Back
Rules Nodal Agency Must Act on Arrest Warrants from Treaty States
The has laid down a clear procedure for Indian authorities when they receive an through from a treaty state, holding that the nodal agency cannot simply ignore such a warrant merely because no has been received.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. ruled that the wing (CBI-NCB) must immediately forward the warrant to both the Central Government and the jurisdictional Magistrate, enabling parallel action for the fugitive’s arrest.
A Fugitive’s Escape
The case arose from a commercial dispute between NRI businessman Rakhul Krishnan and Sreejith Vijayan. Krishnan claimed he had lent approximately 6 million UAE dirhams to Vijayan for a hotel business. When Vijayan failed to repay and returned to India, Krishnan initiated criminal proceedings in Dubai. The convicted Vijayan and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
With Vijayan having absconded from Dubai, the Dubai authorities issued an on , and transmitted it through to India’s nodal agency. However, Indian authorities took no action, citing the absence of a from the UAE.
A single judge of the High Court upheld this position, holding that an alone was insufficient for arrest and extradition. Krishnan appealed.
The Legal Tangle: Arrest vs Extradition
The key question before the Division Bench was whether Indian authorities could act on an warrant without a prior .
The Court carefully examined the , along with the . It drew a crucial distinction between arresting a fugitive in India and extraditing that person to the requesting state.
The Bench explained that while a through diplomatic channels is mandatory for surrendering a fugitive ( and ), no such requirement exists when the foreign state only seeks the immediate arrest of the fugitive.
“There is no necessity for a formal requisition from the foreign State if the urgent need of the foreign State is only for effecting an immediate arrest (without extradition) of the in the requested State,” the Court observed.
Clear Guidelines for the Nodal Agency
The Court then set out the specific steps the nodal agency must follow upon receiving an through from a treaty state.
First, the agency must forward the warrant to the Central Government (), which can then consider requesting a jurisdictional Magistrate to issue a under .
Second, and simultaneously, the agency must bring the warrant to the notice of the jurisdictional Magistrate, who can independently decide whether to issue an arrest warrant under .
The Bench emphasized that these two courses of action are not mutually exclusive and can run in parallel, particularly since the fugitive may abscond while the government channel is being processed.
“In any event, we are of the view that it was not open to the Nodal Agency to simply ignore the issued in relation to the 8th respondent without forwarding the said arrest warrant to the Central Government and to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned,” the Court held.
The only limitation, the Court clarified, is that the nodal agency cannot itself arrest a person based solely on an warrant; judicial authorization through a Magistrate is required.
The Broader Context
The judgment also discussed the international law principle of (extradite or prosecute), noting that the Extradition Treaty with the UAE reflects this obligation. The Court referenced the ’s decision in regarding the legal position on acting on international arrest warrants.
What the Court Ordered
Ultimately, the Division Bench found that the appeal had become infructuous due to the passage of time and the lack of any fresh extradition request from the UAE. The writ appeal was accordingly disposed of.
However, the Court took the opportunity to provide these guidelines for future cases, ensuring that fugitive criminals do not evade justice simply because of procedural inertia on the part of Indian authorities.
