DAYA SINGH LAHORIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
DAYA SINGH LAHORIA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 17, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Extradition Act, 1962 (as amended by Amending Act of 1993) : 
Section 21-Scope and ambit of-Criminal courts-Jurisdiction of-To 
try offences not included in extradition judgment-Fugitive criminals- C 
Extradition of-Accused extradited from USA for trial of certain offences 
included in the extradition judgment of USA Court-Accused sought to be 
tried for certain offences including those under TADA-Held: A fugitive 
brought into India under an Extradition Decree can be tried only for the 
offences mentioned in the Extradition Decree and for no other offence-
Hence, criminal courts in India have no jurisdiction to try such fugitive for D 
any other offence. 
Doctrine: 
Doctrine of Speciality-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 
"Extradition offence "-Meaning of-In the context ofS2(c) of the 
Extradition Act, 1962. 
E 
The l>etitioner was extradited from USA to India for trial of ce1iain F 
offences included in the judgment of the USA Court. The petitioner was 
sought to be tried for certain offences, which were not included in the 
extradition judgment of the USA Court. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the Criminal Courts 
in India have no jmisdiction to try the petitioner in respect of offences which G 
do not form a part of the e:dradition .iud~'ltlent; and, therefore, the FIR and the 
charge sheet against the l>etitioner which was not included in the extradition 
judgment of the USA Comi should be quashed. 
The following question arose before this Court : 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Whether an accused who is being tried in respect of offences under the 
B 
El.1radition Treaty can be hied for another offence which does not form a part 
of the decree in view of the specific provision contained in Section 21 of the 
Extradition Act, 1962? 
Disposing of the 11etition, the Com1 
HELD : 1.1. Under the 1993 amendment of Section 21 of the Extradition 
Act, 1962 a fugitive could be tried for any lesser offence disclosed by the 
facts proved or even for the offence in respect of which the forei!,rn State has 
given its consent. It thus, enables to try the fugitive for a lesser offence, 
without restoring him to the State or for any other offence, if the State 
C concerned gives its consent. In other words, it may be open for the Indian 
authorities to obtain the consent of the foreign State to try the fugitive for 
any other offence for which the extradition decree might not have mentioned, 
but without obtaining such consent, it is not 11ossihle to try him for any other 
offence, other than the offence for which the extradition decree has been 
D obtained. [6-D) 
1.2. The doctrine of speciality is yet another established rule of 
international law relating to extradition. Thus, when a 11erson is extradited 
for a 11articular c1ime, he can be tried for only that crime. If the requesting 
State deems it desirable to try the extradited fugitive for some other crime 
E committed before his el.iradition, the fugitive has to be brought to the ~1atus 
quo ante, in the sense that he has to be returned first to the State which 
granted the extradition and a fresh extradition has to he requested for the 
latter crime. The Extradition Act, 1962 makes a s11ecifie 1irovision to that 
effect. In view of Section 21 of the Extradition Act an extrndited fugitive 
F cannot be tried in India for any offence other than the one for which he has 
been extradited unless he has been restored to or has had an 011110rtunity to 
).· 
return to the State which surrendered him. [8-G-H] 
1.3. The doctrine of s11eciality is in fact a corollary to the principles of 
double criminality, and the aforesaid docttine is premised on the assum11tion 
G that whenever a State uses its formal 1n·ocess to surrender a person to another 
State for a specific charge, the requesting State shall carry out its intended 
1mr110se of 11rosecuting or 1mnishing the offender for the offence charged in 
its request for extradition and none other. [9-A] 
United States v. Rauscher 1019 US 407, M Chief Bassiouni, referred 
H to. 
--
+ 
-
D.S. LAHORIA v. U.O.l. [PATTANAIK, J.] 
3 
International Extradition and World Public Order, 0 'Connell 
A 
International Law and Oppenhiem : International Law, referred to. 
2. In view of the aforesaid position in law, both on international law as 
well as the relevant statute in India, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.