9911796707
TMI Blog1950 (3) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce had declined to surrender Birma to the U. P. Govt., but when he received an order from the Legal Remembrancer to the United States of Matsya be caused Birma to be arrested on 9-1-1950, for being surrendered to the U. P. Govt. 3. It has been argued by the advocate of the petnr. that there is no law in force in the area of the Dholpur State relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals. The Dist. Mag , Dholpur, had,. therefore, no authority to order his arrest or surrender. 4. It is further alleged that there was a treaty entered into between the British Govt. the authorities of the Dholpur State regarding extradition of the fugitive criminals but it was not in corporate in any law that treaty cannot, therefore, be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in general, though subsequent ratification by the sovereign power is usual. Where the agents are acting under a limited authority, the agreements come to are usually termed sponsions, must be either tacitly or explicitly ratified by the sovereign power in the respective States. The Great Seal of the United Kingdom is to be used for; sealing all treaties with foreign princes States. 679. Parliamentary Sanction to 'Treaties.- Treaties thus concluded are in general binding upon the subject without express parliamentary sanction; but the previous Consent of, or subsequent ratification by, the legislature is legally necessary to their validity in certain cases. Thus, though treaties relating to war pence, the session of ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... war when in British ports . thus render them immune from actions brought by a Brush subject. Sir E. Phillimore held that the making of such a treaty was a user of the treaty-making power of the Crown without precedent, in principle contrary to the laws of the constitution (ibid., at p. 154). The judgment in this case was subsequently have, by the Ct. of Appeal, but upon other grounds. In Walker v. Baird, U892-A.O. 491:6l L. J. P. C. 92) an action was brought against an officer of the Crown for acts of interference with the pltf's. lobster fishery, the principle involved in the defence was that the Crown could bind its subjects by treaty (at any rate when made to put an end to war or to prevent war), that it is an offence by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 3-2-1915. It is unfortunate that in a matter like extradition there should have been no law exp: expressly brought into force in Mewar The law of extradition was stated by Lord Russel C. J. in Re; Arton (1896) 1 Q. B. (No. I), 108 : (65 L. J. M. C. 23) at p. 1112. 'The law of extradition is without doubt founded upon the broad principle that it is to the interest of civilised communities that crimes, acknowledged to be such should not go unpunished it is part of the comity of nations that one State should afford to another every assistance towards bringing persona guilty of such crimes to justice. But in the application of this principle in certain matters, such as the conditions upon which, and the class of crimes in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w will be sufficient only if the Municipal law of that State justified it. It appears that the Mewar Govt. have been acting for many years on the footing that the treaty the orders of Shriji operate as Municipal law. Even, the treaty with the British Govt. made on 16-12-1868 found in Aitcheson's Treaties. Vol. III p. 36 does not appear to have been brought into operation by legislative enactment. Under Article XXIV Clause 4 (1) of the Constitution all laws in force on the date of its promulgation have been continued as such after its promulgation, but in our opinion a practice of the kind aforesaid cannot be deemed to be a law which is continued by the Constitution. 11. It may be noted that the treaty between the British Govt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the petnr. under the provisions of this treaty cannot, therefore, be held valid, because it cannot be said to be according to procedure established by law. 12. The other argument of the learned counsel of the penr. might also be not without force that even supposing that the extradition treaty was good law the detention of the petnr cannot be justified under its terms, because under the terms of treaty only non. Dholpur State subjects could be surrendered if they took shelter within the territories of the Dholpur State after having committed an offence in the British territories, there is no provision whatsoever in the tready of surrender Of surrender of a Dholpur State subject. The petnr. was a subject of the Dholpur State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
