IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 20715 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAJI SAMUEL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, KAMUKUMPALLIL KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIMES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. R1,R2,& R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM R3 BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R5 BY SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY, SC , C.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C).No. 20715 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 2nd day of November,2010 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction commanding third respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner before issuing any direction based on the request of the interpol to extradit him and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the fifth respondent to keep in abeyance any proceeding initiated against the petitioner for extradition until third respondent makes any order on merits considering the grievance of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner contended that he was working in Dubai and while so he as nominee a hotel business was started by name and style “Pappy Corner Restaurant/L.L.C along with his W.P.(C)20715//2010 2 wife, one Ajith Kumar and Mr.Jayadevan and petitioner was entrusted with the management of hotel. In July 2008, he decided to have a short visit to India and at that time Ajith Kumar requested to have a signed cheque from the petitioner to borrow money in case of emergency for business by giving the cheque. Accordingly he issued a signed cheque to Ajithkumar. The said Ajithkukumar told the petitioner that if a fixed amount is written and so much amount is not with the borrower, the cheque amount be used and therefore the amount was not written and an entry was made not over 25000/- (AED). It is contended that the said cheque was misused and to avoid jail sentence petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.1,75,000/- AED encashable after three months and another cheque for Rs.25,000/- AED encashable on 8.10.2008 to Dubai police. As the dispute is over in January 2009, he returned to India and before his entry to Dubai, cheque for Rs.1,75,000/- was presented before the bank and got it returned back W.P.(C)20715//2010 3 by Ajithkumar and a fresh case was ignited before the Dubai Police and it was a trap set up to book the petitioner as and when he lands in Dubai. It is contended that subsequent to the registration of the Crime, Ajithkumar arrived in India and he was granted bail by Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara in Crime No.400/2009 of Nooranad Police and as a counterblast, he initiated crime No.351/2009 for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Even the wife of the petitioner, who is now in Dubai, was not spared and on a request from Abudabi Police forwarded to Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to locate the petitioner, Inspector General of Police Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram who is also the State Interpol Liason Officer, based on the request of CBI directed the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta to locate the petitioner and Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta made an inquiry by Special Branch police and located the petitioner and forwarded the report to the W.P.(C)20715//2010 4 Inspector General of Police. In such circumstances, a writ of mandamus as prayed for was sought. It is contended that under Article 6(2)(c) of the India -United Arab Emirates Extradition Treaty, if a person whose extradition is sought is being investigated or tried in the State for the same offence for which his extradition is requested, the authority can refuse the said request made through INTERPOL. It is the case of the petitioner that as cases are pending in respect of the same offence in India Union of India could refuse to extradit the petitioner and therefore direction is to be issued. 3. A statement is filed by the fifth respondent, Central Bureau of Investigation stating that the National Central Bureau-India which is a part of Central Bureau of Investigation, acts as an interface between various law enforcement agencies of India and National Central Bureau of other countries for mutual co-operation to combat crime and trace fugitives. National Central W.P.(C)20715//2010 5 Bureau, New Delhi received a request from the NCB- Abu Dhabi to locate the petitioner in India, who is wanted by the authorities of United Arab Emirates for the offence of issuing in bad faith, a cheque dishonoured for Rs.1,75,000/- and the address of the accused was also provided which was in Kerala. NCB, New Delhi requested the Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kerala only to locate the accused. Petitioner was located and on the basis of the report of Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Kerala NCB-India informed Interpol Abu Dhabi that petitioner is occasionally staying in Kanukumpallil, Koodal, Pathanamthitta District in connection with the construction of his house at Koodal and other times he is staying in lodges. It is also stated that NCB has not received extradition request/papers from the authorities of Interpol-Abu Dhabi so far. 4. In the light of the statement of the fifth respondent, it is clear that no request for extradition of the petitioner was received from W.P.(C)20715//2010 6 UAE. In such circumstances, I find no reason to issue any direction as sought for. Once a request is received from Interpol, Union of India can act only as provided under the provisions United Arab Emirates Extradition Treaty executed with the United Arab Emirates. Union of India is entitled to proceed as provided under the United Arab Emirates Extradition Treaty. If any representation is made by the petitioner to the Union of India, it shall also be considered. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006