IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27412 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RAHMAN SALIM OBAID AL HAJRI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AHAMMED RAFI KALLATRA, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI KALLATRA AHAMMED, KATTATRA HOUSE, P.O.KALANAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 317. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AMBALATH VEETTIL MOHAMMED ALY, PADINJARANGADI, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA - REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI AMJAD ALI FOR R2 TO R4 BY SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27412 of 2006 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner, a citizen of United Arab Emirates (for short, 'UAE') has filed this petition for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to arrest the first respondent to enforce the conviction and sentence passed by the Sharjah Court as per Ext.P1 and deport him to Sharjah to undergo imprisonment. According to the petitioner, first respondent was involved in a case at Sharjah and that resulted in Ext.P1 adjudication. Grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent is now in Kerala but inspite of arrest warrant issued, respondents 2 and 3 are not taking steps to arrest the first respondent and deport him to Sharjah as provided in Ext.P3, the Extradition Treaty entered into between the Republic of India and UAE . 3. Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 after getting instructions from the departments concerned submitted that no arrest warrant or such other authority to arrest the first respondent has been received from any court in Sharjah. According to them, without such arrest warrant or such other authority, first respondent cannot be arrested. 4. Article 9 clauses 1 to 4 of Ext.P3 read as under:- “1. In case of urgency, a person to be extradited may be provisionally arrested and remanded in custody until the request for extradition, together with the documents referred WP(C) No.27412/2006 2 to in the preceding Article are received. 2. The request for provisional arrest and remand shall be communicated in writing to the competent authority of the requested State, either directly or through the international Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL) channels. 3. The same request shall be confirmed through the diplomatic channels, and shall contain a reference to the existence of any of the documents, enumerated in the preceding Article, and intimating the intention of the requesting State to transmit a request for extradition, a statement of the offence for which extradition is requested, the sentence specified for that offence or the sentence imposed, the time and place of the commission of the offence and a detailed description of the person to be extradited, as far as possible. The requesting State shall forthwith be notified of any action taken in respect of the request. 4. The provisional arrest and remand shall be made in accordance with the legal procedures of the requested State.” 5. Though the petitioner has produced Ext.P2 to show that such arrest warrant has been issued, I am unable to read from Ext.P2 any such direction for arrest of the first respondent. It only says about the Indians wanted in UAE. That cannot be understood as an authority for the arrest of the first WP(C) No.27412/2006 3 respondent. Therefore, the direction prayed for in this petition cannot be issued. It is open to the petitioner to move the Sharjah Court for issue of arrest warrant to the appropriate authority through proper channel as provided in Ext.P3 and under the relevant laws. Writ Petition therefore, is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks