IN RE. RAJAN PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Rajan Pillai, styling himself as "a fugitive criminal", appeared in the Court of additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 8.4.1995 and sought for bail. Learned magistrate released him on "interim bail" on certain conditions and proceeded to report to the Central Government of the surrender of that person (who would hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner). A learned Judge of this court, while holding sittings during mid -summer vacation, came to know of the order and called for the records of the case immediately for examining the records. Later the records were examined by another learned Judge who was holding sittings during the latter half of the mid -summer vacation. Learned Judge, after expressing his own tentative opinion, referred the questions involved in the case to be considered by a larger Bench. This is how we are called upon to deal with the matter. We heard Shri. M. Rethna Singh, learned Public Prosecutor (who is also the Director General of Prosecutions in Kerala). Shri. M.N. Sukumaran Nayar, Senior Counsel who argued for the petitioner and Shri. A.K. Dutt, who argued for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) Petitioner is a citizen of India. He has been dealing in large scale business abroad, while so, criminal proceedings were taken against him by the District Judge, Singapore and he was convicted of certain offences including criminal breach of trust and cheating. Though he was on bail at Singapore, he skulked from that country and reached India when he knew of the conviction and sentence passed on him. He first moved the Court of sessions at Bombay through his wife for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When that move did not succeed, he approached the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution for restraining the CBI from arresting him. The Bombay High Court rejected the original petition by recording the submission of CBI's counsel that if petitioner is arrested, he would he produced before the competent magistrate in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Petitioner then proceeded to Thiruvananthapuram and appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and applied for bail. The proceedings adopted by the said Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are now being examined by us.

(3.) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram granted bail in the purported exercise of powers envisaged in Sec. 9 of the Extradiction Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). Sec. 2(0 of the Act defines a fugitive criminal as "an individual who is accused or is convicted of an extradiction offence committed within the jurisdiction of a foreign state or a common wealth country and is, or is suspected to be, in some part of India." Extradiction offence in relation to a foreign state other than a treaty State means 'in relation to a commonwealth country an offence which is specified in the second schedule to the Act." Two things not disputed before us are, that Singapore is a commonwealth country and that is not a treaty State i.e. there is no extradiction treaty between the two countries.