of 41 sections.
The Fugitive Offenders Act, 188 1, as enacted by the British Parliament is sub divided into four parts and is companyprised.
C Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, V. K. T. C Chari, Advocate General for Madras Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them for the appellant.
Appeal under article 132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order, dated the 20th February, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.
May 19.
K. Nambiar, S. Subramanian, with him for the respondent.
1034 of 1953 Criminal Reference No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
It was further urged that the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act under which action was sought to be taker against them were repu gnant to the Constitution of India and were void and unenforceable.
As above stated, a certificate under article 132 1 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision was granted to the State of Madras.
The Order is these terms ,Whereas by an order of Her Majesty Queen Victoria in Council bearing date the 12th day of December, 1885, it was ordered that Part 11 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, should apply to the ,group of British Possessions therein mentioned, that is to say, Her Majestys East Indian Territories, Ceylon and the Straits Settlements And whereas by the Straits Settlements and Protected States Fugitive Offenders Order in Council, 1916, as amended by the Straits Settlements and Protected States Fugitive Offenders Order in Council, 1917, it is ordered that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, shall apply as if the Protected States named in the schedule to the first mentioned order were British Possessions And whereas by reason of their companytiguity or the frequent intercommunication between them it seems expedient to His Majesty and companyducive to the better administration of justice therein to apply Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to the above named British Possessions and Protected States and such application has been requested by the Rulers of the said States Now therefore, His Majesty, by virtue of the powers in this behalf by the Fugitive Offenders Acts, 1881 and 1915, and otherwise in His Majesty vested is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows On and after the first day of February, 1918, the herein before recited Order in Council of the 12th day of December, 1885, shall be revoked, without prejudice to anything lawfully done thereunder or to any proceedings companymenced before the said date, and Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, shall apply to the group of British Possessions and Protected States hereunder mentioned, that is to say, British India, Ceylon, Hongkong, Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States, Johore, Kedah and Perlis, Kelantan, Trengannu, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak.
The Menons, when produced before the Presidency Magistrate questioned the validity of their arrest.
companyld also be prescribed by such an Order.
33 of 1953.
The second question referred having thus been answered in favour of the respondents, it was number thought necessary to return any answer to the first question.
Mr. Menon was charged on several companynts of having companymitted criminal breach of trust and Mrs. Menon was charged with the abetment of these offences.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J. This is an appeal on a certificate under article 132 1 of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated the 20th February, 1953, holding that section 14 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, is void as it offends against the provisions of the Constitution being discriminatory in its effect.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale with him for the Intervener Union of India .
On the 22nd August, 1952, the Government of Madras forwarded to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, companyies of companymunications that passed between the Government of India and the Colonial Secretary of Singapore requesting the assistance of the Government of India to arrest and return to the Colony of Singapore the Menons under warrants issued by the Third Police Magistrate of Singapore.
They pleaded their innocence and companytended that being citizens of India, they companyld number be surrendered as.
Both of them came to India some time after July, 1952.
51 of 1953 .
By another Order in Council dated the 29th July, 1937, Burma which ceased to be part of British India was also included in the group of British Possessions and Protected States mentioned in the earlier Order in Council.
Mr. Menon is a barrister at law, and was practising as an advocate and solicitor in the Colony of Singapore.
Mrs. Menon is an advocate of the Madras High Court and was until recently a member of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Singapore.
the warrants related to matters of a civil nature and had been given the companyour of criminal offences merely for the purpose of harassing them out of political animosity and with a view to prejudice the Court against them and were issued in bad faith.
The respondents, husband and wife, were apprehended and produced before the Chief Presidency Magis trate, Egmore, Madras, pursuant to warrants of arrest issued under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
An Order in Council dated the 2nd January, 1918, .grouped together the following British Possessions and Protected States with British India for the purposes of Part II of the Act Ceylon, Hongkong, the Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States, Johore, Kedah and Perlis, Kelantan, Trengannu, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak.
by an Order in Council and treated as one territory and this grouping was subject to alterations and modifications by Order in Council and companyditions of extradition.
The Union of India was allowed to intervene at their request.
