2001 (4) TMI 913 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of Indian Criminal Courts in trying offences not included in the Extradition Decree.
2. Validity of FIR and charge sheet for offences not mentioned in the Extradition Decree.
3. Jurisdiction of Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
4. Applicability of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962.
5. Doctrine of Speciality in International Law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Indian Criminal Courts in trying offences not included in the Extradition Decree:

The petitioner contended that the Indian Criminal Courts lack jurisdiction to try offences not specified in the Extradition Decree issued by the United States District of Texas Fort Worth Division. The decree, under the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland with the Government of Republic of India, specified the offences for which the petitioner could be tried. The Supreme Court affirmed that a fugitive brought into India under an Extradition Decree can only be tried for the offences mentioned in the Extradition Decree, and not for any other offence, as per Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962.

2. Validity of FIR and charge sheet for offences not mentioned in the Extradition Decree:

The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR and charge sheet against him for offences not included in the Extradition Decree of the USA Court. The Supreme Court held that the trial for offences not mentioned in the Extradition Decree would contravene Section 21 of the Extradition Act and the provisions of International Law, specifically the Charter of Extradition Treaty. Therefore, the FIR and charge sheet for such offences were invalid.

3. Jurisdiction of Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:

The Special Leave Applications challenged the Rajasthan High Court's refusal to entertain a Habeas Corpus Petition regarding the jurisdiction of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The High Court had ruled that objections to the jurisdiction could be raised under Section 18 of the Act before the Designated Court itself, and a Writ of Habeas Corpus would not be appropriate. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue separately but focused on the broader context of the Extradition Act and the offences for which the petitioner could be tried.

4. Applicability of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962:

Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, restricts the trial of a person extradited to India to the offences for which they were extradited. The amended Act of 1993 allows for the trial of lesser offences disclosed by the facts proved or for offences with the consent of the foreign State. However, without such consent, it is not possible to try the fugitive for any other offence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 21 align with Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty, which prohibits trying an extradited person for any crime other than those for which extradition was granted until they have had an opportunity to return to the surrendering State.

5. Doctrine of Speciality in International Law:

The doctrine of speciality, a principle of international law, stipulates that an extradited person can only be tried for the specific offences for which they were extradited. This principle is reflected in Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act and is supported by international legal precedents, such as the United States Supreme Court decision in United States vs. Rauscher. The Supreme Court of India reiterated that an extradited fugitive cannot be tried for any offence other than the one for which they were extradited unless they have been restored to or have had an opportunity to return to the State which surrendered them.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that a fugitive brought into India under an Extradition Decree can only be tried for the offences mentioned in the Extradition Decree and for no other offence. The Criminal Courts of India do not have jurisdiction to try such a fugitive for any other offence. The Writ Petition and Special Leave Petitions were disposed of accordingly, affirming the principle of speciality and the restrictions imposed by Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962.