Supreme Court- Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India (UOI)

The Appellant, an Indian citizen, holding an Indian Passport, is also a resident of United States of America. The Government of the United States of America made a formal request to the Government of India stating that the Appellant was wanted to stand trial in the U.S. District Court for drug trafficking and money laundering. Pursuant to the request made by the Government of the United States of America, he was arrested. The Government of India made a request to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, to make an enquiry in respect of the alleged offences. On the premise that the formal request did not satisfy the requirements of Article 9 of the Extradition Treaty as well as Section 7 of the Act, he filed an application for supply of deficient documents and requested supply of copies thereof to lead his defence, which request was declined by the Magistrate. Extradition enquiry was directed to proceed only on the documents filed by the Respondent in the Trial Court subject to all legal consequences. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recommended the extradition of the Appellant. A Writ Petition filed questioning the legality and validity of the Order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Hence, the present appeal. The Apex Court held that article recovered was a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, possession whereof by itself contributes an offence. Quantity recovered answers the description of commercial quantity. Whereas in a trial, the Court for the purpose of appreciation of evidence may have to shift the burden from stage to stage, such a procedure is not required to be adopted in an enquiry. For the purpose of Section 10, it is necessary to supply the copies of the documents to the fugitive criminal. The word "information" occurring in Section 7 could not mean an evidence which has been brought on record upon strict application of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Use of the terminology "evidence" in Section 7 of the Act must be read in the context of Section 10 and not de'hors the same. An information need not be a documentary evidence or an oral evidence as is understood under the Indian Evidence Act. Section 10 contemplates the copies of exhibits and depositions and official certificates of facts and judicial documents stating facts would, if duly authenticated, be received as evidence. The impugned order was accordingly upheld and appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court Judgments
Manupatra Round up