SUKHPREET SINGH DHALIWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the 13 cases, similar controversy has been raised and all are decided by this common order. However, the facts are borrowed from CRM-M-34834-2021.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was extradited to India only for the offence disclosed in FIR No.64 dtd. 14/4/2018 registered at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Moreover, upon the request for extradition made by the jurisdictional police authorities of District SAS Nagar, Punjab, the appropriate Armenian authority, after receiving the request, issued an order of detention (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the said order, submitting that it was passed to detain the petitioner for the purpose of extradition in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. Subsequently, an order was issued upon examination of the motion for the petitioner's detention for extradition. This order also records an assurance provided by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, that the maximum punishment imposable on the petitioner would be life imprisonment. Accordingly, the petitioner can rightly invoke the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Extradition Act, 1963.

(3.) It is further submitted that this assurance regarding the maximum punishment emanates from the established diplomatic relations between India and Armenia, thereby binding the Union of India and Punjab Police to honour the same. It is undisputed that the petitioner was detained by the Armenian authorities pursuant to a formal request made by the competent authorities in India. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the intention of Indian authorities to extradite him is evident from their request, rendering them bound by the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Extradition Act. The subsequent arrest of the petitioner by the Punjab Police upon his arrival at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, does not, it is contended, negate the application of Sec. 21 or the obligations arising from the extradition treaty and diplomatic commitments between the two nations. To buttress his arguments, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daya Singh Lahoria vs. Union of India and others (2001) 4 SCC 516. As such, keeping in view of the law laid down in Daya Singh Lahoria (supra) and the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Extradition Act, the petitioner can only be tried for offences disclosed in FIR No.64 (supra) since any fugitive brought into this country under an extradition decree can only be tried for the offences mentioned in the same and the criminal Courts of India will have no jurisdiction to try the petitioner for any other offence.