The extradition proceedings required only a prima facie case to be established, and the petitioner's claim of lack of disclosure did not amount to a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Code”) praying for mandamus to the respondents to make full disclosure of the evidence collected during investigation of the crime of rape registered against the petitioner in London.

Factual Matrix

2. The facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner is a Portuguese national and a person of Indian Origin, who was born in Goa. He is accused of committing rape of a lady at a pub in London, United Kingdom on 28th May 2017. The Petitioner came back to India on 5th June 2017. The petitioner was subsequently charged with the offence of rape under Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 of UK. Arrest Warrant was issued against the petitioner on 11th June 2019.

3. On 18th September 2020, upon receipt of the request for extradition, and having been satisfied as to the extraditability of the offence, the Government of India, on 22nd March 2021, ordered magisterial inquiry under Section 5 of the Extradition Act of 1962 before the Court of ACMM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to inquire into the extradition request as to the extraditability of the offence in terms of the Extradition Act, 1962 and the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

4. On 26th March 2021, Extradition proceedings were initiated in a Complaint Case bearing No. 690 of 2021 against the petitioner in the Court of Learned ACMM, wherein, later on, an NBW was issued against the Petitioner on 3rd June 2021. On 9th October 2021, the petitioner engaged a Counsel and made representations to the Governments of India, the UK and Portugal.

5. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner had also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 vide Writ Petition No. 474 of 2021, on which an order passed on 3rd December, 2021, dismissing the petition as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedies. On 30th December 2021, the petitioner also made an application before the European Court of Human Rights seeking evidence and documents gathered against the petitioner by the police in the UK.

6. Thus, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the initiation of Extradition Proceedings against him in the Court of the Ld. ACMM, Patiala House Courts, has approached this Court for directions to the respondents to make full disclosure of the evidence collected during investigation of the crime of rape registered against the petitioner in London.

Submissions

7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that in the present case evidence produced or information supplied is not sufficient in order to enable a decision to be taken as to the extradition request and therefore prays that this Court be pleased to issue writ to respondents to make full disclosure of evidence collected during investigation in London, U.K.

8. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not been provided with medical evidence, forensic evidence, CCTV footage, audio recordings of the interviews taken by the UK Police, details of call(s) made to the UK Police and, formal police complaint, record of seizure of articles, Details of incident of brawl done by Danny and any other evidence related to the crime.

9. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner stated that the deposition of the complainant does not carry substantive evidentiary value as it is akin to the statement made under Section 161 of the Code. It is also submitted that the petitioner was kept in the dark and it was only after the expiry of four years that he was informed of the proceedings against him. It is also alleged that this is a false case lodged against the petitioner at the behest of the complainant and is racially motivated.

10. It is also submitted that, in a separate matter, an