STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus JUGAL KISHORE MORE & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 10-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
JUGAL KISHORE MORE & ANR. 
Janµary 10, 1969 
J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A, N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Extradition-N~ture. of-:-Fugitive Offenders Act (44 & 45 Viet c. 69 
o{ .1881)-Inapp/1cab1lity m Republic of India, if bar to obtain ntra-
d~t~on of fugitive offenders from another Commonwealth country-Extra-
d1110n Act (34 of 1962), effect of. 
After this Court held. in. Sto·te of Madras v. C. G. Menon, [1~51 1 
S.C.R. 280 that the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 was inconsistent with 
Art. 14 of the Constitution and was on th;t acco~nt unenfOrceable after 
26th January 1950, the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs 
issued a notification on May 21, 1955 indicating the procedure for secur-
ing the presence of a fugitive offender in India from the United Kingdom 
and other Commonwealth countries. 
Under the Notification, the Magis-
trate concerned is to issue a warrant of arrest of the fugitive offender 
under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and the warrant is to be sent 
to the Government of India, Ministry of External Affair& through the 
concerned State Government. 
Thereafter, the Ministry is to address the 
appropriate authority in the Commonwealth country through the High 
Commissioner for India for the surrender of the fugitive offender. 
In 1962, the Indian Extradition Act was passed, but as Hon& Kong 
was not included in the First Schedule, that Act could not be resorted 
for the surrender of the respondent who was a fugitive offender residing 
in Hong Kong. 
Action was therefore taken in the present case, pursuant 
to the notification. 
The Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta issued a 
warrant under the Criminal Procedure Code for the arrest of the respon-
dent and the warrant was forwarded by the Government of West Bengal 
. to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. The Ministry 
forwarded the warrant to the High Commissioner for India, Hong Kong, 
who in his turn requested the Colonial Secretary, Hong Kong, for an 
order extraditing the respondent under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 
(44 & 45 Viet Ch. 69). The Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, endorsed 
the warrant and directed the Hong Kong police to arrest the respondent 
referring to the Republic of India as a British possession to which the 
Fugitive Offenders Act was applicable. 
On the questions : (I ) Whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate had 
no power to issue the warrant as it would have extr:i-tenitorial operation; 
(2) Whether the Fugitive Offenders Act, having ceased to be part of the 
Jaw of India, could be resorted to for obtaining extradition of fugitive 
offenders; (3) Whether the instructions of the Government of India for 
obtaining extradition are .. an invasion upon the authority of courts; a.n? 
( 4) Whether the Extrad11!6n Act, 1962, operates as a bar to the requlSl-
tion made by the Ministry of External Affairs for the extradition of the 
respondent, 
HELD : (I) The Courts of the country which make a requisitio~ for 
surrender proceed upon prima facie proof of the offence .and leave it to 
the State to make a requisition upon the other State, in which the offender• 
has taken refuge. 
Under s. 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code. when a 
·warrant is issued by a Magistrate in India, it can be executed anywhere 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
WEST BENGAL V, JUGAL KISHORE 
321 
in India and has no extra-territorial operation. 
By making a requisition 
to another State, in pursuance of such a Wflrrant, for assistance in securing 
the presence of the offender, the warrant is not invested with 
extra-
territorial operation. If the other State requested agrees to lend its aid 
to arrest the fugitive, the arrest is made by the issue of an independent 
warrant or endorsement or authentidation of the warrant of the court 
which issued it. 
By such endorsement or authentication the State ex-
presses its willingness to lend its assistance in implementation of treaties 
or international commitments to secure the arrest of the offender. 
The 
offender arrested pursuant to the warrant or endorsement is brought be-
fore the Court of the country to which requisition is made and that cuort 
holds enquiry to determine whether the offender may be extradited. [326 F-
327B] 
Courts in India have no authority to sit in judgment over the order 
passed by the Hong Kong Magistrate. He acted in accordance with the 
municipal law of Hong Kong and agreed to surrender the offender : his 
action cannot b

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