9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. 2. Jurisdiction of the Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. 3. Validity of the extradition request made by the Government of India. 4. Applicability of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, post-Indian independence. 5. Compliance with the Extradition Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Warrant Issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate: The Chief Presidency Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of More, believing there was prima facie evidence of his involvement in a criminal conspiracy. The warrant was forwarded to the Ministry of External Affairs for extradition purposes. The High Court held that the warrant was invalid because it was issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which was no longer applicable post-independence. However, the Supreme Court found that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had the authority to issue the warrant based on the evidence and that the procedure followed was not illegal or irregular. 2. Jurisdiction of the Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881: The Central Magistrate in Hong Kong endorsed the warrant and ordered More's arrest, stating that the warrant was issued by a lawful authority. More was arrested, and his objections regarding the jurisdiction were overruled. The Supreme Court noted that the Hong Kong Magistrate acted according to the municipal law of Hong Kong, and his actions could not be challenged in the Indian courts. 3. Validity of the Extradition Request Made by the Government of India: The Government of India, through the Ministry of External Affairs, made a requisition for More's extradition based on the warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The High Court questioned the validity of this request, citing the absence of a notified order under the Extradition Act, 1962. The Supreme Court, however, held that the extradition request was valid as it was made through diplomatic channels, and the Colonial Secretary of Hong Kong had the authority to act on it. 4. Applicability of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, Post-Indian Independence: The High Court had previously ruled that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, was inapplicable post-independence. The Supreme Court acknowledged this but noted that the Act continued to be honored by other Commonwealth countries. The Court cited previous cases where British courts complied with extradition requests from Commonwealth republics, indicating that the Act still had practical relevance. 5. Compliance with the Extradition Act, 1962: The Extradition Act, 1962, was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals. The High Court argued that the procedures under this Act were not followed, rendering the extradition request invalid. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a notification under the 1962 Act did not bar the Government of India from securing extradition through diplomatic channels. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed More's writ petition. The Court upheld the legality of the warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and validated the extradition request made through diplomatic channels. The judgment clarified that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, although not explicitly repealed, continued to be honored by other Commonwealth countries, and the procedures followed did not violate any laws.
|
