Judgment

Patanjali Sastri J. - This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court at Allahabad dismissing an application under Ss. 491 and 561A, Criminal P. C., for release of the appellant who was arrested in pursuance of an extradition warrant issued by the Regional Commissioner of the United State of Rajasthan who in the principal officer representing the Crown in the territory of that State.

2. The appellant who is a member of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service was appointed in 1948 to serve what was then known as the Tonk State in various capacities, and during such service he is alleged to have helped the Nawab in obtaining the sanction of the Government of India to the payment of Rs.14 lakhs to the Nawab out of the State Treasury for the discharge of his debts, and to have induced the Nawab by threats and deception to pay the appellant, in return for such help, sums totaling Rs. 3 lakhs on various dates. On these allegations the appellant is charged with having committed offences under S. 383 (Extortion and S. 420 (Cheating), Penal Code, which are extraditable offences under the Extradition Act, 1903 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The warrant was issued under S.7 of the Act to the District Magistrate Nainital where the appellant was residing after reverting to the service of the Uttar Pradesh Government, to arrest and deliver him up to the District Magistrate of Tonk.

3. The appellant s case is that the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was paid to him by the Nawab to be kept in safe deposit in a bank for the Nawab s use in Delhi, that no offence was committed and that the amount was returned when demanded by the authorities of the Tonk State. The warrant was issued mala fide on account of enmity. Various technical objections were also raised to the validity of the warrant and to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Nainital to take cognisance of the matter and arrest the appellant. The High Court overruled all the objections and dismissed the application for the release of the appellant.

4. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar contended that S. 7 of the Act under which the warrant purports to have been issued had no application to the case and that the entire proceedings before the Magistrate were illegal and without jurisdiction and should be quashed. Learned counsel, relying on S 18 of the Act which provides that nothing in Chapter (III which contains s. 7) shall "derogate from the provisions of any treaty for the extradition of offenders," submitted that the treaty entered into between the British Government and the Tonk State on 28th January 1869 although declared by S. 7, Indian Independence Act, 1947, to have lapsed as from 15th August 1947, was continued in force by the "Standstill Agreement" entered into on 8th August 1947, that that treaty exclusively governed all matters relating to extradition between the two States and that inasmuch as it did not cover the offences now charged against the appellant, no extradition of the appellant could be demanded or ordered.

5. The Attorney-General appearing for the Government advanced three lines of argument in answer to that contention. In the first place, the standstill agreements entered into with the various Indian States were purely temporary arrangements designed to maintain the status quo ante in respect of certain administrative matters of common concern pending the accession of those States to the Dominion of India, and they were superseded by the Instruments of Accession executed by the Rulers of three States. Tonk having acceded to the Dominion on 16th August 1947, the standstill agreement relied on by the appellant must be taken to have lapsed as from that date Secondly, the treaty was no longer subsisting and its execution because impossible, as the Tonk State ceased to exist politically and such sovereignty as it possessed was extinguished, when it covenanted with certain other States with the concurrence of the Indian Government,