SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA, J.
Samsung Gulf Electronics, FZE – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of External Affairs & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 867 of 2023 & CRL.M.A. 24921 of 2023
Decided on : 04-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Niraj Singh, Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar and Mr. Mridul S., Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC (criminal) for the State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Kamal Digpaul and Ms. Ishita Pathak, Advocates. Insp. Harish Chandra, EOW.

The court emphasized the necessity of adequate legal representation in extradition proceedings, affirming the victim's right to assist the prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Extradition proceedings - Petition seeking appointment of an advocate for prosecution in extradition request for accused Sukhmeet Singh Anand - First extradition request denied due to inadequate representation - Court directed authorities to appoint an advocate to pursue extradition effectively. (Paras 1, 16, 17, 19)

(B) Victim's Rights - The court recognized the victim's right to participate in criminal proceedings and assist the prosecution, emphasizing the importance of adequate legal representation in extradition matters. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ for the appointment of an advocate to assist in extradition proceedings against Sukhmeet Singh Anand, whose first extradition request was denied by the Spanish National Court due to lack of representation.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the Delhi Police to take necessary steps to appoint an advocate for the extradition proceedings within fifteen days.

Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of representation in extradition proceedings and the victim's right to assist in prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is the duty of the authorities to ensure effective legal representation in extradition requests, and the petitioner has the right to assist the prosecution.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the following prayers:-

“In light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass the following orders:

(a) An appropriate Writ of Mandamus or Writ/ Order/ Direction may kindly be passed directing the Respondent Authorities to appoint an Advocate for prosecution, of the request for extradition of Sukhmeet Singh Anand accused No. 5 in FIR no 93 of 2014 registered at PS Economic Offences Mandir Marg New Delhi, in Courts of Spain; AND (b) Any further Writ/ Orders/ Directions may also be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner a FIR bearing No. 93/2014 was registered at P.S. Economic Offence Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, under Sections 420/467/468/471/384/120B of the IPC. Thereafter, it is submitted that a chargesheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 07.11.2017. It is submitted that subsequently, Sukhmeet Singh Anand was apprehended by Interpol, Madrid, Spain in view of a Red Corner Notice. Thereafter, a proposal for extradition of the aforesaid Sukhmeet Singh Anand from the Kingdom of Spain to India was sent to the concerned authorities by the Ministry of External Affairs vide letter bearing no. T- 413/53/2016. It is submitted that the Spanish National Court, Criminal Division, Section Four denied the said extradition request. It is submitted that subsequently in November 2022 another request for extradition of the aforesaid Sukhmeet Singh Anand had been sent by the Delhi Police. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in order to avoid any further complication in the aforesaid extradition proceedings pending before the Kingdom of Spain, letters dated 18.02.2023 were sent to the respondents requesting for appointment of an Advocate on behalf of the Delhi Police, Government of India for prosecution with respect to the request for extradition of the aforesaid Sukhmeet Singh Anand. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the first extradition request was denied by the Spanish National Court due to lack of proper representation on behalf of the Delhi Police, inter alia, lack of assistance to the Courts in Spain for appreciation of documents rendering the presence of Sukhmeet Singh Anand imperative for his prosecution in India. It is stated that the aforesaid first request was denied mainly on the ground of res judicata and statutory limitation, which was contrary to the record. It is submitted that due to inadequate representation on behalf of the Indian authorities before the Learned Spanish Court, the latter was not clearly apprised of the facts of the case and the concerned queries were not clarified properly.

3. It was submitted that the letters dated 18.02.2023 to the respondents requesting for appointment of an Advocate, was replied to by respondent no.

4 vide its e-mail dated 20.02.2023 informing that the said request had been forwarded to respondent no. 5 for necessary action. It is stated that Ministry of External Affairs (Respondent no. 1) in its reply dated 07.03.2023 had categorically stated that Government of India would be represented by Spanish lawyers as being appointed by the Spanish Government before the Learned Spanish Courts with respect to the said extradition request.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Indian law permits complainant/complainant's counsel to assist the public prosecutor as envisaged under Section 301 (2) of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, in the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2019, the complainant/petitioner has been permitted to assist the prosecution/State. It was submitted that the fresh request for extradition of the aforesaid Sukhmeet Singh An

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top