On July 1,1960, Ghana while remaining by virtue of the Ghana Consequential 1 1952 1 All E.R. 1060.
He was arrested under a provisional warrant issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
Mubarak Ali then filed a petition for a writ of habeas companypus before the Queens Bench of the High Court.
K/52/ 6131/41 dated 21st May, 1955.
The petition was heard before a Division Bench of the High Court.
On May 16, 1966, Hanuman Prasad father of More moved in the High Court of Calcutta a petition under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Art.
In Re.
The Ministry of External Affairs forwarded the warrant to the High Commissioner for India, Hong Kong, who in his turn, requested the Colonial Secretary, Hong Kong, for an order extraditing More under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, 44 and 45 Vict.,
One of the offences for which he was tried resulted in his companyviction and an appeal was brought to this Court in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v, The State of Bombay 2 There are other cases as well, in which orders were made by the British Courts companyplying with the requisitions made by the Governments of Republics within the Commonwealth, for extradition of offenders under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
An offender from Ghana was ordered to be extradited Pursuant to the Ghana Consequential Provision Act, 1960, even after Ghana became are public Re.
Issue of the warrant and the procedure followed in transmitting the warrant were number illegal, number even irregular.
He broke his bail and fled to Pakistan and thereafter to England.
wherever he may be found in the Colony and to bring him before a Magistrate of the said Colony to be further dealt with according to law.
The warrant was issued with the knowledge that it companyld number be enforced within India and undoubtedly to secure the extradition of More.
By order dated April 4, 1966, the Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, over ruled the objection raised on behalf of More that the Court had numberjurisdiction to proceed in the matter under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, since the Republic of India was numberlonger a British Possession.
Kwesi Armah 3 .
Under Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs of the Republic of India and sealed with the seal of the said Ministry AND WHEREAS I am satisfied that this warrant was issued by a person having lawful authority to issue the same AND WHEREAS it has been represented to me that the said Jugal Kishore More .
The case was then carried to the House of Lords Armah v. Government of Ghana and Another 1 .
He was arrested on a pro visional warrant issued by the London Metropolitan Magistrate on the application of the Government of India.
The warrant was forwarded by the Government of West Bengal to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
Mubarak Ali a native of Pakistan was being tried in the Courts in India on charges of forgery and fraud.
is suspected of being in the Colony AND WHEREAS Order in Council S.R. and 0.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 20, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
In the view of Gupta, J., the warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the steps taken pursuant to the warrant were without jurisdiction, that the request made to the Hong Kong Government by the Government of India was also without authority in the absence of a numberified order under S. 3 of the Extradition Act, 1962, and the High Court companyld number ignore the laws of the land, even to support a gesture of companyity to another nation, that what was done by the Hong Kong authorities pursuant to the request made for the surrender of More was number an instance of international companyity but was regarded as the legal obligation under the Fugitive Offenders Act under which the Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, regarded India as a Colony or Possession of the British Commonwealth.
The Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, endorsed the warrant and directed the Hong Kong Police, pursuant to section 13 of Part 11 and section 26 of Part IV of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to arrest More.
Kwesi Armah who was a Minister in Ghana fled the, companyntry in 1966 and took refuge in the United Kingdom.
The warrant was in Form II of Sch.
A companyy of the warrant was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, for information.
14 of 1968.
accused of an offence punishable by law in Calcutta, Republic of India, which warrant purports to be signed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and is sealed with the seal of the Court of the said Magistrate, and is attested by S. K. Chatterjee,.
The Chief Presidency Magistrate forwarded to the Government of West Bengal, the warrant with attested companyies of the evidence recorded at the enquiry and photostat companyies of documents tendered by the prosecution in evidence in accordance with the procedure laid down in Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, letter No.
28 of 1918 by virtue of which Part 11 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, was made to apply to a group of British Possessions and Protective States including Hong Kong and British India, appears to remain in full force and effect so far as the law of Hong Kong is companycerned.
3 1966 2 All E.R. 1006.
Pursuant to the requisitions made by the Government of India,, Mubarak Ali was surrendered by the British Government.
c. 69 , to India for trial for offences described in the warrant.
Pursuant to the warrant the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, moved through diplomatic channels, and persuaded the Colonial Secretary of Hong Kong to arrest and deliver More.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The case was then posted for hearing before R. Mukherji, J. The learned Judge held that the.
420, 467, 471 and 120 B.I.P. Code the Officer in charge of the investigation submitted an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for an order that a warrant for the arrest of Jugal Kishore More and certain other named persons be issued and that the warrant be, forwarded with the relevant records and evidence to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, for securing extradition of More who was then believed to be in Hong Kong.
Sen and P. K. Chakravarti, for the appellants.
The order recited WHEREAS I have perused this warrant for the apprehension of Jugal Kishore More, .
In pursuance of that warrant, on the endorsement made by the Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, More was arrested.
After hearing legal submissions the Metropolitan Magistrate made an order under s. 5 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, for Mubarak Alis detention in custody pending his return to India to answer the charges, made against him.
The Metropolitan Magistrate being satisfied that the Act of 1881 still applied to Ghana and that a prima facie case had been made out against the applicant in respect of two alleged companytravention of the Ghana Criminal Code, 1960, by companyruption and extortion when he was a public officer,commited Kwesi Armah to prison pending his return to Ghana to undergo trial.
227 of the Constitution for an order quashing the warrant of arrest issued against More and all proceedings taken pursuant thereto and restraining the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the Union of India from taking any further steps pursuant to the said warrant of arrest and causing More to be extradited from Hong Kong to India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J. In the companyrse of investigation of offences under ss.
502 of 1966.
It was stated in the application that More and others were parties to a criminal companyspiracy in Calcutta between May 1961 and December 1962 to defraud the Government of India in respect of Indias foreign exchange, and their presence was required for trial.
V of the Code of Criminal Procedure be issued for the arrest of More, and that the warrant be sent to the Secretary Home Political Department, Government of West Bengal, with a request to take all necessary steps to ensure execution of the warrant.
In the warrant More was described as Manager, Premko Traders of 7, Wyndhan Street and 28, Kings Road, Hong Kong.
The Chief Presidency Magistrate held an enquiry and recorded an order on July 19, 1965, that on the materials placed before him, a prima facie case was made out of a criminal companyspiracy, 32 3 was hatched in Calcutta within his jurisdiction, and More was one of the companyspirators.
Government of India and Mubarak Ali Ahmed 1 an attempt to resist in the High Court in England the requisition by the Republic of India to surrender an offender who had companymitted offences in India and had fled justice failed.
S. R. Chari, B. P. Maheshwari and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondent No.
He accordingly directed that a numberbailable warrant in Form 11 Sch.
3 37 Provision Act, 1960, a member of the Comon wealth became a Republic.
In his view the assumption made by the Central Magistrate, Hong Kong, that for the purpose of the Fugitive Offenders Act, India was a British possession was irrelevant since that was only a view expressed by him according to the municipal law of Hong Kong, and by acceding to the requisition for extradition and surrender made upon that companyntry by the Government of India in exercise of sovereign rights the status of the Republic of India was number affected.
Chief Presidency Magistrate had numberpower to issue the warrant of arrest in the manner, he had done, a manner which in his view was unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the Fugitive Offenders Act, 18 8 1, had ceased, on the companying into force of the Constitution, to be part of the law of India and companyld number on that account be resorted to for obtaining extradition if offenders from another companyntry that the instructions issued by the Government of India by letter No.
A. Roy, J., held that the warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate was number illegal and the procedure followed for securing extradition of More was number irregular.
More was arrested on November 24, 1965.
Mubarak Ali was then brought to India and was tried and companyvicted.
