THE STATE OF MADRAS versus C. G. MENON AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 19-04-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
MoJ 19 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1955] 
THE STATE OF MADRAS 
f). 
C. G. MENON AND ANOTHER. 
(MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, 
GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] 
Constitution of India-India-Sovereign 
Democratic 
Republic 
-Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (44 Victoria Chapt<r 69), ss. 12 and 
14-Whether applies to India 
after 
the comjng into force of the 
Constitution-Indian Extradition 
Act (XV of 
1903)-Adaptotion 
u.nder art. 372 of the Constitution-Effect of. 
After the achievement of independence and 
the coming into 
fOrce 
of the new Constitution India became a Sovereign Demo-
cratic Republic and could not be described as a British Possession 
or 
grouped by an 
Order-in-Council 
amongst 
those 
Possessions 
within the meaning of s. 12 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. 
It became a foreign country so far as other British Possessions are 
concerned and the extradition of persons taking asylum in 
India, 
having committed offences in 
British 
Possessions could 
only 
be 
dealt with by an arrangement between the 
Sovereign Democratic 
Republic of India and the British Government and given effect to 
by appropriate Legislation. 
· 
The Indian Extradition Act, 1903 (Act XV of 1903) has been 
adapted under the provisions of article 372 of the Constitution but 
r 
this Act has not kept alive any of the provisions of the 
Fugitive 
Offenders Act, 1881, 
which was an act of the British Parliament .........-
and which 
has not been adapted and therefore section 
12 and 
section 14 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, have no application 
to India. 
CRIMIN AL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 33 of 1953. 
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of 
India from the Judgment and Order, dated the 20th 
February, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 1034 of 1953 
(Criminal Reference No. 51 of 1953). 
C. 
K. 
Daphtary, 
Solicitor-General 
for 
India, 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General for Madras (Porus 
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the 
appellant. 
M. K. Nambiar, 
the respondent. 
(S. Subramanian, with him) for 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India 
(Porus 
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale with him) for the Intervener 
(Union of India). 
~ 
I , 
--
• 
. 
: 
---
• 
.:t 
\ 
.S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
281 
1954. May 19. The Judgment of the Court was 
<lelivered by 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.-This is an appeal on 
.a certificate under article 132(1) of the Constitution 
against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature 
.at Madras dated the 20th February, 1953, holding that 
section.14 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, is void 
:as it offends against the provisions of the Constitution 
being discriminatory in its effect. 
The respondents, husband and wife, were apprehend-
-ed and produced before the 
Chief Presidency Magis-
trate, Egmore, Madras, pursuant to warrants of arrest 
issued under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders 
Act, 1881. Mr. Menon is a barrister-at-law, and was 
.practising as an advocate and solicitor in the Colony of 
Singapore. Mrs. Menon is an advocate of the Madras 
High Court and was until recently a member of the 
Legislative Council of the Colony of Singapore. Both 
of them came to India some time after July, 1952. On 
.the 22nd August, 
1952, the Government of Madras 
forwarded to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, 
copies of communications 
that passed 
between the 
;Government of India and the Colonial Secretary of 
Singapore requesting the assistance of the Government 
·of India to arrest and return to the Colony of Singapore 
-rhe Menons under warrants issued by the Third Police 
Magistrate of Singapore. Mr. Menon was charged on 
·several counts of having committed criminal breach of 
·trust and Mrs. Menon was charged with the abetment 
·of these offences. 
The Menons, when produced before the Presidency 
Magistrate, questioned 
the 
validity 
of 
their arrest . 
'They pleaded their innocence and contended that being 
citizens of India, they could not be surrendered as the 
warrants related to matters of a civil nature and had 
·been given the colour of criminal offences merely for 
·the purpose of harassing them out of political animo-
sity and with a view to prejudice the Court against 
·them and were issued in bad faith. It was further urged 
that the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act under 
· which action .was sought to be taken against them were 
36 
1954 
TIWState

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