Section 41(1)(g) of the Code is available to meet such situations. There is nothing in the Act prohibiting the arrest of a fugitive under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.3 relies upon judgments in M. Bhaskaran Vs. State, , Darshan Kumar Vs. State, and Flemming Ludin Larsen Vs. Union of India, wherein the fugitives were arrested with the aid of Section 41(g) of the Code. A plain perusal of Sections 41(1)(g) and 43(2) of the Code makes it clear that a fugitive from some other country with which we may be having or not an extradition treaty, can be arrested by not only a police officer, but a private person even if there is a credible information or even a reasonable suspicion of his being concerned with any offence, which if committed in India, would be punishable as an offence. In the case of a private person acting under Section 43(1) of the Code, the police officer has to re-arrest him under sub-clause (2) thereof if he has reason to believe that such person is covered under the provisions of Section 41 of the Code.
9. In Extradition Act, 1962, there are of course provisions enabling a Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest against a fugitive criminal in terms of Sections 6, 9 and 34(b) of the Act, but all such warrants can be issued only on receipt of orders from the Central Government. There is no provision in the Act authorising a police officer to immediately apprehend a fugitive criminal regarding whom he may be having credible information even that he is concerned with any offence committed out of India. In the absence of any provision in this regard and without the aid of Section 41(1)(g) of the Code, the police officer would be left with no choice except to let the fugitive criminal remain free till an appropriate warrant is obtained against him in terms of the provisions of the Act. The main object of the Extradition Act is to arrest and hand over the fugitive criminals to those countries with whom our Government has entered into extradition treaties subject to the exceptions contained in the Act itself. If it was not intended that a fugitive criminal should be arrested without a warrant, the Extradition Act itself would have stated so and rather specifically negated the provision of Section 41(1)(g) of the Code, which specifically deal with fugitive criminals only. The fact that after the enforcement of the Extradition Act in 1962 and even after amendment of the Code in the year 1973, the provisions of Section 41(1)(g) of the Code were retained, is sufficient to hold that it was retained with the sole purpose of immediate apprehension of fugitive criminals, who come across a police officer or even a private person and their immediate apprehension and arrest is desirable. The judgments cited by Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate reveal that this provision has been consistently invoked to apprehend fugitive criminals.
10. There is no doubt about the legal preposition that wherever a special law is introduced, the general law on the matters covered therein stands obliterated. However, wherever the special law is silent on any matter and the provisions of general law appear to be supplementary and in the aid of special law and help in achieving the aims and objects of the special law, the provisions of general law can always be invoked. Therefore, it must be held that the arrest of the petitioner under Section 41(1)(g), of the Code which was based on a credible information was fully protected by the Code and was not at all in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is shown on record that a copy of the warrant of arrest had already been received by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi through Interpole also, which fact was verified by the S.H.O. concerned before putting the petitioner under arrest.
11. The prayer for enlargement of the petitioner on bail under Section 439 of the Code read with Section 25 of the Extradition Act cannot be allowed for the reason that the petitioner appears to be involved in a serious case of cheating involving over 5 lac Singapore dollars. The arrest warrants issued by Singapore Courts were in force against him since September, 1999. Extradition proceedings are already on and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he may abscond and become unavailable to the Central Government for his extradition to Singapore, in accordance with law. Therefore, there are no good and sufficient grounds for exercising discretion in favor of grant of bail to the petitioner.
12. The application, therefore, stands dismissed.