Accused Can Be Tried For Offences For Which Extradition Is 'Sought': ED Opposes Bail Of Christian Michel In VVIP Chopper Scam
The Delhi High Court today continued hearing the Enforcement Directorate in the bail application filed by Christian Michel James booked for money laundering in connection with the in the VVIP Chopper Scam.The Bench of Justice Manoj Ohri heard Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the agency, who countered the submission of the Applicant's counsel that an Italian court had exonerated Michel...
The Delhi High Court today continued hearing the Enforcement Directorate in the bail application filed by Christian Michel James booked for money laundering in connection with the in the VVIP Chopper Scam.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Ohri heard Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the agency, who countered the submission of the Applicant's counsel that an Italian court had exonerated Michel of all charges as it had ruled on similar law issues.
The ASG said that the principle of issue estoppel was not applicable as the Italian Court proceedings did not involve the "same parties" to this case, viz., the Applicant and the Enforcement Directorate. He cited the Supreme Court case Pyara Singh v. State of Punjab (1969) to back his submission.
Next, the ASG countered the Applicant's submission that the PMLA charge could not be tried by the Indian courts as he had been extradited vide an Extradition Decree under the Extradition Treaty with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on different charges viz. bribery.
The ASG cited Article 17 of the Extradition Treaty, as follows: "The person to be extradited shall not be tried or punished in the requesting except for the offence for which his extradition is sought or for offences connected therewith, or offences committed after his extradition."
Emphasizing the word "sought", ASG submitted that the offense for which he was "sought" is the applicable basis for which the bail application is to be decided. Distinguishing it from the offence for which India was granted the extradition, Raju urged the Court to appreciate observations in the Supreme Court case of Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India (2001).
Supporting the ASG's case, the CBI's counsel DP Singh urged the Court to interpret the Treaty in a purposive light consistent with Indian statutes and the Daya Singh case. ASG submitted that money laundering also being a connected offence to the one for which Michel was extradited, the Court must try the Applicant for the same.
At the outset, ASG Raju had submitted that the bail application must be rejected, giving way to the PMLA proceedings. This was due to the seriousness of the charges viz. tinkering with national security and defense by procuring helicopters over huge amounts of bribes.
Advocate Aljo K. Joseph, representing Michel, advanced a new counter to the ASG's submissions citing Article 2 of the Extradition Treaty. Article 2 states that "Persons accused of an offence punishable under the laws of both the Contracting States by imprisonment for a period of one year or more." Citing the absence of Money Laundering as a charge in the Extradition Decree, he maintained that the Court should not try the proceedings.
The Court will continue hearing on February 10.
Previously, ED had argued that post the 2018 amendment to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, the rigours of bail will apply to Michel. He had pointed that since the amendment has not been struck off, it cannot be watered down.
ED has also opposed the bail on the grounds of misrepresentation, false statements and interfering with crucial defence equipment.
Case Details
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Citation: BAIL APPLN. 2566/2021
Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Date of Order: 8.2.2022