SAMSUNG GULF ELECTRONICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(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 Ss. 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 7/11/2017. 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, Sec. 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 dtd. 18/2/2023 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 dtd. 18/2/2023 to the respondents requesting for appointment of an Advocate, was replied to by respondent no. 4 vide its e-mail dtd. 20/2/2023 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 dtd. 7/3/2023 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.