SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.)
Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 1993{From the Judgment and Order dated December 14, 1990 of the Delhi High Court in, W.P. (Crl.) No. 692 of 1989}
ROSILINE GEORGE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
With
Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 1993
GEORGE KUTTY KUNCHERIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
And
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 97 of 1992
GEORGE KUTTY KUNCHERIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Criminal Appeal Nos. 631 and 632 of 1993 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 97 of 1992, decided on October 11, 1993
Advocates appeared
R.K. Garg and G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocates (Ms Lily Thomas, Advocate, with them) for the Appellant/Petitioner;
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General (A.K. Srivastava, K. Swamy, P. Parameswaran, Ms Sushma Suri and M.T. George, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14, 372(1) , 11 , 32 , 2 and 3 - Extradition Act, 1962 - Sections 5, 2(d) 3 and 3(3) - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 177, 188 and 190 - Indian Independence Act, 1947 - Section 18(3) - Forgery and embezzlement - Warrant for Georges arrest - Embassy of the United States of America in its letter of request indicate while employed as an officer of Chase Manhattan Bank in New York, George defrauded and embezzled from the bank more than one million dollars - He caused - Means of forgery and embezzlement - Funds to be transferred by wire out of United States, to United Arab Emirates, where he claimed the alleged ill-gotten gains - George is subject of indictment No. S- CRC-returned in the United States District Court for the Southern District charging him with two counts of embezzlement, two counts of forgery, two counts of fraud by a banker, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of transportation of stolen money in foreign commerce and two counts of receiving stolen money - Warrant for Georges arrest was issued US Magistrate – Held, Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into offence if it had been an offence committed within local limits of his jurisdiction - It is not disputed offences alleged to have been committed by George in the letter of request by the State of America would, if committed in the local limits of Magistrate, have given the Magistrate jurisdiction to inquire into the same Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case. Section 5 of 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 proceedings under the Act – Court see no force in contention of the learned counsel and reject the same - Criminal appeals are dismiss
Judgment
KULDIP SINGH, J.- Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
2. George Kutty Kuncheria, an Indian national, is wanted in the United States of America to stand trial for violation of Federal Fraud Statutes and related offences. The Embassy of the United States of America in New Delhi sent a letter of request dated September 20, 1988 to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, for the extradition of George to the United States. The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (the Act) passed an order dated December 5, 1988 requesting the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi (the Magistrate), to conduct an inquiry into the matter under the Act. Rosiline, wife of George, challenged the extradition proceedings by way of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated December 14, 1990. The two appeals by way of special leave filed by Rosiline and George, are against the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by George challenging the extradition proceedings on various grounds.
3. The facts as disclosed by the Embassy of the United States of America in its letter of request indicate that while employed as an officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York, George defrauded and embezzled from the bank more than one million dollars. He caused - by means of forgery and embezzlement - the funds to be transferred by wire out of the United States, to the United Arab Emirates, where he claimed the alleged ill-gotten gains. George is the subject of indictment No. S-88 CRC-461 returned on August 16, 1988 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) charging him with two counts of embezzlement, two counts of forgery, two counts of fraud by a banker, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of transportation of stolen money in foreign commerce and two counts of receiving stolen money. A warrant for Georges arrest was issued on August 16, 1988, by the US Magistrate of the above court.
4. In support of the United States request for extradition of George, an original set of documents, duly certified and authenticated, was transmitted along with the said letter. The details of the documents are as under:
(i) Certificate of authentication by the Attorney General of the United States by affixing the seal of the Department of Justice.
(ii) Certification by the Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, certifying that the judicial certificate of authentication, affidavits, exhibits and attachments are all original and have been offered in support of the United States request for the extradition of George.
(iii) Prosecutors affidavit in support of request for extradition.
(iv) Exhibit 1 to the prosecutors affidavit is a certified true copy of the indictment No. S-88 CRC-461 which was filed against George on August 16, 1988, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
(v) Exhibit 2 to the prosecutors affidavit is a certified true copy of the warrant of arrest issued for George by the embassy concerned.
(vi) Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the prosecutors affidavit are affidavits of witnesses relating to the indictment against George. Each of these exhibits is a true copy of the original affidavit which has been filed and is part of the official court record in this case. Exhibits 3. 4, 5 and 6 have been sworn to before the United States District Court Judge.
(vii) Exhibit 8 to the prosecutors affidavit consists of true copies of the relevant statutes of the United States which were in effect at the time of the alleged offences.
(viii) Certification by the Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, United States Department of Just
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.