ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Omesh Chander Kashyap faced an enquiry before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in connection with his extradition to Canada and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 31.03.2015, after a full fledged enquiry under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’) recommended for the extradition of the petitioner to Canada, the requesting State. The Government of India through the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division (Externment Section), vide order dated 04.12.2015 communicated to the petitioner that the Central Government intends to accept the enquiry report of the learned Magistrate for extraditing the petitioner, and such intimation was in the nature of a notice to the petitioner to avail of his remedies as against such acceptance of the enquiry report for extraditing him.

2. By the present writ petition, the report of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 31.03.2015 under Section 7 of the Act and the decision of the Central Government to accept such report vide communication dated 04.12.2015 are sought to be quashed as being without application of mind and against the tenets of extradition laws.

3. The note verbal No.0004 dated 06.01.2003 from the Canadian High Commission making a request for the extradition of the petitioner was received in the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Pursuant to such a request, the Government of India, in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Act, made a request to the learned ACMM-01 by letter dated 24.03.2003 to enquire into the case of the petitioner regarding his extradition. In the aforesaid note verbal No.0004 dated 06.01.2003 (Exh.CW-1/A), the following charges were levelled against the petitioner for his extradition to Canada:-

(i) Indecent assault on Maureen Williams between 29.12.1978 and 14.05.1980 near St.John’s, New foundland, attracting the offence under Section 149(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

(ii) During the same period, unlawful commission of acts of gross indecency with Maureen Williams, offending Section 157 of the Criminal Code of Canada;

(iii) Unlawfully committing sexual assault upon Tina Hollihan on or about 28.02.1990 which is contrary to Section 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada

(iv) Sexual assault on Mary Anne Thorne between 08.01.1990 and 07.03.1990 at St.John’s New foundland, which is an offence under Section 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

4. In support of the aforesaid charges, a number of documents were also sent to the Government of India which were, in turn, transmitted to the Court of learned ACMM holding enquiry against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner appeared before the learned ACMM and was granted interim bail on 11.07.2003 which was confirmed on 27.08.2003.

6. The learned ACMM, found that the offences listed by the Government of Canada were covered under Article 3 of the Extradition Treaty between Government of Canada and Government of India which came into force on 07.08.1987. The learned ACMM after examining one witness namely Sh.D.K.Ghosh, Consultant, Ministry of External Affairs and taking into account the documentary evidence including the affidavits of the victims, the documents brought on record by Sh.D.K.Ghosh and the statement of the petitioner as well as the documents brought on record by him came to the conclusion that prima facie, a case was made out for extradition of the petitioner to the requesting State for facing trial. As such by order dated 31.03.2015, the petitioner was recommended for his extradition to the requesting State.

7. The petitioner was informed of his right to file a written statement/representation in accordance with Section 7(4) of the Act, which the petitioner filed before the Central Government.

8. The petitioner had earlier challenged the enquiry report of the Magistrate before this Court vide Crl.M.C.No.1936/2015. In the