Darshan Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi)
1998 Latest Caselaw 298 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. On 20.5.1997, the petitioner approached this Court praying for quashing the order dated 16.5.1997 passed by the respondent to extradite him to Canada and further to set him at liberty or in the alternative to direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders for conduct of his trial in India on such terms and conditions, as may be deemed appropriate.

2. Pursuant to request for provisional arrest made on 4.4.1996 oil behalf of the Canadian Government, the petitioner was arrested on 6.4.1996 at New Delhi. On 1.5.1996 formal request was made by the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi to respondent No. 1 for the petitioner's extradition to Canada. Respondent No. 1, in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed an order on 19.7.1996 requesting Mrs. Neena Krishna Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi to conduct an enquiry into the matter under the Act. Warrants of petitioner's production were issued on 6.8.1996 and from judicial custody he was produced before the Extradition Magistrate on 28.9.1996. Enquiry though commenced, could not be concluded by Mrs. Neena Krishna Bansal. Another order was passed for Magisterial enquiry on 7.1.1997 by which Mr. Virender Kumar Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate was asked to enquire into the matter. Enquiry thereafter was conducted and completed by Mr. Virender Kumar Bansal.

3. In support of the enquiry, witnesses were examined by the respondent. The petitioner submitted his statement in writing. After the parties were heard, Extradition Magistrate on 18.3.1997 prepared and signed his report. It was sent to respondent No. 1 recommending that the petitioner be extradited since in his opinion, prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. Copy of the report received by respondent No. 1 on 19.3.1997 is placed on record as Annexure R-1. Respondent No. 1 on 16.5.1997; in exercise of its powers under Section 8 of the Act passed the following order directing that the petitioner, who had been committed to judicial custody by the Extradition Magistrate, be delivered to Canadian Escort Officer for taking him back to Canada :

"ORDER

Sub: Warrant for the custody and removal of the fugitive criminal Sh. Darshan Kumar and his delivery to the Government of Canada.

(Issued under Section 8 of the Extradition Act, 1962).

1. Whereas the Government of Canada had requested the Government of India for the extradition of the fugitive criminal, Shri Darshan Kumar, an Indian national who is alleged to have committed offences of fraud and theft in Canada;

2. And whereas, in terms of Article 3 of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of India and the government of Canada which is in force with effect from 7.5.87 vide GSR No. 689(E), these offences are extradition offences;

3. And whereas, the Government of India through its Order No. T-413/ 15/96 dated 7.1.97 issued under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962, had requested Sh.V.K. Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi to inquire into this extradition matter;

4. And whereas, the Magistrate has submitted his reply dated 18.3.97 and found a prima facie case in support of the request from the Canadian Government for the extradition of Sh. Darshan Kumar;

5. And whereas, the Central Government after full and careful examination of the inquiry report, has decided that it would be lawful and expedient if the said fugitive criminal, Sh. Darshan Kumar face aforesaid charges in Canada;

6. Now, therefore, in view of the above, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Extradition Act, 1962 and in conformity with Article 12 of the Extradition Treaty between India and Canada, has directed that the said fugitive criminal, Shri Darshan Kumar who has been committed to judicial custody in New Delhi by Sh. V.K. Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi at the jail premises itself, be delivered to Escort Officer namely Sergeant Detective Marc Thivierge, Passport No. AB-465319, issued on 4.12.92 in Hull, Canada from the Government of Canada for taking him back to Canada who may be identified by his passport particulars.

Sd/-

(V. Mahalingam) Undersecretary (Cons)"

4. On acquiring knowledge of the passing of aforementioned order dated 16.5.1997, the petitioner on 20.5.1997 filed this petition for the aforementioned reliefs. On 22.5.1997 while issuing notice to show cause why petition be not admitted, which was made returnable on 27.5.1997, Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order directing. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar not to hand over the custody of the petitioner to the Canadian Escort, pursuant to the order dated 16.5.1997. The order has thereafter remained in operation till date.

5. After the pleadings were complete, an-application (Crl.M.6668/97) was moved by the petitioner on 19.11.1997 praying for his discharge from the proceedings under the Extradition Act and for setting him free, in terms of Section 24 of the Act, alleging that the petitioner ought to have been conveyed out of India within a period of two months after passing of the order committing him to custody. The order was passed by the Extradition Magistrate on 18.3.1997. He was not conveyed out of India on or before 17.5.1997. During this period, no stay was operating. As such, in terms of Section 24 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to be set free and all proceedings under the Act deserve to be dropped.

6. Though the aforementioned application was filed, no notice of the same was issued to the respondent. Only on 23.2.1998 attention of learned Counsel for the respondent was drawn to the application and on 27.2.1998, reply was filed to the said application opposing petitioner's prayer for discharge and disclosing the reasons therein due to which the petitioner could not be conveyed within a period of two months from the date of his committal. We have heard learned Counsel fot the parties and been taken through the entire record.

7. The petitioner's challenge to the impugned order dated. 16.5.1997 is on a number of grounds, namely (a) The enquiry conducted by the Extradition Magistrate is vitiated by bias inasmuch as the petitioner could not properly defend himself. He had no Advocate of his choice nor could he hire one because of the financial restraints. All cash certificates, which were in his possession had been frozen. There was no friend, relative or Parokar, who could visit him in jail, (b) Due and appropriate opportunity to lead defense evidence was not given, as such there has been violation of provisions of Section 7 of the Act, (c) The Extradition Magistrate failed to properly apply his mind to the facts which had been brought on record more especially in the written statement, submitted by the petitioner and to the various affidavits produced on record by the respondent, and (d) No prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the petitioner for extraditing him out of the country on the basis of the material which was available before the Extradition Magistrate. Non-application of mind at the behest of respondent No. 1 is also a ground of challenge to the impugned order, who it is alleged is not supposed to act blindly on the opinion of the Extradition Magistrate, but is required to take into consideration other factors. The respondent ought to have taken into consideration at least the circumstance that the petitioner deserves to-be permitted to be tried in India. The petitioner would not get a fair trial in a foreign country because of various constraints and unfavourable circumstances. The petitioner being an Indian National, had no interest in Canada. All odds were against him in Canada.

8. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is an Indian National and was born on 11.7.1974 in Village Sura, District Jalandhar, Punjab, He did his graduation from Punjab University College, Chandigarh in 1965 and thereafter looked after the family property situated in District Hoshiarpur. He migrated to England in 1969 and stayed there till 1978. In 1987, he went to U.S.A. and remained there for four years where he had been running a candy store in the city of New York. In December, 1993, he migrated to Canada and started with a small candy store whereafter he started running pizza huts, outside restaurants and night clubs. He also started organising flee market on regular basis and also did part-time accounting work. He was unmarried. For the-first time, he met Bimla Batra on 29.12.1993. Their relations became closer and ultimately on 21.12.1995, he and Simla Batra got married at Sanatan Dharam Sabha Temple at Pierrefonds, Canada. The petitioner has narrated his own version on his alleged financial dealings with Bimla Batra, after he came in contact with Bimla Batra, as under :

"I had full trust in Bimla Batra, therefore, most of my earnings, were given by me to her throughout this period.

On December 4, 1995, after we decided to get married, we also decided to settle our accounts and it turned out that Bimla Batra owed me around US Dollars 31,200/-. I was in no hurry to get this money back as after all I had decided to marry her, but she insisted and told me that she would clear the dues on that day itself. We went to the Bank and she gave me a cheque for US Dollars 35,000/- instead of Dollars 31,000/-, which she owed me. The rest of the amount equivalent to US Dollar 4,000/- was given by me to her in cash.

Between 5, 6, 7th of December, 1995, I collected all my investments in flee market, Pizza Hut and Candy Store and gave it to her in cash, to be deposited with her in order to solve tax problem. In total this amount after conversion was US Dollars 38,450/-. After our decision to get married it was decided by Bimla Batra that I should try to avail Immigrant Investment Benefit, so that I could get permanent Immigration Status in Canada. Though I was not too keen to go in for such status, but because of the insistence of Bimla Batra, and partly also because of my affection towards her, I decided to reluctantly go in for this scheme. As all the money which I had was in cash and if I was to make such a cash deposit for the Immigration Investment Scheme, I thought that 1 might get into tax problems, therefore, I had taken cheques from Bimla Batra for the amount which was of my own earnings. As stated above, on 14th December, 1995 itself I took a cheque of US Dollars 38,450/- from Bimla Batra, so that I could use this money for the purpose of availing the benefit of Immigration Investment Scheme.

This was the source of the money used for investment in the Immigration Investment Scheme."

9. The petitioner has further alleged that on 11.1.1996, he was informed by Bimla Batra about the problem which she was facing because of bankruptcy proceedings initiated against her and one Mr. Surinder Kapoor as under :

"On 10th January, 1996 I was informed by Bimla Batra that she would be coming over to discuss some serious problem next morning. When we met in my apartment, she told me that the police and officials from the Court accompanied by a team of Lawyers came to her house and took most of her furniture, fax machine and other house hold goods, because her partner Mr. Surinder Kapoor, had been declared bankrupt, and had left for India, she was also a partner in this business with Mr. Surinder Kapoor, therefore, she was under the impression that all her belongings including lockers would be confiscated. This was the reason why on 12th of January, 1996, she withdrew all her money from different Banks. She also took out her belongings from lockers and returned the keys of the lockers to the Bank. At her insistance, I permitted her to keep her belongings in my locker, where she felt it might not be discovered. This locker was obtained in my name on that day itself. 1 am also told that she transferred her house in the name of her sister for Dollar 1 only. This sister of Bimla Batra lives in Toronto, but I have never met her, nor has she ever introduced me to her or any other members of her family.

On the same evening she took from me Dollar 16,000/- needed to pay Solicitors for an amicable settlement of his bankruptcy proceedings without harming her personal interest. This amount was paid by me to her in cash. After two hours she came back and returned me this money in the form of a Demand Draft for Dollar 15,000/- and cash of 1,000/- Dollars."

10. After narrating the afore-mentioned, the petitioner has stated his version in detail that on 18.1.1996, Bimla Batra visited India in connection with the religious ceremonies of her deceased father and the circumstances due to which he had also to come to India. While he was in India, his father expired on 2.4.1986, whereafter he decided to stay in India rather than to go back to Canada. It is stated by him that he had been in touch with Bimla Batra over telephone and had transferred $15,000.00 to her through Bank before she contacted the police making false allegations against him. She did not chose to mention to the police the fact of receipt of this amount of $15,000.00. In one of the representations, sent by the petitioner to the respondent, before whom the report of the Extradition Magistrate was under consideration for passing an appropriate orders as to whether the petitioner is liable to be extradited or not, the petitioner's version was that he is not at all involved in any offence, as alleged by Bimla Batra. Charges levelled by Bimla Batra against him are groundless. Financial dealing between him and Bimla Batra was only that of a loan. The amount which he had borrowed from Bimla Batra was to be returned by him within a period of 4-5 months, which period had not expired on the day when he was arrested. Non-return of the amount of loan would not be an offence for which he is being extradited to Canada. As such, the impugned order extraditing him is illegal, bad and without jurisdiction.

11. We need not go into various details of the case except by ta king note of the fact that the petitioner has been charged in Montreal, Quebec, Canada having committed the following two offences :

"(i) Between December 3, 1995, and February 13, 19%, at Montreal and Dollared des Ormeaux, district of Montreal, by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, defrauded Bimla BATRA, of a sum of money, the value of which exceeds $5000.00, thus committing a criminal act as forseen at Article 380(1)(a) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

(ii) Between January 11, 1996 and February 20, 1996, at Dollared des Ormeaux, district of Montreal, did steal jewellery the value of which exceeds $5000.00, the property of Bimla BATRA, thus committing the criminal act as forseen at Article 334 a) of the Canadian Criminal Code."

12. Before we go into the other aspects of the case, it will be but appropriate to consider various provisions of the Act and also to examine the scope of the magisterial enquiry, which is ordered under Section 5 of the Act and is conducted under Section 7 of the Act, as also the extent of power of Central Government under Section 29 of the Act.

13. Section 4 of the Act provides for a requisition for surrender of a fugitive criminal by a foreign State. Section 5 says that the Central Government on receipt of such a requisition may if it thinks fit, issue an order to any Magistrate having jurisdiction, directing him to enquire into the case. On receipt of the order from Central Government, Magistrate is required to enquire into the case in the same manner as if the case is one triable by a Court of Sessions or High Court. Section 7 which reads as under, lays down the procedure to be followed by Magistrate :

"7. Procedure before Magistrate-

 (1)    When the fugitive criminal appears or is brought before the Magtstrate, the Magistrate shall inquire into the case in the same manner and shall have the same jurisdiction and powers, as nearly as may be, as if the case were one triable by a Court of Session or High Court.  
 

 (2)    Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Magistrate shall, in particular, take such evidence as may be produced in support of the requisition of the foreign State and on behalf of the fugitive criminal, including any evidence to show that the offence of which the fugitive criminal is accused or has been convicted is an offence of political character or is not an extradition offence.  
 

 (3)   If the Magistrate is of opinion that a prima facie case is not made out in support of the requisition of the foreign State, he shall discharge the fugitive criminal.  
 

 (4)    if the Magistrate is of opinion that a prima facie case is made out in support of the requisition of the foreign State, he may commit the fugitive criminal to prison to await the orders of the Central Government, and shall report the result of his inquiry to the Central Government, and shall forward together with such report, any written statement which the fugitive criminal may desire to submit for the consideration of the Central Government."   
 

14. The Magistrate is required to take such evidence, as may be produced before him in support of the requisition and on behalf of the fugitive criminal including such evidence to show that the offence of which the accused is charged or has been convicted "is an offence of political character or is not an extradition offence". On consideration of the evidence, the Magistrate is to form an opinion whether prima facie a case is made out or not in support of the requisition. In case no prima facie case is made out, Magistrate is required to discharge the fugitive criminal. In case prima facie case is made out, fugitive criminal is to be committed to prison to await the orders of Central Government. Magistrate is required to report result of his enquiry to Central Government. If so requested by the fugitive criminal, his written statement is also to be forwarded for consideration of the Central Government. The power to be exercised by the Central Government is contained in Section 29 of the Act. It includes the consideration which are to weigh with the Central Government in declining to surrender or return a fugitive criminal, namely that the offence is of a trivial nature or that the application for surrender has not been made in good faith or it would not be, in the interest of justice expedient to surrender or return the fugitive criminal. Section 29 reads as under :

"29. Power of Central Government to discharge any fugitive criminal--If it appears to the Central Government that by reason of the trivial nature of the case or by reason of the application for the surrender or return of a fugitive criminal not being made in good faith or in the interests of justice or for political reasons or otherwise, it is unjust or inexpedient to surrender or return the fugitive criminal, it may, by order, at any time stay any proceedings under this Act and direct any warrant issued or endorsed under, this Act to be cancelled and the person for whose arrest the warrant has been issued or endorsed to be discharged."

15. Surrender or return of fugitive criminal may also be declined in case Central Government is of the view that for political reason or otherwise it will not be expedient to do so.

16. The inquiry before the Extradition Magistrate is not a trial. The said inquiry decides nothing about the guilt or innocence of the fugitive criminal. The jurisdiction is limited. The main purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether a prima facie case or reasonable ground exist, which warrant the fugitive criminal being sent to the demanding state. This Court in Smt. Nina Pillai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., had an occasion to deal with the scope of the magisterial inquiry as also the powers of the Central Government, wherein it was held :

"The Magisterial inquiry which is conducted pursuant to the request for extradition is not a trial. The said enquiry decides nothing about the innocence of guilt of the fugitive criminal. The main purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds which warrant the fugitive criminal being sent to the demanding State. The jurisdiction is limited to the former part of the request and does not concern itself with the merits of the trial, subject to exceptions as outlined in the preceding paragraph 7, in which case the request for extradition is denied by the Central Government."

17. Para 7 of the judgment, which in the report is para 9 reiterates the exceptions embodied in Section 29 under which the extradition may be denied namely, (a) trivial nature of the case against the fugitive criminal; (b) application for surrender not having been made in good faith; (c) in the interests ot justice or (d) for political reasons or otherwise, it is unjust or inexpedient to surrender the fugitive criminal.

18. We have examined the original file produced for our perusal by learned Counsel for the respondent in which opinion of the Extradition Magistrate was examined as also the record of the Extradition Magistrate. Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the material on record came to the conclusion that "in view of the enabling clauses of the Indian Extradition Act and the treaty with Canada, as well as the purely criminal nature of the offences, alleged to have been committed by Darshan Kumar, it will be expedient to extradite him". This Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not substitute its own opinion to that of the Government since Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Government. The Court is only concerned With the decision making process. There is nothing wrong in the decision making process. Not only the opinion of the Extradition Magistrate, but also other relevant documents including the representation of the petitioner dated 2.4.1997 was before respondent No. 2, which as per the notings on the file was duly considered and in the light of the requirements of Section 29 of the Act, appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act was passed. There is nothing to suggest that the said material was not duly considered by the respondent. Neither the Extradition Magistrate nor respondent No. 2 are concerned with the merits of the case in which petitioner is involved.

19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the scope of Magisterial inquiry is akin to the consideration which weigh while dealing with the question ot framing of the charge in a criminal case. It will be open for the Magistrate, while forming an opinion whether prima facie case is made out or not, even to look at the material placed by the fugitive criminal. It was urged that on the basis of the affidavits produced by the respondent no offence of fraud or theft can be said to have been made out.

20. This submission deserves outright rejection. The opinion that a prima facie case is made out in support of the requisition of a foreign State, as envisaged in Sub-

section (4) of Section 7 of the Act, is the opinion on the requisition of the Foreign State for surrender of a fugitive criminal. Section 7 has to be read in the light of the provisions of Section 29. Only the Central Government is to take into consideration the nature of a case whether it is trivial or not alongwith other factors. On consideration of those factors, the request of the Foreign State may be allowed or declined by Central Government. Magisterial inquiry is confined to the extent of considering the question as to whether the offence alleged against the fugitive criminal is or is not an extradition offence or that the offence is not of a political nature. The Magistrate rightly did not go into those questions raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not guilty of the offence alleged for which it was rightly remarked that he can appear and defend himself before the appropriate Court in Canada and face the trial.

21. Submission made on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner for discharge of petitioner on the ground that he was not conveyed out of India within two months after committal, also deserves rejection. Learned Counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance upon a decision of Queens Bench Division in ReShuter (1953) 3 All E.R. 481 and urged that Section 24 of the Act is to be construed in a manner so as to read the word "may order such prisoner to be discharged" as "shall order such prisoner to be discharged" unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary. In other words, the submission made was that it is mandatory to discharge a fugitive criminal in case within a period of two months from the date of committal, he is not conveyed or returned to the Foreign State and no sufficient cause is shown by the Central Government. The sufficient cause stipulated in Section 24 can only relate to something which may be quite outside the control of the relevant authorities. It was urged that no sufficient cause had been shown by respondent No. 1 that why within a period of two months from the date of committal, petitioner was not conveyed out of country. In the absence of such sufficient cause, the order deserves to be passed for petitioner's discharge.

22. As noticed above while filing the petition, no such prayer or application was made, as envisaged under Section 24 of the Act. The petition was instituted on 20.5.1997 after expiry of the period of two months from the date when petitioner was committed. It was taken up on 21.5.1997. On 22.5.1997, an order was passed staying the operation of the impugned order dated 16.5.1997. The application was moved by the petitioner on 24.11.1997, but no notice thereof was issued by the Court to the respondents to show cause as to why an order be not made for petitioner's discharge. Section 24 of the Act reads as under :

"24. Discharge of person apprehended if not surrendered or returned within two months--If a fugitive criminal who, in pursuance of this Act has been committed to prison to await his surrender or return to any foreign State is not conveyed out of India within two months after such committal, the High Court, upon application made to it by or on behalf of the fugitive criminal and upon proof that reasonable notice of the intention to make such application has been given to the Central Government, may order such prisoner to be discharged unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary."

23. It is only when the respondent was called upon that a reply was filed, supported on the affidavit of V. Mahalingam, Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs stating that pursuant to the order of Extradition Magistrate passed on 18.3.1997, which was received in the Ministry on 19.3.197, a detailed reasoned order was passed on 16.5.1997 for conveying the petitioner out of India. The petitioner had been waiting in Tihar Jail to be taken out by the designated person to the requesting state, i.e., Canada. Since the requesting State had to make arrangements for taking out fugitive criminal, they were making certain enquiries from the Central Government regarding the modalities of safely taking him out of India. A communication dated 22.5.1997 was received from Canadian High Commission in New Delhi by way of fax message stating that efforts be made for taking fugitive criminal back to their country through safe passages so that enroute the fugitive criminal may not apply for fugitive status in any transit country. In addition, Canadian Government needed the service of second escorting officer, namely Gilles Cournoyer, detective/sergeant, and were in the process of obtaining visas, which were to be made available by the High Commission of India in Ottawa on 23.5.1997. It is further stated as under :

"As far as Government of India is concerned, it had acted duly (well within time) for the removal of the fugitive criminal out of the country and was keeping the fugitive in custody only as a trustee on behalf of Canadian Government after 16.5.1997, 17th and 18th of May, 1997 were Saturday and Sunday, being holidays, and at the earliest opportunity the Canadian Government and its officials were diligently pursuing modalities for taking over the physical control and custody of the fugitive criminal so that the fugitive criminal could be taken through safe passages and he was in fact to be taken out by the Canadian Government officials by 24th May, 1997. But in the meantime, this Hon'ble Court had granted a stay on 22nd of May, 1997 against his surrender. The aforementioned circumstances sufficiently demonstrate that no intentional delay has been committed on the part of either the Government of India or the Canadian Government in removing and taking over the fugitive. This is because of these facts and circumstances as stated above, that the fugitive criminal could not be physically taken out of the country by the requesting State, Canada. This is a sufficient cause beyond any doubt for his not having been conveyed out of India to Canada in time."

24. Assuming the submission made on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner that word "may" in Section 24 has to be read as "shall" and it would be obligatory to discharge fugitive criminal if he is not conveyed out of the country within two months unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary, even in that case sufficiency or insufficiency of the cause will definitely require examination by the Court. It is only the High Court which can make an order of discharge, if within two months a fugitive criminal has not been conveyed to the demanding country. Such an order may be made if an application is made to it by or on behalf of the fugitive criminal and that also on proof that reasonable notice of the intention to make such an application has been given to the Central Government. Only when these conditions are satisfied and unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary, fugitive criminal may be ordered to be discharged.

25. In the instant case after the application was moved of which notice was given to the respondent only during the course of arguments to which reply was filed on behalf of the respondent disclosing the reason due to which the petitioner could not be conveyed to the demanding State. The gist of which is that within the period of two months, appropriate order was passed on 16.5.1997. Two days thereafter were Saturday and Sunday. When the demanding State took up the matter effectively and visas were to be issued by the Indian High Commission on 23.5.1997, the operation of the order stood stayed by an interim order passed by this Court on an application moved by the petitioner.

26. Examination of the record produced before us would also suggest that after the result of the Magisterial inquiry was conveyed to the respondent on 19.3.1997, the matter was under consideration at various level. Firstly, views of the Ministry of Law and Justice were ordered to be obtained by an order passed by the Prime Minister. The petitioner's representations were then under consideration. It is only after the views of the Ministry of Law and Justice were obtained that papers were again submitted on 2.5.1997 for appropriate orders alongwith the petitioner's representation in which he had prayed that for the reasons stated therein, he be not extradited to Canada. Only on 10.5.1997 the Prime Minister approved the proposal of the petitioner's extradition and formal order thereon was drafted and passed on 16.5.1997, which was promptly conveyed to the demanding State. Initially Canadian Government had deputed one escort, but in the facts it was felt necessary that second escort was also necessary. Requisite steps had to be taken for getting clearance at few levels. Before the petitioner could be conveyed, he had already obtained interim stay from this Court. While considering the question that the cause shown is sufficient or not, it is but necessary to take into account questions such as reasonableness in all the circumstances. The reasons, as disclosed in the reply filed by the respondent are sufficient enough to decline petitioner's prayer. In the circumstances, petitioner's prayer made in Crl.M. 6668/97 is rejected.

27. Consequently, there being no force in this petition, the same is dismissed. The interim order is vacated.