Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1378 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Sharma
For the Respondents: Ankit Shah, Manan Mehta
A Red Corner Notice and subsequent extradition proceedings are legally valid when initiated against a fugitive accused of serious organized crime, smuggling, and money laundering, provided they are supported by a valid domestic arrest warrant and adhere to procedural safeguards, regardless of the inclusion of ancillary minor offences.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Red Corner Notice and Extradition proceedings - Petitioner sought cancellation of Red Corner Notice and withdrawal of extradition request claiming prohibition offences are not serious enough to warrant such actions - Court held that allegations involve organized crime syndicate, money laundering, and serious offences under IPC and special laws - Principles of dual criminality and extradition obligations are satisfied - Petitioner failed to establish mala fide intent or procedural irregularity. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 14)
(B) Red Corner Notice - Purpose - Court observed that the primary purpose is to locate and secure an offender who has absconded from the country to evade prosecution; it facilitates provisional arrest pending extradition proceedings. (Paras 4.2, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing numerous criminal cases including bootlegging, money laundering, and organized crime, challenged a Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol and associated extradition proceedings to the United Arab Emirates. The petitioner contended that the underlying offences (prohibition related) were not serious and did not meet the dual criminality threshold.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the criminal allegations against the petitioner involved severe charges including organized crime, forgery, and hawala transactions, which go beyond mere personal consumption of alcohol. All procedural requirements were followed by the state and central authorities, and the extradition process was in line with international treaty obligations.
Issues: Whether the issuance of a Red Corner Notice and the initiation of extradition proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, or procedurally flawed, and whether prohibition-related offences justify such international legal action.
Ratio Decidendi: A Red Corner Notice may be issued when it is supported by a valid domestic warrant and concerns significant criminal activities, provided that procedural safeguards are followed. The court reasoned that in the presence of serious underlying offences like money laundering and organized crime, such notices and extradition requests are legally maintainable and do not violate fundamental rights.
Result: Petition dismissed; Rule discharged.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges rcn and extradition, citing lack of serious crime. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. state contends high volume of serious criminal syndicate activities. (Para 4) |
| 3. court details factual gravity of organized crime syndicate charges. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legality of rcn upheld due to serious organized criminal charges. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule for the respective respondents.
1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to withdraw and cancel the Red Corner Notice issued against the petitioner and also to withdraw the extradition request made to the United Arab Emirates for the extradition of the petitioner forthwith, and further to bear all expenses incurred by the petitioner in securing his bail, including legal expenses, as well as all expenses likely to be incurred by the petitioner, including legal expenses, for the recovery of his and his guarantor’s passports.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the present petitioner has challenged the Red Corner Notice issued at the instance of the State against him, as well as the extradition proceedings initiated at the instance of the State, on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any serious offence or any social crime for which such Red Corner Notice can be issued. Insofar as the extradition proceedings are concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that 38 prohibition offences are registered against the petitioner. However, even on the face of it, prohibition offences are not treated as offences under the law of Dubai. In such circumstances, prohibition is no offence in Dubai, and therefore, the principle of “Dual criminality” is not attracted. Hence, issuance of the Red Corner Notice is impermissible, as prohibition offences do not fall within the category of “serious” or “cultural crimes.”
3.1 It is further submitted that, as per the Interpol guidelines regarding issuance of Red Corner Notices, as well as the provisions relating to extradition proceedings, no case is made out for issuance or publication of any Red Corner Notice against the present petitioner. The subsequent proceedings were initiated only after the petitioner travelled to Dubai in July 2022, and the Red Corner Notice has been issued in violation of the basic Interpol guidelines, in the absence of any serious or social crime. It is also contended that the extradition request made by the respondent authority to the United Arab Emirates is not permissible in law, and hence sending such request is per se illegal, arbitrary, and amounts to clear abuse of the process of law. Pursuant to the said extradition request, the petitioner was arrested in Dubai, released on bail, and his passport was confiscated by the UAE authorities.
3.2 The learned advocate further submitted that the respondent authority is acting with mala fide intent. Initially, in the press note, it was stated that 38 prohibition offences were registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, in the affidavit, the number was increased to 146 offences, and subsequently, it has now been stated that 153 offences are registered, including under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (“GUJCTOC”). It is further submitted that the earlier attempt at extradition was rejected on technical grounds. However, thereafter, the proceedings have been initiated only to scuttle the due process and to secure the presence of the petitioner by bypassing the prescribed procedure under Chapter VII of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the extradition proceedings have been moved with an ulterior motive. In view of the above, the learned advocate has prayed that the prese
