SARABJIT RICK SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
SARABilT RICK SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Extradition Act, 1962: 
A 
B 
ss. 7 and 10-Request by Government of U.S.A. for extradition c 
of appellant on ground of his involvement in drug trafficking and 
money laundering-Pursuant thereto Magistrate entrusted to make 
enquiry under the Act-Extradition order by Magistrate-Challenge 
to, on the ground that documents relied upon by }.fagistrate, without 
corroboration thereof! ... material particulars-Held: No case made out D 
for interference with extradi!;on order-Magistrate is only required to 
arrive at prima facic finding, eitl;er in favour of fugitive criminal or 
in support of the requesting State on basis of documents supplied in 
terms of s. l 0-He is not to hold the trial-Use of terminology 
·evidence 'ins. 7 to be read in context of s. l 0-Thus, s. 3 of Evidence E 
Act which defines "evidence" in.strict sense not applicable in 
proceeding under the Act-The Act is special statute-Therefore, it 
l1'0llld'prevail over provisions of general statute like the Code of 
Criminal Procedure-Inda U.S. Treaty-Article 9, Paragraphs 2 and 
3-Evidence Act-s.3-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss.173(5), F 
227-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-ss.208, 209. 
ss. 7 and 10-Evidence-Appreciation of, for trial of accused vis-
a-vis to make report upon holding enquiry in terms of provisions of 
the Act-Distinction between-Criminal trial-Enquiry. 
Writ: 
Writ of certiorari-Jurisdiction of superior courts-Scope of 
G 
H 
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Add1.) S.C.R. 
A 
Appeal: 
B 
Appeal before Supreme Court- Fresh plea-Plea as to prejudice 
taken.for first time before Supreme Court-Held: Not tenable. 
Inte1pretation of statutes: 
Harmonious construction-Held: When statute is required to be 
read with International Treaty, consideration of provisions contained 
in the latter is also imperative-Extradition Act, 1962- lndo US. 
Treaty- Article 9, Paragraphs 2 and 3. 
C 
Doctrines/Principles: 
Incorporation by reference-Applicability of 
Words and phrases: 
D 
'information '- Meaning of- In the context of s. 7 of Extradition 
Act. 1962. 
The Government of U.S.A. made a formal request on 7th January, 
2002 for extradition of the appellant, an Indian citizen and resident of 
U.S.A on the ground that he was wanted to stand trial inf.he U.S. District 
E Court for drug trafficking and money laundering. Pursuant to this 
request, he was arrested on 10th November, 2002. The Goveminent of 
India in exercise of its power conferred upon it under s.5 of the 
Extradition Act, 1962 made a re<1uest to the Additional CMM to make 
an enquiry in respect of the alleged offences levelled against him. He 
F was produced before the said court. The documents appended to the 
formal request for extradition were supplied to him. He was granted an 
opportunity to file written statement. Appellant filed an application for 
the supply of deficient document on the premise that the formal request 
by Government of U.S.A. did not satisfy the requirements of Article 9 
G of the In do U.S. Treaty as well as s.7 of the Extradition Act, 1962. His 
request to supply copies of the documents however, was declined by 
the Magistrate. Extradition enquiry was directed to proceed only on 
the documents filed by the respondent in the trial murt subject to all 
legal consequences. CMM recommended the extrndition of the 
H 
SARABJIT RICK SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 
323 
appellant to U.S.A. A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellant A 
was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Documents received from the Government of U.S.A. 
show that the substance recovered was described as MDMA, which is B 
a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985, possession whereof by itself contributes an 
offence. The quantity of the drug recovered answers the description of 
commercial quantity. The chemical reports also show that the drug is a 
controlled drug. In India, an accused found guilty of the commission of c 
the said offence, may be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a 
minimum period oflO years which may extend to 20 years besides flne. 
[Paras 28 and 29] [340-D-F] 
2. Article 9(3) of the In do U.S. Treaty says that the request for 
extradition should be supported by such information as would justify D 
the committal for trial of the person if the offence had been 

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