Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Exemption From Filing Trial Court ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 7 March, 2022

Author: Asha Menon

Bench: Asha Menon

                          $~24
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(CRL) 495/2022, CRL.M.A.4353/2022 (by the petitioners for
                                 exemption from filing Trial Court Record)

                                 SUNEEL SAHNI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ANR.
                                                                     ..... Petitioners

                                                    Through:      Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Roopa
                                                                  Dayal, Mr. Ramaditya Tiwari and Ms.
                                                                  Divya Jhalani, Advocates

                                                    Versus


                                 UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                              ..... Respondents

                                                    Through:      Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms.
                                                                  Kamal Digpaul and Ms. Pinky Yadav,
                                                                  Advocates for UOI.
                                                                  Mr. Arshdeep Singh and Mr. Hitesh
                                                                  Rai, Advocates for R-2


                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                                         ORDER

% 07.03.2022 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CRL.M.As.4351/2022 & 4352/2022 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 495/2022, CRL.M.A.4353/2022 (by the petitioners for exemption from filing the Trial Court Record)

1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the complainant on whose complaint, the proceedings for extradition were initiated before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (ACMM-01) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 15th December, 2021 whereby the learned Court concluded that no extraditable offence under Article 2 of the Treaty executed between both the Contracting States i.e. Republic of India and United Arab Emirates(UAE) was made out and no prima facie case against the respondent No.2/Fugitive Criminal(FC) was made out under Section 7(3) of the Extradition Act, 1962 and accordingly discharging the respondent No.2/FC, was erroneous, on three grounds inter alia (i) that the Government of UAE had not given an assurance of a de novo trial was not a ground available to the FC as he could not take benefit of the inter- government communications and could only submit that no case of there being an extraditable offence had been made out against him or that the offence alleged against him had a political character; (ii) that certain documents had not been produced before the learned ACMM which could have been easily called for but was not, and yet was read against the complaint; and (iii) that the learned ACMM erroneously applied Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, instead of applying the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the facts and circumstances averred in the complaint to decide party of punishment.

3. Issue notice.

4. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1/Union of Indi and Mr. Arshdeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/FC.

5. A copy of the complete paper book be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1/UOI additionally argues that the observations made in Para 56 of the impugned order would create havoc inasmuch as the learned Court has introduced the necessity of there being a provision of a minimum sentence in respect of any offence for extradition to be sought for or granted. He also submits that the State was also intending to file a petition challenging the order dated 15th December, 2021, in particular, these observations. The learned Standing Counsel requests that the impugned order be, therefore, stayed as it would have an effect on the other pending proceedings for extradition, whether by foreign states or by India.

7. Mr. Arshdeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/FC submits that an opportunity may be granted to counter all these submissions. The request is allowed. Counter affidavits be filed by the respondents before the next date of hearing with advance copies to the opposite side.

8. The respondent No.2/FC shall furnish bail bonds, on the same terms and conditions as furnished during the inquiry, to the satisfaction of the ACMM, within two days, failing which he shall be taken into judicial custody. Additionally, the respondent No.2/FC shall also surrender his W.P.(CRL) 495/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:08.03.2022 08:34:05 passport before the learned ACMM, in terms of the orders earlier passed by this court on 15th July, 2019.

9. List on 19th April, 2022.

10. Till the disposal of this petition, the observations in Para 56 of the impugned order shall have no bearing on any other case pertaining to extradition pending in any Court.

11. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the learned counsel through email, as also to the learned ACMM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

ASHA MENON, J MARCH 7, 2022/ak W.P.(CRL) 495/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:08.03.2022 08:34:05