NEW DELHI: At a time when extradition from abroad of several high-profile Indian economic offenders such as Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi are clouding, the curious case of British Citizen Christian Michel, an accused and alleged middleman in the VVIP helicopter scam case, comes to front line.
Michel, currently in the city's Tihar Jail, unlike the other economic offenders, claimed in a plea before Court that since his extradition from Dubai on 4th December 2018, he was in custody which is more than 5 years.
While the departure of nearly over two dozens of wanted fugitives who had left a trail of unpaid debts amounting to thousands of crores from Indian banks raising poignant questions about the effectiveness of legal processes, their extradition to the country remains a mystery.
Here comes the legal intricacies of Michel's case, who approached the court seeking release from custody on the ground that he has undergone the maximum period of detention in the case but failed to get any relief.
His lawyer Aljo K Joseph argued that the personal liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitute of India of the applicant has been arbitrarily violated and there is no sanction of law to detain the applicant beyond 5 years in custody in view of Section 21 of Extradition Act 1962.
As per Proviso to Section 436A, "...no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law," he said.
Under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which adopts the "Doctrine of Specialty", his client cannot be tried for offences other than for which he was extradited, he said further.
Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal, held that the accused is alleged to have committed offences under Section 467 IPC, which is punishable upto life imprisonment referring to a last year order by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
"By the same very reasoning, since Section 467 IPC has been invoked by the prosecuting agency by way of supplementary charge sheet, this plea that the accused has already undergone the maximum period of detention u/S. 415, 420 IPC as well as u/S. 8 of the PC Act is not tenable, as the prosecuting agency has also invoked Section 467 IPC, which entails punishment upto life," the special judge stated.
Notably, the earlier apex court order, citing Article 17 of the Extradition Treaty between India and the UAE, had decreed ‘it is evident that the person to be extradited shall not be tried or punished in the requesting State (namely India) except for the offences for which his extradition is sought or for offences connected therewith’.
In the 2023 order, the top court, while quoting Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, also said, an extradited person shall not be tried in India for an offence other than: ‘(a) the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or returned; or (b) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender for return could not be lawfully made; or (c) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent.’
However, it was not clear whether the CBI has fulfilled the requirements of the treaty with the UAE and the Extradition Act, while merely saying “the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Section 467 IPC which is punishable with up to life imprisonment”
The big question here is whether the legality vs diplomacy conundrum, in this case, can be a challenge in the coming days for the other extradition cases of fugitive economic offenders who fled to foreign countries.