Extradition Act | Magistrate Holding Enquiry Need Not Be The One Within Whose Jurisdiction The Fugitive Was Apprehended: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended. Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court...
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended.
Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court had observed as under:
It is obvious from the plain language of Section 5 of the Act that the Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided the said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.....The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, Section 5 of the said code gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and 190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act.
In the present case, the petitioner was arrested by CBCID, Thanjavur Police for his alleged criminal activities on 08.07.2010 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru and thereafter remanded to judicial custody and lodged in Central Prison, Trichy. The Republic of Singapore made a request to the Central Government for the presence of the petitioner for prosecuting him. Based upon the request, the government requested the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Patiala, House Courts, New Delhi to inquire into the extradition by determining whether a prima facie case exists in terms of Extradition Act, 1962 and other applicable laws. This order was under challenge before the High Court.
The main contention of the petitioner was that since he does not know Hindi, the enquiry relating to extradition proceedings, if any, would be prejudicial to him. On the other hand, the criminal proceedings in Tamil Nadu are being conducted in Tamil pursuant to the Tamil Nadu Official Languages Act, 1956.
He also contended that he was being mistaken for one Durairaj who is alleged to have committed some offence in Singapore and that his name was Ramesh. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is violative of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be set aside.
The Standing Counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner coukd not contend and demand that he should be enquired by the Judicial Magistrate in the State of Tamil Nadu. This was because the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, is a special enactment and it has overriding effect over the other enactments. He also contended that the power of the government to appoint any magistrate under the Act cannot be restricted to the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is alleged to have been apprehended.
The court agreed with the above submission and in view of the above Supreme Court decision, dismissed the plea citing that it was devoid of any merits.
Case Title: S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another
Case No: W.P.(MD).No.13937 of 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Karunanithi
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.Murugappan (R1)