The Magistrate conducting an extradition enquiry has the power to consider the documents provided by the requesting state and form a prima facie opinion on the case. The term 'evidence' in the Extradition Act should be interpreted in the context of the Act itself, and not strictly according to the Indian Evidence Act.

S. B. SINHA, J

( 1 ) LEAVE granted. Introduction

( 2 ) THE scope and ambit of the provisions of International Treaty vis-a-vis the Extradition Act, 1962 is involved in the present appeal. Background Facts

( 3 ) APPELLANT herein is said to be an Indian citizen. He allegedly holds an Indian Passport. He, however, indisputably is a resident of united States of America. Allegedly he had been running an event management company and promoting clubs into organizing entertainment, cultural events and shows in various parts of the United states of America for a long time.

( 4 ) THE Government of the United States of America made a formal request to the Government of India for his extradition alleging that the appellant had conspired in aiding and abetting the sale and supply of mdma, a controlled substance and other offensive substances. He is said to be one of the members of a criminal organization involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. His organization has been found to be responsible for distributing millions of tablets of MDMA and laundering millions of dollars in drug proceeds. The organization is said to have purchased large quantities of MDMA from various sources in Netherlands and obtained them in USA through couriers and exchanged them for cash to be distributed to the lower levels of the organization, who in turn, would sell MDMA to buyers/consumers in houston.

( 5 ) UNITED States of America is a Treaty State. An Extradition treaty was entered into between the Government of the Republic of india and the Government of the United States of America on or about 21st July, 1999. Proceedings

( 6 ) A warrant of arrest is said to have been issued by the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Housing Division for the arrest of the appellant. Pursuant to the request made by the government of the United States of America, he was arrested on 10th november, 2002. The Government of India in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') made a request to the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, New Delhi, to make an enquiry in respect of the alleged offences levelled against him. He was produced before the said court. The documents appended to the formal request for extradition containing 154 pages were supplied to him. He was granted an opportunity to file written statement.

( 7 ) ON the premise that the said formal request did not satisfy the requirements of Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty as well as Section 7 of the Act, he filed an application for supply of deficient documents and requested supply of copies thereof to lead his defence. He also filed an application for adjourning the case for three weeks to engage a counsel. According to him, he felt handicapped having not been supplied with the statute of the US Sec 846. Affidavit affirmed by one Merietta I. Geckos and enclosed with the extradition request did not contain any document in support of the statement made in the said affidavit in which he had stated about the arrest of few alleged co-defendants, but no arrest memo or transcribes of the alleged conversations with the appellant which had led to their arrest had been annexed with the affidavit. His request to supply copies of the documents however, was declined by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 1st April, 2003.

( 8 ) EXTRADITION enquiry was directed to proceed only on the documents filed by the respondent in the trial court subject to all legal consequences. By reason of an order dated 4th February, 2004 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recommended the extradition of the appellant to United States of America. A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the said order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. Contentions

( 9 ) MR. Viswanathan, l