JAYANTHI DHARMA TEJA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Dr. Jayanthi Dharma Teja, now a prisoner in the Central jail, Chenchalguda. Hyderabad. This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed for a direction for his release from jail immediately on the gruound that he has already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the imprisonment for default fn payment of fine amounts, taking into consideration the period of detention undergone by him during Investigation which is to be set off against the term of Imprisonment as provided under section 428 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure which came into force on 1-4-1974, and the sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- which has been paid to the credit of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 1-2-1975 under four demand drafts drawn on the State Bank of Hyderabad and delivered to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad towards balance of fine amounts

(2.) A few facts nacessary for the purpose of this petition may be stated. The petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s. jayanti Shipping Company during the years 1963 to 1966. The President of India promulgated an Ordinance on 10-6-1966 for taking over the management of the company. Thereafter on a complaint given by the Secretary, Shipping Corporation of India which had been appointed as the Managing Agencies of the Jayanti Shipping Company, a case was registered on 4-8-1966 against the petitioner under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, New Delhi, and a preliminary charge sheet was fifed against the pentioner on 28-2-1967 before tht court of the Additional District Magistrate, Delhi. It was alleged that the petitioner was guilry of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery, At that time the peritioner being not in India and in United States of America and there being an extradition treaty with the United States the Magistrate by passing an order holding inter alia that the petitioner had committed extraditable offences under sections 409, 420. 465/467 and 120-8 of the Indian Penal Code, issued warrant of arrest and requested the Government of India to initiate extradftfon proceedings. Accordingly the Government of India, New Delhi requested the Government of United States of America for surrendering the petitioner. During the extradition proceedings started by the United States against him, the petitioner jumped his bail and absconded to Costa Rica. The Republic of India had no treaty of extradition with Costa Rica. But they approached the Government there to send back the petitioner to India. The President of Costa Rica referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Costa Rica to advise him fn the matter. The proceedings before the Supreme Court, Costa Rica continued for a considerable period. Ultimately on 12-6-1969 by a majority decision the Supreme Court, Costa Rica, advised the president that the petitioner should not be extradited. As a result of that advice the Government of Costa Rica decided in April, 1970 that the petitioner should not be returned to India.

(3.) While so, in July, the petitioner came to United Kindom on a pass-port issued by the Government of Costa Rica On the basis of a Red Corner Notice Issued by the Government of India for arresting the petitioner, if he happens to visit United Kingdom, on 24-7-1970 when he was about to lewe London, after obtaining the warrant for his arrest from a Magistrate in London, the London Police arrested the petitioner On being Informed about the arrest of the petitioner in London, the Government of India obtained a fresh warrant of arrest from the Magistrate at Delhi on 28-7-70, and on the basis of it Issued a requisition to the Government of United Kingdom for extradition of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed Immunity from arrest on the ground that he was on a Diplomatic mission being a diplomatic Agent of the Government of Costa Rica. This contention was negatived by Queen's Bench Division in an habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner. After extradition proceedings ended, the petitioner was handed over on 15-4-1971 to an Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, who had been deputed by the Government of India as their representative to take charge of the petitioner and to bring him to India to take his trial After the petitioner was brought to India on 16-4-1971 he was produced before the Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation the final charge sheet was filed on M-5-1971. Thus from 24-7-1970 upto 15 4-1971 the petitioner was in detention in a London Jail. The petitioner was ultimately convlcred under section 409 I. P, C. etc., and sentei ced to various terms of imprisonment and to pay atotal fine amount of Rs.14,13,000/- and to undergo further terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fine amounts.