Delhi High Court: The Bench of Mukta Gupta, J. dismissed a writ petition filed against the order-cum-inquiry report of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he recommended extradition of the petitioner to the Kingdom of Thailand.
The petitioner was alleged to have murdered an American national in Bangkok, Thailand in 2012. The Thai Government made him the prime suspect. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered before the Mumbai police from where he was transmitted to Delhi.
The petitioner, represented by Dr Harsh Surana and Deepali S. Surana, Advocates, challenged the inquiry report on two grounds– that the documents received from Thai Government for enquiry were not properly authenticated; and the original documents were not filed before the Court.
On perusing Section 7, 10 and 17 of the Extradition Act, 1962, the Court was of the opinion that there was no occasion to interfere in the matter. It was found that the documents were properly authenticated as per Section 10(2). It was observed that under Section 7, the scope of inquiry by Metropolitan Magistrate is limited to satisfy himself for the presence of a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the fugitive criminal has committed an extraditable offence. On further contentions by the petitioner, it was held that on his extradition, the petitioner will face a full-fledged trial where all the facts alleged by him will be brought to the notice of the competent court. In such view of the matter, the petition was dismissed as without merits. [Ritesh Narpatraj Sanghvi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6391, dated 07-01-2019]
