Maninder Pal Singh Kohli vs The State And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 515 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Jain, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though the prosecution has relied upon depositions of Mr.James Dennis dated 20.7.2004 and 28.7.2004 in extradition proceedings against him, yet the said statements are missing in the paper book filed by the State, hence, the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing order dated 2.12.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Extradition Court), to the extent that the applications dated 12.10.2005 and 18.11.2005 of the petitioner to summon the statements of Mr.James Dennis dated 20.7.2004 and 28.7.2004, which though have been strongly relied upon in the deposition furnished by the prosecution, but the same are missing in the paper book filed by the British Government.

2. I have heard Mr.Charanjit Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Vali, counsel representing respondents no.1 and 2 / Union of India and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to their submissions.

3. Mr.Bakshi, learned counsel representing the petitioner has urged that the petitioner feels handicapped in his defense to meet the case of the State in absence of the full and complete text of the statements of Mr.James Dennis and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to furnish him the entire text of the said statements of Mr.James Dennis. On the other hand, Mr.Vali, learned counsel representing respondents no.1 and 2/UOI has pointed out that whatever extract/portion of the statements of Mr.James Dennis have been received by them from the British authorities along with their request for extradition of the petitioner, have been placed on record and the petitioner cannot insist upon for filing of the entire statements of Mr.James Dennis, more so having regard to the nature and scope of the proceedings before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. This Court having considered the matter and having regard to the provisions of The Extradition Act, 1962 as also the Treaty between the requesting State and India, Extradition Treaty No.G.S.R.790(E) dated 30.12.1993, is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot insist for supply of any material other than the material and documents received by the Indian Government from the requesting State along with the request for extradition. In the opinion of this Court, the present petition is misconceived and is dismissed, as such. Other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.