MUTHU REDDI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in this criminal revision petition is of considerable importance, namely, what is the procedure to be observed in extradition proceedings between the British Government in India and the French Settlements in India.

(2.) The District Magistrate of South Arcot has, on a demand from the Governor of the French Settlement of Pondicherry and on information from that judicial proceedings are pending in Pondicherry against two British subjects, arrested these two men and proposes to hand them over without further inquiry to the French Authorities. The arrested men have put n this petition alleging that the action of the District Magistrate is illegal, inasmuch as he has under the Extradition Act of 1903 no authority to deliver them up in this summary fashion, but must first he ld an inquiry and satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case against them, as provided for in Chap. II of that Act. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Government contends that Chapter II of the Act has no bearing on the case, and that the case is governed by the provisions1 of and procedure indicated in Art. IX of the Treaty of 1815, the necessary legislative sanction for which has been provided by Section 18 of the Extradition Act. The petitioners rejoin that Section 18 has no application to cases where no procedure has been prescribed by the Legislature, and that in any case its application is restricted to cases coming under Chap, III of the Act. They further urge that the extradition provision in the Treaty of 1815 had been Abrogated by the Treaty of 1876 and by the English Extradition Acts of 1870 and 1873. They argue further that any part or dependency of a Foreign State for the purpose of the Indian Extradition Act a Foreign State to which Chap. II and not Chap. III will apply.

(3.) To take the last point first, a Foreign State is by definition in the Act a State to which the Extradition Acts of 1870 and 1873 apply. Whether or not a part or dependency of a Foreign State is itself a Foreign State need not be decided here, since I am of opinion that in any case the East Indian Dependencies of France were expressly excluded from the Extradition Treaty of 1876, and, therefore, they are not States or part of a State to which the Extradition Acts of 1870 and 1873 apply. This is the view taken by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Rahamat Ali V/s. Emperor 53 Ind. Cas. 147 : 47 C. 37 C.L.J. 24 : 20 Cr.L.J. 739. In a subsequent case in Calcutta, In re Celeste Cullington 63 Ind. Cas. 819 : 48 C. 328 : 22 Cr.L.J. 691, a Single Judge, Mr. Justice Buckland, differed, he lding that Art. 16 of the Treaty of 1876 does not exclude the East Indian Dependencies of France, but was intended to preserve the provision of the Treaty of 1815, and that the effect of the Order in Council of 16 May, 1878, was to put into operation as regards these dependencies Section 25 of the English Extradition Act, 1870. The learned Judge admitted that he had not then before him the exact terms of the Order in Council. That is a matter of regret, since if he had these terms before him, I doubt, speaking with respect, if he would have differed from Rahamat Ali V/s. Emperor 53 Ind. Cas. 147 : 47 C. 37 C.L.J. 24 : 20 Cr.L.J. 739. The concluding terms of the Order in Council are that the Extradition Acts of 1870 and 1873 shall after 31st May, 1878, "apply in the case of the said Treaty." That is the Treaty of 1876, "with the President of the French Republic." So that it is only in respect of that Treaty and not in respect of all Treaties then in force that these Extradition Acts apply; and unless that Treaty abrogated the Treaty of 1815 in respect of French Dependencies in East India, the Extradition Acts of 1870 and 1873 do not apply to them, and they would, therefore, not be foreign states within the meaning of the Indian Extradition Act of 1903.