LAWS(SC)-1950-5-7

RAM BABU SAKSENA Vs. STATE

Decided On May 05, 1950
RAM BABU SAKSENA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court at Allahabad dismissing an application under Ss. 491 and 561A, Criminal P. C., for release of the appellant who was arrested in pursuance of an extradition warrant issued by the Regional Commissioner of the United State of Rajasthan who in the principal officer representing the Crown in the territory of that State.

(2.) The appellant who is a member of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service was appointed in 1948 to serve what was then known as the Tonk State in various capacities, and during such service he is alleged to have helped the Nawab in obtaining the sanction of the Government of India to the payment of Rs.14 lakhs to the Nawab out of the State Treasury for the discharge of his debts, and to have induced the Nawab by threats and deception to pay the appellant, in return for such help, sums totaling Rs. 3 lakhs on various dates. On these allegations the appellant is charged with having committed offences under S. 383 (Extortion and S. 420 (Cheating), Penal Code, which are extraditable offences under the Extradition Act, 1903 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The warrant was issued under S.7 of the Act to the District Magistrate Nainital where the appellant was residing after reverting to the service of the Uttar Pradesh Government, to arrest and deliver him up to the District Magistrate of Tonk.

(3.) The appellant's case is that the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was paid to him by the Nawab to be kept in safe deposit in a bank for the Nawab's use in Delhi, that no offence was committed and that the amount was returned when demanded by the authorities of the Tonk State. The warrant was issued mala fide on account of enmity. Various technical objections were also raised to the validity of the warrant and to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Nainital to take cognisance of the matter and arrest the appellant. The High Court overruled all the objections and dismissed the application for the release of the appellant.