IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Majibullah Mohammad Haneef - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(Cr) 275 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 27212 of 2023 (directions), Cr.M.A. 28432 of 2023 (directions)
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Extradition - Offence - Extradition Act 1962, Extradition Treaty - Article 302-A of the Penal Code of Oman - Section 34-B of the Extradition Act - Dual Criminality - Fair Trial - Authentication of Documents
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, India, was working in the Sultanate of Oman as a labourer. He was accused of premeditated murder felony punishable under Article 302-A of the Penal Code of Oman. The Respondent sought extradition of the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted by the learned ACMM, who recommended extradition. The petitioner challenged the order and sought to lead defence evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence constituted an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than one year in both India and Oman, satisfying the principle of 'Dual Criminality'. A prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, and the documents submitted by the Requesting State were duly authenticated. The court also found that the offence for which extradition was sought was not a political offence, and there was no basis to state that the petitioner would not receive a fair trial in the Requesting State. The court upheld the impugned order recommending extradition.
Issues: The issues included the satisfaction of 'Dual Criminality', authentication of documents, fair trial in the Requesting State, and compliance with Section 34-B of the Extradition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the standard of proof in an extradition inquiry is not of the same level as that required in a trial. The inquiry focused on determining whether the offence was of a political character, whether it was an extraditable offence, whether a prima facie case existed against the FC, and whether the extradition request and documents were duly authenticated. The court also highlighted the importance of seeking assurances about fair trial and legal aid in the Requesting State.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order recommending extradition of the petitioner to the Sultanate of Oman.
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his extradition by the Respondent/Union of India (Requested State) to the Sultanate of Oman (Requesting State).
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner being a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh, India was working as a labourer in Bidiyah, the Sultanate of Oman.
2.2. On 31st July, 2019, Bidiyah Police Station received a report that one Omani national along with his wife and three minor children was found dead at his home. On preliminary investigation, the authorities in Oman found finger prints and DNA samples of the petitioner along with that of the other Fugitive Criminals (FCs) being, Garibulla Mohammad Haneef, Nashibullah Mohammad Haneef and Abdullah Mohammad Haneef. As per the preliminary investigation, all the aforesaid four FCs were found to have committed offences of premeditated murder felony punishable under Article 302-A of the Penal Code of Oman. Subsequently, all the aforesaid FCs absconded from Oman to India.
2.3. Vide email dated 5th August, 2019, a request for provisional arrest of all the FCs was made on behalf of the Requesting State in terms of Article 11 of the Extradition Treaty between the Republic of India and the Sultanate of Oman (Extradition Treaty). Pursuant to the same, an application under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962 (Extradition Act) was moved by the Respondent for issuing provisional arrest warrants against the FCs. Vide order dated 17th August, 2019, arrest warrants were issued against the FCs through CBI Interpol and the petitioner was arrested on 12th September, 2019.
2.4. In the meantime, the Requesting State sent a formal request for extradition of all the four FCs vide Note Verbale No. 5200/22230/306 dated 20th September, 2019 along with the original supporting documents to the Respondent. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 23rd October, 2019, the Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India made a request under Section 5 of the Extradition Act for an inquiry to be conducted by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM-01), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Since the remaining FCs could not be apprehended, the inquiry proceeded against the present petitioner.
2.5. Before the learned ACMM, one witness, being the Deputy Secretary (Extradition), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India was examined on behalf of the Respondent as CW-1 in support of the request for extradition. CW-1 exhibited the following documents received from the Requesting State:"
i. Ex. CW 1/A: Extradition treaty between Government of India and the Sultanate of Oman;
ii. Ex. CW 1/B: Order bearing No. T-413/64/2019, dated 23.10.2019;
iii. Ex. CW 1/C: Note Verbale bearing no. 5200/222000/306 dated 20.09.2019;
iv. Ex. CW 1/D:Details of the Fugitive Criminals and the (28 pages) brief facts of the incident;
v. Ex. CW 1/E-1: Finger Prints and Photograph of FC Majibullah Mohd. Haneef;
vi. Ex. CW 1/F-1: Arrests Warrants issued against FC Majibullah Mohd. Haneef;
vii. Ex. CW 1/G: Translated Crime Report;
viii. Ex. CW 1/H-1: Autopsy report of Hamoud Nasser Hassan Al Balushi (Male);
ix. Ex. CW 1/H-2: Autopsy report of Rahma Salem Abdullah Al Balushi (Female);
x. Ex. CW 1/H-3: Autopsy report of Abdul Karim Hamoud Naseer Hassan Al Balushi (Male);
xi. Ex. CW 1/H-4: Autopsy report of Ibrahim Hamoud Nasser Hassan AI Balushi (Male);
xii. Ex. CW 1/H-5: Autopsy report of Hamza Hamoud Nasser Hassan Al Balushi (Male);
xiii. Ex. CW 1/J: Tool report;
xiv. Ex. CW 1/K (colly): Technical Report of the Crime Scene including Photographs;
xv. Ex. CW 1/L: Note Verbale no. 5200/22230/331, dated 09.10.2019;
xvi. Ex. CW 1/M: Response to the queries made to the Requesting State;
xvii. Ex. CW 1/N: Comparison result of photographs of FC (11 pages) Majibullah;
xviii. Ex. CW 1/O: An application for placing additional documents provided by the Requesting State;
xix. Ex. CW 1/P: The case summary (supp
The judgment established the importance of 'Dual Criminality', authentication of documents, and seeking assurances about fair trial and legal aid in the Requesting State in extradition cases.
The sufficiency of evidence for extradition proceedings and the limited scope of the court's inquiry in extradition cases.
The main legal point established is the application of the dual criminality principle and the authentication of extradition documents under the Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty.
Extradition cannot proceed under the Extradition Act if the accused faces pending charges in India, as mere bail does not constitute discharge.
Extradition Treaty - Restrictions on surrender - Request of the Petitioner- accused, for an expedited surrender and extradition, cannot be allowed, until the Petitioner continues to be an accused in ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.