LexROSILINE GEORGE versus UOI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ROSILINE GEORGE
v.
UOI & ORS.
OCTOBER 11, 1993
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, J.]
In,ternational Law-Extradition-f'rocedure to be followed-Held
Municipal law detennines procedure. Surrender of fugitive criminals- Held:
not without request, fonnal authority or by .statute or treaty.
International Treaties--Rights and obligations-Laps,; of-Held : a
political question dependent upon intention of concerned state-No automat-
ic lapse on external change of sovereignity over the territo~Treaties not.
come to an end on change of Government.
A
B
c
Fugitive Offender Act 1881-Not applicable to British possessions.
D
Treaty-W'ho can enter iiito.
Held: Governor General of India had no authority to enter into treaties
on behalf of India and it was only the prerogative of Head of a State to do
so.
,Treaties:
Held: Not the subject matter of Indian Independence (International
Arrangements) Order 1947 which only dealt with Municipal Law.
Existing Indian Laws under the 1947 order-S.18(3) of Indian Inde-
pendence Act-Meaning of-Did not prevent order-in-Council from operating.
E
F
Constitution of India 1950 : ATt 372(1)--Law in force immediately
before commencement of the Constitution-Meaning of-{J.S.A. (extradition
India) Order-in-Council 1942 (1942 Orders) in accord with Constitution of G
India.
Extradition Act 1963-Treaty-Operation of-Held: Applicable to
whole territory of India.
Section 5 and Section lo-Documents under Section 10 along with H
141
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
order of the Central Govt. under Section ~Held part of evidence in support
of Extradition Act-Extradition Act being special provision excludes from
operation general provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
The U.S. Embassy in a letter of request for extradition stated that
an Indian citizen G while working in an American Bank, was guilty of
B
embezzlement of funds of the Bank by fraud and forgery by transferring a
certain sum to another country by wire. An indictment was returned in the
U.S. District Court charging G with embezzlement, forgery, fraud by a
banker, wire fraud, transportation of stolen money in foreign commerce
and receiving stolen money. A warrant for G's arrest was issued by the
C U.S. Magistrate. The letter of request for extradition by the U.S. Govern-
ment was accompanied by the original set of duly certified and authenti-
cated documents in support of the request. The Government of India by
an order under Sec. 5 of the Extradition Act 1962, requested an enquiry
by the Magistrate in Delhi. The Magistrate after examining the documents
caused G to be arrested and produced before him on 17th April, 1989 and
D on 3-5-1989. There after various proceedings were taken by G and his wife
in the Magistrate's Court apart from filing 2 Writ petitions and ultimately
the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the proceedings were
pending for over five years.
E
There existed a 1931 Extradition Treaty between U.S.A. and Great
Britain. For the purpose of the said treaty the territory of His Britannic
·
Majesty did not include India. However, in 1942 under the powers reserved
under Article 14 of the said treaty, an order was issued by which the British
Government through His Majesty acceded to the 1931 treaty on behalf of
India and thereafter a notification under S.3(1) of he Extradition Act read
F
with S.3(3) was issued setting out in full the 1931 Treaty between U.S.A.
and India and the provisions of the Extradition Act were also made
applicable to the United .states of America. Thereafter both the Indian
Embassy in U.S.A. and the Department of State of U.S.A. confirmed and
acknowledged the existence of the treaty. Extradition proceedings were
q challenged in this Court by G. and his wife by way of a Writ Petition and
Civil Apreals against the High Court's orders on the following grounds:
(a) A treaty signed prior to the coming into force of the Constitution
on 26-1-1950 automatically ceased to exist.
H
(b) Under the Government of India, Act, only the Governor General
GEORGE v. U.O.I.
143
of India could accede to the extradition ~~7'--
(c) The 1942 order extending and making applicable the treaty to
India ceased to be existing Indian Law and became inoperative after
coming into force of the India (Adaptation of Existing Laws) Order, 1947
and the Adaptation of Laws Order 1950.
(d) The Indian Extradition Act 1903 being applicable to British
India, could Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.