Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHARLES GURMUKH SOBHRAJ - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 224 of 1985
Decided On : 12/12/1985
Held, that extradition can be sought either in terms of the treaty or on reciprocal arrangement. These are essentially sovereign acts and the guarantee is the reciprocity and the undertaking fetched by the requesting State. There is no regular method of enforcement of international treaty obligations. The only guarantee is the solemn pledge by one sovereign state to another and the moral binding and the fear of loss of credibility. Under these circumstances, the petitioner that the Government of Thailand may back out of it of the view that this undertaking can be deemed to be an agreement in so far as the petitioner is concerned and we find no basis for the apprehension expresses us.
(ii) Extradition Act, 1962-Section 7-Enquiry by Magistrate in the same manner and with similar powers and jurisdiction as if the case were one triable by the Court of Sessions or High Court-Whether Magistrate as such ought to be Session Judge and the enquiry made by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is with out jurisdiction? (No)
Held that sub-section (1) of section 7 makes it clear that an enquiry has to be made by a Magistrate. It also says that this enquiry shall be made in the same manner and the Magistrate shall have same powers and jurisdiction as nearly as may be, as if the case were one triable by the Court of Sessions or High Court. The words "as nearly as may be" are significant. In sub-section (2) of section 7 it is, however, made clear as to what the Magistrate has to do is to take evidence in support of requisition and the, evidence of the fugitive offender if he so desires. We may also state that the petitioner was not facing a trial in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. That court was only holding an enquiry pursuant to an order of the Central Government issued under section 5 of the Extradition Act to find out whether there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for extradition to Thailand. The provision very clearly relates only to the mode of conducting an enquiry and not the applicability of Criminal Procedure Code in toto.
(iii) Extradition Act, 1962-Sections 7 and 10 (1)-Enquiry by Magistrate in the case of fugitive criminal for extradition-Evidence submitted by requesting State i.e. translated documents and depositions without certifying to be correct translations-Admissibility of-Documents as such held admissible being authenticated by Government of Thailand seal duly certified by the Indian Embassy.
( 1 ) IN pursuance of the requisition from the State of Thailand for extradition of Mr. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj for facing trial and punishment in Thailand for the alleged offences of murder, attempt to murder, theft, receiving stolen property, forgery and using forged documents in Thailand, the Government of India issued an order dated 10111-1-1985 requesting Mr. Subhash Wason, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, to hold an enquiry into the alleged offences and to submit a report under section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962. The fugitive offender was brought before him and after holding an enquiry as envisage under section 7 of the aforesaid Act a report dated 28-9-1985 was submitted to the Government of India holding that there was a prima-facie case against the fugitive offender. In all there were five cases but Shri D. Goverdhan, counsel representing the Government of Thailand, made a statement that he does not want to press the extradition on the basis of all the cases and he sought extradition mainly in two cases which are known as "lapthornes" case and "wang NOI" case.
( 2 ) IN the WANG NOI CASE the allegations against the fugitive offender are that on December 11, 1975, Mr. H. Bintanja and Miss Cocky Henken came to Thailand by air and both of them filled up disembarcation cards, that they would stay at Asia Hotel but they did not stay there. Instead, they stayed with Mr. Alian Gauthier, one Miss Marie Androe Larc and Mr. Ajay Chaudhary at Kanit appartment housed at Salabeeng Road, Bangkok in room No. 503. Both of them thereafter were not seen coming out of their appartment tor five days and were lying sick in room No. 503. It is further alleged that during this period Mr. Alian Gauthier prevnted other persons from seeing or visiting Mr. H. Bintanja and Miss Cocky Henken so much so that even the cleaning of the room was prevented. During the night of December 15116 of 1975 at about 00. 02 hours Mr. Alian Gauthier and Mr. Ajay Chaudhary took Mr. H. Bintanja and Miss Cocky Henken out of the Kenit appartment by a motor car and by putting them on the back seat in a manner as if they were sleeping. On the following day i. e. 16th December, 1975 at about 00. 09 hours Mr. Alian Gauthier and Mr. Ajay Chaludhary returned back, both of them had their legs spashed with mud from their shoes upto their knees and had with them a rubber hose with smell of oil. The daily newspaper on that day published the news of foreigners having been killed by soaking with oil and burning them. This incident took place by the side of Paholyothin Road, Wangnoi. The case came to be investigated and it was revealed that Mr. Alian Gauthier and his accomplice murdered the two victims and fled from Thailand. The search made. by the Thailand police at the room of Mr. Alian Gauthier at Kanit Appartment resulted in the discovery of belongings of both the victims. This was two days after the murder. Mr. Alian Gauthier and Miss Monique forged their Victims passport by taking out the photos of deceased and by replacing these with their own photographs and thereafter presenting the same to the immigration Officials at Donmuang Airport and made their trip to Kathmandu, Nepal.
( 3 ) IN this case English translation of the depositions of police Capt. Chitti Pannopas. Mrs. Nadine Giress, a French national, Mr. Giree Remy Andre Raymond, again a French national and husband of the preceding witness, Mr. Paitoon Swasdee, who at the relevant time was working at the Kanit appartment, Mrs. Boonnuang Yukuntom, a room cleaner at Kaint appartment, Mr. Sanong Wattananakorn, Mr. Sambat Pohjaksu, Mr. Jon Yusabai, Mr. Patanasek Kritramruang, Miss Pinant Krajangsri, Miss Vimol Sae Tae, Miss Sompong Chaipong, Mr. Eric Damour, again a French national, Mr. Tate Bruno, another French national, were placed before the learned Magistrate who acting under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Extradition Act received these depositions in evidence and after a caref
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
