Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Rahul Saraf – Petitioner
Versus
UOI & Anr. – Respondents
W.P(CRL) 1132 of 2017 & CRL.M.A.6387 of 2017 (Stay)
Decided On : 10-10-2017
For the Petitioner: Dr. A.M. Singhvi & Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Anish Dayal, Mr. S.K. Singhi, Mr. Chayan Sarkar, Mr. Karan Bindra, Mr. Arjit Pratap Singh, Ms. Rupam Sharma, Mr. Jaideep Maheshwari, Mr. Ritul Tandon & Mr. Anupam, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Satya Prakash Singh & Mr. Anoop Yadav, Advs. along with Mr. Khem Singh (Officer) Mr. Nikhil Goel, Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Adv. for CBI.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - LEGAL ASSISTANCE - MLAT - SOVEREIGNTY - EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - SECTION 166B CRPC - SECTION 105C CRPC - CHAPTER VIIA CRPC - ARTICLE 1, 2 & 3 MLAT - ARTICLE 12 RUSSIAN CRIMINAL CODE - Held, that the Central Government is duty bound to comply with the request at its end. It is also submitted that in International law, the increasing trans border conflicts require that such information which can mutually assist sovereign countries be provided.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide W.P(Crl) No.2572/2016 seeking quashing of the request for legal assistance dated 18.09.2015 issued by the Russian Federation to the Union of India and restraining the respondents from taking any action or steps in furtherance of such a letter of request. Similar such prayer, as has been made in the present petition, viz. restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner, was also made in the aforesaid petition.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner has been made known the interrogatories which he is required to answer. Since Section 166B falls in Chapter XII of the Code, the petitioner cannot claim that any one of his rights have been violated. The CBI in the present case is not conducting any investigation.
Issues: Whether the Central Government ought to have applied its mind before forwarding the request to the CBI and finally every treaty is based on the principle of reciprocity and if Indian laws do not provide for extra territorial operation of Indian law, the same principle of reciprocity should be invoked and only those requests should be entertained which can possibly be, under certain circumstances, made by India.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 166B is clear in its import. Any time, upon a request by a foreign Court or authority requesting for examination of any person or production of any document or thing in relation to an offence under investigation in that country or place, the Central Government is required to act on it as it thinks fit. All the evidences taken or collected under this Section is required to be transmitted to the Court or the authority issuing the letter of request.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed but without costs.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing/recalling of the proceedings initiated by the respondents pursuant to the request for legal assistance dated 18.08.2016 and request for supplementary legal assistance dated 06.09.2016 as well as the letters issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 29.01.2017 and 27.01.2017 issued by the CBI (respondent No.2) and for setting aside of any proceedings initiated pursuant to Note Verbale No.175 dated 08.02.2016 and Note Verbale No.1206-K dated 20.10.2016 issued by the Embassy of Russian Federation for legal assistance in connection with Criminal Case No.385014. A further prayer has been made in the present writ petition for restraining the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the indictment order dated 06.06.2016, passed by the Special Investigator of the Investigative Department of Major Investigations, Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would first be necessary to set out in brief the occasion for preferring the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide W.P(Crl) No.2572/2016 seeking quashing of the request for legal assistance dated 18.09.2015 issued by the Russian Federation to the Union of India and restraining the respondents from taking any action or steps in furtherance of such a letter of request. Similar such prayer, as has been made in the present petition, viz. restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner, was also made in the aforesaid petition.
4. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, a bench of this Court took note of the fact that upon receipt of the request for legal assistance, the Central Government directed the CBI to act in terms of the treaty and consequent thereto, the CBI had issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C on 14.07.2016 and 04.08.2016 to the petitioner. On receipt of the aforesaid notices, the petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court vide W.P(Crl) No.2422/2016 challenging the aforesaid notices on the ground that the petitioner was absolutely unaware of the nature, purport and content of the case initiated in Russia which was being investigated and that he would be entitled to the disclosure of the information regarding the nature of the case and the allegations, if any, made against him. The aforesaid writ petition [W.P(Crl) No.2422/2016] was disposed of on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the CBI that it had no objection in providing the gist of the case to the petitioner which actually was contained in the background note of the request for legal assistance. The concession by the CBI however, did not extend to the sharing of the interrogatories with the petitioner in advance. The petitioner was required to answer them only after his personal appearance. The petitioner was provided with the background note but he reserved his rights to contest the matter later, should the situation so demand. Thereafter, W.P(Crl) No.2572/2016 was filed, but with the same ground that the petitioner was still in the dark about the nature of accusation against him.
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the respondents received Note Verbale No.175 dated 08.02.2016 which was placed on record and a copy of the same was also furnished to the petitioner. The aforesaid Note Verbale contained indictment order dated 06.06.2017 and the interrogatories which the petitioner was to answer. The stand of the CBI before the High Court was that it was not interested in interrogating the petitioner and that the petitioner was required to answer the interrogatories in writing which would, then be transmitted to the Russian Federation. The Court, therefore, was of the view that no grievance of the petitioner survived for passing any order in the aforesaid writ petition. The Court extracted the indictment order and held that the case before the Russian Federati
