Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 482 - SUPREME COURTExtradition Act, 1962 - formal request for extradition did not satisfy the requirements of Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty as well as Section 7 of the Act - filed an application for supply of deficient documents and requested supply of copies thereof to lead his defence - declined by the learned Magistrate - legality and validity of the Order - recommended the extradition of the appellant to United States of America - Drug trafficking and money laundering - Sale and supply of MDMA - controlled substance and other offensive substances - Appellant is an Indian citizen - holds an Indian Passport - also a resident of United States of America - order of extradition on the basis of the material which would constitute 'evidence' and as some of the documents - HELD THAT:- In a proceeding for extradition no witness is examined for establishing an allegation made in the requisition of the foreign State. The meaning of the word "evidence" has to be considered keeping in view the tenor of the Act. No formal trial is to be held. Only a report is required to be made. The Act for the aforementioned purposes only confers jurisdiction and powers on the Magistrate which he could have exercised for the purpose of making an order of commitment. Although not very relevant, we may observe that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the powers of the committing Magistrate has greatly been reduced. He is now required to look into the entire case through a very narrow hole. Even the power of discharge in the Magistrate at that stage has been taken away. If evidence stricto sensu is required to be taken in an enquiry forming the basis of a prima facie opinion of the Court, the same would lead to a patent absurdity. Whereas in a trial the court for the purpose of appreciation of evidence may have to shift the burden from stage to stage, such a procedure is not required to be adopted in an enquiry. Even under the Code of Criminal Procedure existence of strong suspicion against the accused may be enough to take cognizance of an offence which would not meet the standard to hold him guilty at the trial. In a case of this nature the second part of Section 10 of the Act would apply which does not contemplate production of any oral evidence by the Central Government. No fact needs to be proved by evidence. What is necessary is to arrive at a prima facie case finding that a case has been made out for extradition from the depositions, statements, copies and other informations which are to be gathered from the official certification of facts and judicial documents that would include the indictment by the Grand Jury. Section 10 of the Act provides as to what would be received in evidence. The marginal note although may not be relevant for rendition of decisions in all types of cases but where the main provision is sought to be interpreted differently, reference to marginal note would be permissible in law. [See Deewan Singh and Ors. vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and Ors.[2007 (1) TMI 551 - SUPREME COURT]. The use of the terminology 'evidence' in Section 7 of the Act must be read in the context of Section 10 and not d'hors the same. It is trite that construction of a statute should be done in a manner which would give effect to all its provisions. Section 10 of the Act clearly provides that any exhibit or deposition which may be received in evidence need not be taken in the presence of the person against whom they are used or otherwise. It also contemplates the copies of such exhibits and depositions and official certificates of facts and judicial documents stating facts would, if duly authenticated, be received as evidence. We, therefore, are of the opinion that an information need not be a documentary evidence or an oral evidence as is understood under the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
|