NARENDRA GUDGUD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is an accused in Special Case No. 02 of 2001 under section 120-B read with Section 420 of the indian Penal Code and, under Section 13 (l) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the learned Judge, 3rd Special court, CBI at calcutta resides at New York, USA. Since his appearance could not be,secured for his trial the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, cbi wrote a letter being No. 20 dated 9th march, 2007 to the competent authority. Department of Justice, United States of america through the Secretary, Ministry of external Affairs, Government of India, New delhi and the Interpol Wing, CBI, Government of India, New Delhi requesting for extradition of the petitioner from USA to India for trial. Against the extradition memo issued by the learned trial Court, the petitioner made an application before the learned Court for recalling the same. The ground was that extradition memo was based upon issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest on 17th February, 2006 which was in a form under Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The point was that the form in which warrant was issued relatesto the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 which has been repealed; the extra diction request basing upon the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest upon the old Code 1898 was hence illegal. The learned Judge observed that the warrant of arrest was issued by his predecessor upon an old form but that does not vitiate the proceeding as a form cannot defeat justice. The learned judge further observed that the case was instituted as long back in the year of 1998 culminating in the charge-sheet in 2001 but the accused could not be reached as he flew to USA where he is now in jail as per the warrant of arrest issued by the Court.

(2.) THIS extradition memo dated 9th march, 2007 and the order dated 16th September, 2008 whereby the learned Judge refused to. recall the warrant of arrest are under challenge in this application under section 482 of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned senior advocate appearing with Y. J. Dastoor and Mr. Debasish Roy, learned advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appearing for the CBI.