DR. BABU RAM SAKSENA versus THE STATE

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 05-05-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

s. c. R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
DR. BABU RAM SAKSENA 
ti. 
THE STATE 
r 
SttRI HARILAL KANIA c. J ., SAIYID F AZL Au, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.] 
573 
Constitutioll 
of India-Merger 
of. States-Effect-Treaty 
of 
Extradition between British Government and Indian State-Whether 
subsists 
after merger-Extradition Act 1903, ss. 7, IS-Provision 
i11 
Act for extradition for additional offences-Whether "derogates" 
from 
Treaty-F.xtradition warrant for additional offences-Legality. 
In 
1869 the British Government and Qie State of Tonk 
entered 
into 
treaty 
which 
provided 
for 
the 
extradition 
of 
offenders in respect of certain offe11ces specified 
therein called 
"heinous offences," which did not include the offences of chcat-
i ng and extortion. In 
1903 
the Indian Extradition Act was 
passed which provided for extradition in respect of cheating and 
extortion 
also, 
but s. 18 of the Act provided that nothing con-
tained in the Act "shall derogate from the provisions of any 
treaty for the extradition of offenders." Under the Independence 
of India Act, 1947, the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian 
States lapsed ana with it all 
~reaties and agreements in force; 
but under a "standstill agreement," between the Indian Dominion 
and the States 
(including Tonk) all agreements between His 
Majesty 
and the States 
were continued, including agreements in 
respect of extradition. Tonk acceded to the Dominion of lridia in 
1947 and 
became a member State of the United State of 
Rajasthan. 
The appellant was a member of the Uttar Pradesh 
Civil Service and his services were lent to the State of Tonk in 
1948. After he had reverted to the Uttar Pradesh he was charged 
with the offences of cheating and extortion alleged to have been 
committed while 
he 
was in Tonk and was arrested under an 
extradition warrant issued under s. 7 of the Extradition Act, 
1903. He applied under ss. 
491 and 561-A of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure for his release, contending that in view of the 
provisions of s. 18 of the Extradition 
Act 
and 
the 
Tre~ty of 
Extradition of 1869, his arrest was illegal : 
· Held per KANIA 
C. J. and PATANJALI SAsTRI J. (FAzL ALI J. 
concurring).-Even assuming that the Extradition Treaty of 1869 
subsisted after 
the 
merger of the 
Tonk State, by providing for 
extradition for additional offences the Extradition Act of 1903 did 
not derogate . from the provisions of the Treaty of 1869 or the 
rights of Indian citizens thereunder, and the arrest and surrender 
of the appellant under s. 7 of the Act was not, therefore, rendered 
unlawful by anything contained in the said Treaty. 
1950 
ltlig 5. 
1950 
Dr. Babu Ram 
Salama 
v. 
The Siok. 
Patdnjali 
Sastri]. 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f1950J 
Per MuKHERJEA J. 
(FAZL 
AL1, 
ivfAHAJAN 
an<l 
DAs JJ. con-
curring).-The 
Extradition 
Treaty of 
1869 \Vas not capable 
of 
being given effect to in vie'v of the n1erger of the Tonk State ;n 
the 
United 
State of Rajasthan, 
and, as 
no enforceable 
treaty 
right existed, s. 18 of the Extradition Act of 1903 had no applica-
tion ; and inasn1uch as the conditions of s. 7 of the said Act had 
been complied with, the warrant of arrest issued under s. 7 of the 
Act \Vas not illegal. 
APPELLATE 
JuR1so1cTroN: 
Criminal Appeal No. II 
of 1949. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment of 
the 
Allahabad High Court (Harish Chandra J.) dated 11th 
November, 
1949, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 
960 of 1949. The facts of the case and the arguments 
of coumel are set out fully in the judgment. 
Alladi, 
Krishnaswami /year (Alladi Kuppuswami 
with him) for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India 
(V. 
N. 
Sethi, with him) for the respondent. 
1950. 
May 5. The judgment of Kania C.J. and 
Patanjali Sastri J. was delivered by 
PATANJALI SASTRI J.-This is an appeal 
by 
special 
leave from an order of the High Court at Allahabad dis-
missing an application under sections 491 and 561-A of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the 
appellant who was arrested in pursuance of an ex-
tradition warrant issued by the Regional 
Commissioner 
of the United State of Rajasthan who is the principal 
officer 
representing the Crown in tbe territory of that 
State. 
The appellant who is a member of the Uttar Pradesh 
Civil Service was appointed in 1948 to serve what was 
then known as the Tonk State in various capacities, 
and during such service he is 
alleged to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.