IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20715 of 2010(Q)
1. SAJI SAMUEL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
5. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SURESH
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :02/11/2010
O R D E R
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