ROSILINE GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for habeas corpus to command the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Georgekutty Kuncheria before this Court and set him at liberty. It is also prayed by the petitioner that there should be an order to discharge her husband under S.24 of the Extradition Act, 1962.

(2.) Petitioner's husband was arrested by the police from his residence at Ernakulam on 12th April, 1989 and he was produced before the. Magistrate at Delhi on 17th April, 1989 whereupon he was sent to Tihar Jail. Pursuant to a request by the Government of the United States of America for his extradition to that country to stand trial for violation of Federal fraud statutes and related offences allegedly committed by him during the period he had worked as an Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank, New York during 1980 to 1985, proceedings have been initiated under the Extradition Act. In view of the letter of request received from the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi for the extradition of Georgekutty Kuncheria together with documents furnished by the Government of U.S.A. in support of their request, Central Government having been satisfied on the basis of the materials before it that the alleged offences should be enquired into, directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to conduct an enquiry into the alleged offences. The Magistrate after enquiry submitted his report dated 19th November 1993 to the Central Government reporting that a prima facie case existed against Georgekutty Kuncheria. That was done under S.7(4) of the Act.

(3.) S.7(4) of the Act provides that if the Magistrate is of opinion that a prima facie case is made out in support of the requisition of the foreign State or Commonwealth country, he may commit the fugitive criminal to prison to await the orders of the Central Government, and shall report the result of his inquiry to the Central Government; and shall forward together with such report, any written statement which the fugitive criminal may desire to submit for the consideration of the Central Government. Contention of the petitioner is that her husband has submitted his representation and all along he has been awaiting the orders of the Central Government pursuant thereto and as he has been in jail for the past six years this is a case where he has to be discharged under S.24 of the Act. It is also contended by the petitioner that as no order has been passed by the Central Government pursuant to the report of the Magistrate her husband ought to have been discharged and as that has not been done, his custody can only be treated as illegal and that being the position, this is a case where a writ of habeas corpus has necessarily to be issued.