HC upholds Doctrine of Speciality in a case relating to Economic Offender [Read Judgment]

The Delhi HC in, VINAY MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS upheld the Rule of Speciality as given under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 and stated that the petitioner can not be arrested for an offense other than the extradition offense in relation to which he was surrendered or returned. The Court however also said that once the request for extradition for offenses other than that for which he was extradited is acceded to by the other country, there would be no issue in arresting the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner claims to be an employee of  Mr. Bharat Rana Chaudhary, drawing a salary of ₹25,000 to 30,000/- and to be falsely implicated by CBI in various cases alleging siphoning of funds of PNB. The petitioner cooperated with CBI despite not being prime accused or beneficiary and was not arrested in any case. He left the country in 2015 and failed to appear before the court. He was extradited from Indonesia in terms of decree in 2018 pursuant to a request made by GOI and was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was involved in seven separate cases by CBI.

Petitioner’s Contention

The Petitioner argued that the arrest was violative of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 and claimed that since he was extradited only in one matter he could not be prosecuted in other cases filed against him since it was against the Rule of Speciality as given in Article 14 of the treaty of extradition between Indonesia and India.

CBI’s Contention

The CBI contended that the petitioner was a proprietor of two firms and the bank account of these firms was used to siphon off funds from the banks. The alleged amount involved was Rs. 4319 lacs in seven cases and after completion of investigation charge sheets were filed in seven cases. Thereafter during the trial petitioner absconded from the country and extradition request was made in one of the seven cases. Later six separate extradition requests were made in remaining cases. It is alleged that the petitioner was part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud Punjab National Bank and their actions had resulted in a wrongful loss of approximately ₹389 lacs to the Punjab National Bank.

Point of issue

It is stated that the CBI has taken up matters through the Ministry of External Affairs to expedite the other extradition requests but a decision is awaited.

Also, the extradition request was placed on record which shows that the same was limited only to FIR filed in 2013.

Rule of Speciality

Article 14 of the Extradition treaty mentions the Rule of Speciality. Additionally, Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 says that a person who has been extradited and returned by a foreign State cannot be tried in India for an offense other than the extradition offense in relation to which he was surrendered or returned. The Court in, Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India and Ors. explained this rule.

Court’s Ruling

The Court ruled that the petitioner cannot be arrested in any other case until the pending extradition requests are acceded to by the Republic of Indonesia and found merit in the arguments of the petitioner. But the court also clarified that there would be no hindrance in the arrests once the request is acceded to by Indonesia.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com