Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 639 (PNJ)

Khem Singh Gill v. Union Of India

2000-06-09

G.S.SINGHVI, NIRMAL SINGH

body2000
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition directing respondents No. 2 and 3 not to seek police remand of the sons of the petitioners who have been extradited to India in pursuance of the judgment of a Court in the United States of America (for short, USA). The Facts : Ranjit Singh son of Khem Singh Gill (petitioner No. 1), who was accused of committing various crimes including the murder of a Member of Parliament, his wife and another person could not be brought a trial despite the warrant of arrest issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in April, 1987 because he fled to USA. Similarly, Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu son of Jagjit Singh Sandhu (petitioner No. 2), who was wanted to connection with various offences committed at Ahmedabad, Bombay and Rajasthan could not be tried because he too had escaped to USA. The Government of India sought their extradition on the ground that they had committed various offences in India, but after hearing the parties, the concerned Court passed order dated 23.5.1997 for their extradition to India for two specific offences. Ranjit Singh was ordered to be extradited for committing the murder of Member of Parliament, his wife and another person and Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu was extradited on the charge of his participation in shooting at Udaipur (Rajsthan). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the bar contained in Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty entered into between the Government of India and the United States, the police authorities of the State of Punjab are trying to secure remand of their sons in respect of offences which do not form part of the order of extradition. They have averred that Ranjit Singh is in custody of Delhi Police and Sukhwinder Singh is in the custody of Udaipur police, but the Punjab police is making serious efforts to secure their detention in relation to other offences and have prayed that respondents No. 2 adn 3 be restrained from seeking the remand of their sons in respect of the offences which do not form part of the order of extradition. 3. 3. In the short reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been averred that as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, an extraditee cannot be prosecuted for any offence other than those for which extradition has been granted and if the Government of Punjab wants to proceed against the sons of the petitioners for other offences, it can make request to the Government of India to seek permission from the United States of America for trying the extradites in respect of those offences. 4. In their written statement, respondents No. 2 and 3 have justified the action of Ludhiana police to seek remand of Ranjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh in relation to the offence other than for which they have been extradited by making the following averments : "4. That the contents of para No. 4 are admitted to the extent of the orders of extradition being passed while the rest of the contents are denied for want of knowledge. However, it is further submitted that Ranjit Singh Gill was declared as a proclaimed offencer in case FIR No. 292 dated 12.7.85 under Sections 302/34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana. In case FIR No. 503 dated 10.12.1985 under Section 392 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana, Ranjit Singh alias Kuki and Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi were declared proclaimed offenders on 3.8.87 by the competent court at Ludhiana. In case FIR No. 184 dated 10.6.86 under Sections 302, 307/34 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act, 3/4/5 TADA(P) Act, P.S. Division No. 5, Ludhiana, Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi was declared as proclaimed offender on 24.12.1986. Similarly, in case FIR No. 319 dated 9.7.85 under Sections 307, 427, 148, 149/120-B IPC, 3/4/5 TADA(P) Act, P.S. Division No. 5, Ludhiana, Ranjit Singh alias Kuki and Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi were declared as proclaimed offenders on 10.9.85. In case FIR No. 51 dated 28.3.86 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC, 25 Arms Act, P.S. Division No. 4, Ludhiana Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi is an accused. In view of the aforesaid cases production warrants were issued by the Court of Shri B.K. Mehta, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Shri Rajiv Malhotra, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. 5. In case FIR No. 51 dated 28.3.86 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC, 25 Arms Act, P.S. Division No. 4, Ludhiana Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi is an accused. In view of the aforesaid cases production warrants were issued by the Court of Shri B.K. Mehta, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Shri Rajiv Malhotra, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. 5. That the contents of para No. 5 need no reply as far as narration of Article 7 of Extradition Treaty is concerned but, however, it is further submitted that the crimes which were committed prior to the extradition of the accused in India, could be tried by the competent Courts having jurisdiction over the matter against the accused persons. 6. That the contents of para No. 6 are denied for want of knowledge but, however, it is further submitted that the accused have been legally summoned on production warrants issued by the Courts at Ludhiana having jurisdiction over the matter. The accused persons can be made to face trial for the criminal offences committed by them before they had fled from India. However, in case of any legal problem, Union of India would be approached for securing consent for prosecution of accused persons from foreign State. xx xx xx xx 9. That the contents of para No. 9 as alleged are incorrect and denied. The accused are being summoned to face trial for the heinous offences committed by them and they can be legally made to face trial for such offences in view of the fact that they are already extradited to India. 10. That the contents of para No. 10 as alleged are incorrect and hence denied. The Indian Penal Code fully empowers the Courts in India to try the offences after they are extradited to India since the crimes were committed by them before they fled from this country." 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 21 of the Act and Article 7 of the extradition Treaty, which was notified in the Government of India Gazette dated 1.4.1966 read as under :- "Section 21 of the Act Section 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 21 of the Act and Article 7 of the extradition Treaty, which was notified in the Government of India Gazette dated 1.4.1966 read as under :- "Section 21 of the Act Section 21. Accused or convicted persons surrendered or returned by foreign State not to be tried for certain offences :- Whenever any person accused or convicted of an offence, which if committed in India would be an extradition offence, is surrendered or returned by a foreign State, such person shall not, until he has been restored or has had on opportunity of returning to that State, be treated in India for an offence other than - (a) the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or returned; or (b) any lesser offence disclosed by the fact proved for the purpose of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender or return could not be lawfully made; or (c) the offence is respect of which the Foreign State has given its consent. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty A person surrendered can in no case be kept in custody or be brought to trial in the territories of the High Contracting Party to whom the surrender has been made for any other crime or offence, or on account of any other matters, than those for which the extradition shall have taken place, until he has been restored, or has had an opportunity of returning, to the territories of the High Contracting Party by whom he has been surrendered. This stipulation does not apply to crimes of offences committed after the extradition." 6. A bare reading of the provisions quoted above shows that a person who has been extradited cannot be kept in custody or be brought to trial in India for any other crime or offence than those for which extradition had been granted until he has been restored to the territories of High Contracting Party, i.e., United States of America, Great Britain and Northern Ireland by whom he had been surrendered. In view of this, there is no escape from the conclusion that Ranjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi cannot be brought to trial for any offence other than for which extradition was granted by the United States Court. 7. In view of this, there is no escape from the conclusion that Ranjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi cannot be brought to trial for any offence other than for which extradition was granted by the United States Court. 7. In view of the above, we hold that the police authorities of the State of Punjab cannot seek remand of the sons of the petitioners in relation to any offence other than those for which they have been extradited to India in pursuance of the order dated 23.5.1997 pased by the Court of USA. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are restrained from seeking remand of the sons of the petitioners or taking any other step for bringing them to trial for any offence other than those in relation to which they have been extradited in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of the United States.