DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

Project

International Criminal Law

TOPIC: Extradition Law: Indian Perspective

Submitted to Mr. Arvind Nath Tripathi

Submitted by
Bharath Simha Reddy
2015022 10th Sem
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have made my project under the supervision of Mr. Arvindhnath Tripati, Faculty Lecturer, Damodaram
Sanjivayya National Law University. I find no words to express my sense of gratitude for a mam for
providing the necessary guidance at every step during the completion of this project.  

I am also grateful to the office, librarian and library staff of DSNLU, Visakhapatnam for allowing me to
use their library whenever I needed to. Further I am grateful to my learned teachers for their academic
patronage and persistent encouragement extended to me.  I am once again highly indebted to the office
and Library Staff of DSNLU for the support and cooperation extended by them from time to time. I
cannot conclude with recording my thanks to my friends for the assistance received from them in the
preparation of this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY---------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4

CHAPTER 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7-10

 TITLE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

 INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

 RESEARCH QUESTIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

 REVIEW OF LITERATURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY---------------------------------------------------------------------------9

 CHAPTERISATION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

CHAPTER 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11-13

 INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

 ACTS GOVERNING EXTRADITION IN INDIA--------------------------------------------------------12

CHAPTER 3-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14-
17

 PRINCIPLES ALBEIT THE LAW OF EXTRADITION--------------------------------------------------

14

 PROCEDURE OF EXTRADITION---------------------------------------------------------------------16

CHAPTER 4-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18-
20

 CASES OF EXTRADITION

----------------------------------------------------------------------------18

CONCLUSION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21

BIBLIOGRAPHY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

CHAPTER i1
1.1 iTITLE

The iproject iis ititled ias i“Extradition iLaw: iIndian iPerspective”.

1.2 iINTRODUCTION
Extradition imay ibe ibriefly idescribed ias ithe isurrender iof ian ialleged ior iconvicted
icriminal iby ione iState ito ianother. iMore iprecisely, iextradition imay ibe idefined ias ithe
iprocess iby iwhich ione iState iupon ithe irequest iof ianother isurrenders ito ithe ilatter ia
iperson ifound iwithin iits ijurisdiction ifor itrial iand ipunishment ior, iif ihe ihas ibeen ialready
iconvicted, ionly ifor ipunishment, ion iaccount iof ia icrime ipunishable iby ithe ilaws iof ithe
irequesting iState iand icommitted ioutside ithe iterritory iof ithe irequested iState.The ipurpose
iof iextradition iis ito ibring ithe iindividual iwithin ithe irequesting icountry’s iboundaries iin
iorder ito imake ia idetermination iof iguilt ior iinnocence, ior ito iimpose ipunishment.
iExtradition iplays ian iimportant irole iin ithe iinternational ibattle iagainst icrime. iIt iowes iits
iexistence ito ithe iso-called iprinciple iof iterritoriality iof icriminal ilaw, iaccording ito iwhich
ia iState iwill inot iapply iits ipenal istatutes ito iacts icommitted ioutside iits iown iboundaries
iexcept iwhere ithe iprotection iof ispecial inational iinterests iis iat istake. iIn iview iof ithe
isolidarity iof inations iin ithe irepression iof icriminality, ihowever, ia iState, ithough irefusing
ito iimpose idirect ipenal isanctions ito ioffences icommitted iabroad, iis iusually iwilling ito
icooperate iotherwise iin ibringing ithe iperpetrator ito ijustice ilest ihe igoes iunpunished.

Traditionally, iextradition ilaw iis ibased ion itreaties. iTwo istates itypically iagree iin ia
ibilateral itreaty ito isurrender ito ieach iother ifugitives icharged iwith iany ioffences
iconsidered iextraditable iunder ithe iagreement. iA istate iseeking iextradition iof ia ifugitive
i(the irequesting istate) iaddresses iits irequests ito ithe igovernment iof ithe istate iwhere ithe
ifugitive iis ipresent i(the irequested istate), iand ithe igovernment iinvariably iacts iupon ithese
irequests. iDomestic iextradition istatutes ioccasionally isupplement isubstantive itreaty ilaw,
ibut iin igeneral ithey imerely ispecify iextradition iprocedures.

The iextradition ilaw ithat ideveloped ifrom ithese ibeginnings iassigns ia imajor irole ito
igovernment iofficers, ileaving ia ivery irestricted ione ifor icourts. iThe ilaw iprevents ijudges
ifrom iinquiring iinto ijudicial iand ipenal iconditions iin ithe irequesting icountry iand icreates ia
ipattern iof ijudicial ideference ito igovernment idecisions iat iall ilevels iof ithe iprocess. iIt iwas
iafter iearly inineteenth icenturies ithat isovereigns ibegan ito iconcentrate ion iextradition
itreaties ifor icommon icrimes ibecause iof ithe idevelopment iof inew, ibetter, iand iquicker
iforms iof itransportation, iwhich iallowed icriminals igreater iability ito icommit icrimes iover ia
ilarger iregion.

1.3 iSTATEMENT iOF iPROBLEM

The iProject ireport ispecifically ifocusses ion ithe imeaning iand idefinition iof iExtradition. iOne iof ithe
ichapters iof ithis iproject ireport iexplains ithe igeneral iprocedure iand iprocedure ifollowed iin iIndia
iwith iregards ito ithe iExtradition. i

1.4 IOBJECTIVES IOF ITHE ISTUDY

 To iunderstand ithe imeaning iand idefinition iof iExtradition.

 To istudy ithe iprocedure iof iExtradition.
 To istudy ivarious icases irelating ito iExtradition. i

1.5 iCONCEPTUAL iFRAMEWORK

International iextradition iis ithe isurrender iby ione ination ito ianother, ifor itrial iand
ipunishment, iof ia iperson iaccused ior iconvicted iof ian ioffence iwithin ithe ijurisdiction iof
ithe ilatter. iA irequest ifor iextradition iis igenerally iinitiated iagainst ia ifugitive icriminal,
iwho iis iformally iaccused iof, ior iis icharged iwith, ior iis iconvicted iof ian iextradition
isentence

1.6 iRESEARCH iQUESTIONS

 What’s ithe imeaning iof ithe iterm iExtradition?
 What’s ithe iprocedure ifollowed iin iIndia ifor iExtradition?
 How’s ithe iprocedure iof iextradition ifollowed iin iIndia ithan ithe iGeneral iprocedure
iof iExtradition?

1.7 iREVIEW iOF iLITERATURE

 P. iRamanatha iAiyar‟s iConcise iLaw iDictionary, iLexis iNexis, iFifth iEdition i

P iRamanatha iAiyar's iConcise iLaw iDictionary, iwhich ihas ibeen iinto ipublication
ifor imore ithan iseven idecades, iis ia ihandy iand icompact ilaw idictionary, iproviding
ithe imeaning iand iinterpretation iof idifferent ilegal iterms, iphrases iand iLatin
iMaxims, iin ia iprecise, iaccurate iand iunambiguous imanner. i iThis ibook ihas
ielaborately iexplained ithe imeaning iand idefinition iof iExtardition. i
i
  M. iCherif iBassiouni iInternational iExtradition iSixth iEdition i
This ibook icovers iall iaspects iof iextradition, iwhile imaking icritical, itheoretical, iand
ipractical ievaluations iof ithese iaspects, iand iproposing ialternatives. iIt ialso ifocusses
ion ithe irights iof iindividuals, ibalancing iof istates iinterests, iand ipreservation iof
iworld iorder iwithin ithe iRule iof iLaw

1.8 ISCOPE IOF ISTUDY

The iproject ireport ientitled i“Extradition iLaw: iIndian iPerspective” icovers ithe imeaning
iand iprocedure iof ithe iExtradition. iOne iof ithe ichapter iof ithe iProject ireport iexplains ithe
iextradition ilaws iwith ithe ihelp iof ithe irelevant icase ilaws.

I1.9 IMETHODOLOGY IOF ISTUDY

Research iMethodology iis isystematic iapproach iand imethods iof istudy iconcerning ifor
iobtaining inew iknowledge iand igeneralization iand ithe iformulation iof itheories.

 NATURE IOF ISTUDY-

Non iempirical iresearch iwork ihas ibeen iused iin ithis iproject ias ithe imaterial iin ithis
iproject imainly iconsists iof ithe iwork iof ipeople iwhich iis ialready idone. i iThe iproject iis
ibasically idoctrinal iin inature. iCitations iare ialso iprovided iwherever ithey iwere inecessary.

 SOURCES IOF IDATA-

This iProject iis imade ion ithe ibasis iof isecondary isources iof iinformation, iwhich iinclude:

1) i i i i i i i i Books, iand

2) i i i i i i i i Information ifrom ithe iinternet.

1.10 iCHAPTERSIATION
First ichapter igives ian iintroduction ito ithe itopic.

Second ichapter ideals iwith ithe idefinition iof iExtradition iand ivarious iacts igoverning
iExtradition iin iIndia
Third ichapter icovers ivarious iprinciples ialbeit ithe ilaw iof iExtradition iand ithe iprocedure
iof iExtradition i

And, ithe ilast ichapter ideals iwith ithe icases irelating ito iExtradition. i

CHAPTER i2

2.1 iDEFINITION iOF iEXTRADITION:

International iextradition iis ithe isurrender iby ione ination ito ianother, ifor itrial iand
ipunishment, iof ia iperson iaccused ior iconvicted iof ian ioffence iwithin ithe ijurisdiction iof
ithe ilatter.1 iA irequest ifor iextradition iis igenerally iinitiated iagainst ia ifugitive icriminal2 i,

1
P. Ramanatha Aiyar‟s Concise Law Dictionary, Lexis Nexis, Fifth Edition, p.476
2
A fugitive criminal‘ means a person who is accused of, or is convicted of, an extradition offence within the
jurisdiction of a foreign State and includes a person who, while in India, conspires or attempts to commit or incites
or participates as an accomplice in the commission of an extradition offence in a foreign State
iwho iis iformally iaccused iof, ior iis icharged iwith, ior iis iconvicted iof ian iextradition
isentence. iExtradition iis ia isystem iconsisting iof iseveral iprocesses iwhereby ione isovereign,
isurrenders ito ianother isovereign, ian iindividual isought iafter ias ian iaccused, icriminal ior
ifugitive ioffender. iThis idelivery iof iindividuals ito ithe irequesting isovereign iis ibased ion
itreaties iand/or ibilateral iarrangements; ihowever, isometimes ithis idelivery iof iindividuals
ioccurs iby ireciprocity iand icomity ias ia imatter iof icourtesy iand igoodwill ibetween ithe
isovereigns. iWorld ipublic iorder iis ithe irecurring itheme ibased ion iwhich iextradition iis
ipracticed iby ithe iStates.3 iBut iit iis ialways igainful ito iremember ithe iobservations imade iin
ithe icase iof: iU.S. iv. iRauscher4 i“… iApart ifrom ithem i(treaties)… ithere iwas ino iwell
idefined iobligation ion ione icountry ito ideliver iup isuch ifugitives ito ianother… iand iit ihas
inever ibeen irecognised ias iamong ithose iobligations iof ione igovernment itowards ianother
iwhich irest iupon iestablished iprinciples iof iinternational ilaw.”

iIn iOppenheim’s iInternational iLaw, ithe iexpression iextradition ihas ibeen idefined ias
ifollows: i“Extradition iis ithe idelivery iof ian iaccused ior ia iconvicted iindividual ito ithe
iState iwhere ihe/she iis iaccused iof ior ihas ibeen iconvicted iof ia icrime, iby ithe iState ion
iwhose iterritory ihe/she ihappens ifor ithe itime ito ibe”.

iAccording ito iBlack’s iLaw iDictionary5 i, iextradition imeans i“The isurrender iby ione iState
ior iCountry ito ianother iof ian iindividual iaccused ior iconvicted iof ian ioffence ioutside iits
iown iterritory iand iwithin ithe iterritorial ijurisdiction iof ithe iother, iwhich, ibeing icompetent
ito itry iand ipunish ihim, idemands ithe isurrender.” iThus, iin inutshell, iextradition imay ibe
idefined ias: ithe iact iof isending, iby iauthority iof ilaw, ia iperson iaccused iof ia icrime ito ia
iforeign ijurisdiction iwhere ithe icrime iwas icommitted, iin iorder ithat ihe imay ibe itried
ithere. iJ.G. iStarke iin ihis iwork iof iacclaim, iIntroduction ito iInternational iLaw i(10th
iEdition) idefined ithe iterm i‗extradition‘ ias ifollows: i“The iterm i„extradition‟ idenotes ithe
iprocess iwhereby iunder ia iconcluded itreaty ione iState isurrenders ito iany iother iState iat iits
irequest, ia iperson iaccused ior iconvicted iof ia icriminal ioffence icommitted iagainst ithe
ilaws iof ithe irequesting iState, isuch irequesting iState ibeing icompetent ito itry ithe ialleged
ioffender. iThough iextradition iis igranted iin iimplementation iof ithe iinternational

3
Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v. CBI & Another, (2013) 7 SCR 1061
4
119 U.S. 407 (at p.411 - 412)
5
Black‘s Law Dictionary, Centennial Edition (1891-1991), Sixth Edition, p. 585
icommitments iof ithe iState, ithe iprocedure ito ibe ifollowed iby ithe icourts iin ideciding,
iwhether iextradition ishould ibe igranted iand ion iwhat iterms, iis idetermined iby ithe
imunicipal ilaw iof ithe iland.” iThus, iextradition iis ifounded ion ithe ibroad iprinciple ialbeit
ithat, iit iis iin ithe iinterest iof icivilised icommunities ithat icriminals ishould inot igo
iunpunished iand ion ithat iaccount iit iis irecognised ias ia ipart iof ithe icomity iof inations ithat
ione iState ishould iordinarily iafford ito ianother iState iassistance itowards ibringing ioffenders
ito ijustice.6

2.2 iACTS iGOVERNING iEXTRADITION iIN iINDIA

Law irelating ito iextradition iin iIndia iis igoverned iby: ithe iExtradition iAct, i1962 iand ithe
iExtradition iTreaties iobtaining ibetween iIndia iand iother icountries. iBy ivirtue iof iSection
i34 iof ithe i1962 iAct, ithe iExtradition iAct iof i1962 ihas iextra-territorial ijurisdiction, ithat
iis, ian iextradition ioffence icommitted iby iany iperson iin ia iForeign iState ishall ibe ideemed
ito ihave ibeen icommitted iin iIndia iand isuch iperson ishall ibe iliable ito ibe iprosecuted iin
iIndia ifor isuch ioffence. iAs iper iSection i216 iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860 iread iwith
ithe iConstitution iof iIndia, i1950 i(Schedule iVII, iList iI, iItem i18), iextradition imay ibe
idefined ias, ithe iaction iof igiving iup ia ifugitive icriminal ito ithe iauthorities iof ithe iState iin
iwhich ithe icrime iwas icommitted.

Extradition itreaty imeans, ia itreaty, iagreement ior iarrangement iwith ia iForeign iState
irelating ito ithe iextradition iof ifugitive icriminals. iTreaty iState imeans, ia iForeign iState
iwith iwhich ian iextradition itreaty iis iin ioperation.7 iSection i3(4) iof ithe i1962 iAct
icategorically istates ithat, iwhere ithere iis ino iextradition itreaty imade iby iIndia iwith iany
iForeign iState, ithe iCentral iGovernment imay, iby inotified iorder8, itreat iany iConvention ito
iwhich iIndia iand ia iForeign iState iare iparties, ias ian iextradition itreaty imade iby iIndia

6
Rosiline George v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 80, Para 16; In this case, the Apex Court held that, the term
‗Extradition‘ denotes the process whereby under a concluded treaty one State surrenders to any other State at its
request, a person accused or convicted of a criminal offence committed against the laws of the requesting State, such
requesting State being competent to try the alleged offender.
7
As per Section 2(c) (i) of the 1962 Act, an extradition treaty is a treaty between two or more nations which
provides for the extradition from each of the countries to any of the others, of persons charged with specified
offences. As per Section 2(d) of the 1962 Act, an extradition treaty means a treaty or agreement made by India with
a Foreign State relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals; and includes any treaty agreement or arrangement
relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals made before the 15th day of August, 1947 which extends to, and is
binding on, India
8
As per Section 2(h) of the 1962 Act, “notified order”‖ means an order notified in the Official Gazette.
iwith ithat iForeign iState iproviding ifor iextradition iin irespect iof ithe ioffences ispecified iin
ithat iConvention. iAs iper iSection i2(f) iof ithe iExtradition iAct, i1962, ionly ifugitive
icriminals‘, imay ibe iextradited. iFugitive icriminal, ias iper ithe iextradition ilaw iprevailing iin
iIndia imeans: ia iperson iwho iis iaccused i(or iis iconvicted) iof ian iextradition ioffence
icommitted iwithin ithe ijurisdiction iof ia iForeign iState, iand ia iperson iwho iwhile iin iIndia,
iconspires, iattempts ito icommit, iincites ior iparticipates ias ian iaccomplice iin ithe
icommission iof ian iextradition ioffence iin ia iForeign iState. i

As iper iSection i2(c) iof ithe iExtradition iAct, i1962, ian iextradition ioffence imeans, ian
ioffence iprovided iin ithe iextradition itreaty iwith iForeign iStates; ian ioffence ipunishable
iwith iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich ishall inot ibe iless ithan ione-year iunder ithe ilaws
iprevailing iin iIndia ior iof ia iForeign iState. iSection i2(a) iof ithe i1962 iAct idefines ia
icomposite ioffence ias, ian iact ior iconduct iof ia iperson ioccurring iwholly ior iin ipart iin ia
iForeign iState ior iin iIndia, ieffect iof iwhich i(or iintended ieffect iwhich) itaken ias ia iwhole
iwould iconstitute ian iextradition ioffence iin iIndia ior iin ia iForeign iState, ias ithe icase imay
ibe. i

In ithe icase iof iDaya iSingh iLahoria iv. iUnion iof iIndia9, iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia,
iexpatiating iover ithe iimportance iof iextradition ilaw, istated ithe ifollowing, iin iauthoritative
iterms: i―Extradition iis ia igreat istep itowards iinternational icooperation iin ithe isuppression
iof icrime. iIt iis ifor ithis ireason ithat ithe iCongress iof iComparative iLaw iat iHague iin
i1932, iresolved ithat iStates ishould itreat iextradition ias ian iobligation iresulting ifrom ithe
iinternational isolidarity iin ithe ifight iagainst icrime.

9
2001 (4) SCC 516
 CHAPTER i3
3.1 iPRINCIPLES iALBEIT iTHE iLAW iOF iEXTRADITION:

a. iPrinciple iof iDouble iCriminality: iThis iprinciple i(also iknown ias iDual iCriminality‘)
istates ithat, iextradition iis iavailable ionly iwhen ithe iact iin iquestion iis ian ioffence iin ithe
ijurisdictions iof iboth ithe iStates i(the irequesting iState iand ithe iState irequested). iThe
irationale ibehind ithis iprinciple iis ithat, ithe irequested iState ishould ibe iat iliberty ito irefuse
ito iextradite ithe ifugitive ioffender iif ithey ido inot iview ithe iconduct iof ithe ifugitive
ioffender ias ia icriminal iact. i

b. iPrinciple iof iSpecialty: iAn iextradited iindividual ican ibe itried ionly ifor ioffences
ispecified iin ithe iextradition irequest; ithe iobject iof ithis iprinciple iis ito iprevent iblanket
iextradition irequests. iThe irequesting iState ipledges ito ijudge ithe irequested iperson ionly ifor
ithe icrime ifor iwhich iextradition iwas irequested, iand inot ifor iany iother ioffence.10 iAs ia
imatter iof ifact, ipost ithe isurrender iof ia ifugitive ioffender, ihe/she ican iexpressly iwaive ithe
irule iof ispeciality, iand ican ibe itried ifor ioffences iin iaddition ito, ior iin ifurtherance iof ithe
ioffences iqua iwhich ihe/she iwas isurrendered. iMoreover, iin icertain icases, ithe irequested
iState ican iagree ito ithe ifugitive ioffender ibeing itried ifor iother ioffences, iin iaddition ito
ioffences iapropos iwhich ithe ifugitive ioffender iwas isurrendered ito ithe irequesting iState. i

c. iPolitical iException: iRequest ialbeit iextradition imust ibe ideclined iif ithe ireal ipurpose
iof ithe irequest imade iis ito ipunish ithe iperson irequested ifor ihis ipolitical iopinion irather
ithan ifor ithe icrime icommitted iby ihim. iPolitical ioffences iexception iholds ithat ia iperson
icannot ibe iextradited ifor ian ioffence iof ipolitical icharacter. iThe iterm ipolitical ioffences‘
ihas inot ibeen iclearly idefined iin iinternational ilaw. iWhat ishall iconstrue ias ia ipolitical
ioffence, iusually, idepends ion ithe idomestic ilaw iof ithe irequested iState. iIt iis igenerally
iaccepted ithat, iacts iof iterrorism ido inot ifall iunder ithe iexception iof ipolitical ioffences,
ieven iif ithey iare icommitted iwith ipolitical imotive.

3.2 iPROCEDURE iOF iEXTRADITION i

General

10
Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 516
 iExtradition iis igoverned iby iinternational itreaties, ibilateral ior imultilateral, ienshrining
ithe iprnciples, inulla iextradition isine ilege i(no iextradition iwithout ia ilaw), ithis iprinciple iis
iin ifact ia iversion iof inullum icrimine inulla ipena isine ilege i(no icrime iand ino ipenalty
iwithout ia ilaw). i

 iThe iState iseeking ithe isurrender iof ia iperson imust ipresent ia iformal iextradition
irequest, iwhich imust iidentify ithe iwanted iperson iand ithe ioffence iimputed ion ihim/her.
iThe irequesting iState iis irequired ito isubmit icertain idocuments iin isupport iof ithe irequest.
iThe ikind iand iformat iof ithe ievidence irequired, iso ialso ithe istandard iof iproof iapplied iby
ithe irequested iState imay idiffer isignificantly ifrom ione icountry ito ianother. iThe iformal
iextradition irequest imay ibe ipreceded iby ia iprovisional iarrest iwarrant. i

 iPrinciple iof icomity iof inations icaptivates ithat, ieach iMember iState imust icomply iwith
ia irequest ifrom ia icourt ior iprosecutor iof ianother iMember iState ifor ithe iexecution iof ian
iarrest iwarrant iissued iby iit iagainst ian iindividual iaccused iof ian ioffence icarrying ia
iminimum isentence iof i12 imonths iof iimprisonment. i

 iThe iarrest iwarrant ineeds ito icontain ionly ia idescription iof ithe icircumstances ialbeit
iwhich ithe ioffence iwas icommitted. i

 iThe ijudicial iauthorities iand inot ithe iexecutive, iis ito idecide iupon ithe irequest iof
iextradition. i

 iCertain iacts, ithat iis, imilitary, ipolitical ior ifiscal ioffences, ihave ibeen ideemed
itraditionally ioutside ithe irealm iof iextraditable ioffences. iRecent idevelopments ihave iadded
ito ithis ilist ithe ipolitical ioffence iexemption‘.

CONCLUSION

As iper ithe iPortuguese iConstitution, ino ione ican ibe iextradited iin irespect iof ioffences
ipunishable iby ideath ipenalty iunder ithe ilaw iof ithe istate irequesting iextradition iHence,
iSection i34 iC iof ithe iIndian iExtradition iAct, i1962, iwill ibe iapplicable iwhich istates ithat
i"notwithstanding ianything icontained iin iany iother ilaw ifor ithe itime ibeing iin iforce,
iwhere ia ifugitive icriminal, iwho ihas icommitted ian iextradition ioffence ipunishable iwith
ideath iin iIndia, iis isurrendered ior ireturned iby ia iforeign iState ion ithe irequest iof ithe
iCentral igovernment."And itherefore ithe ilaws iof ithat iforeign istate ido inot iprovide ifor ithe
ideath ipenalty ifor isuch ian ioffence, isuch ifugitive icriminal ishall ibe iliable ifor ipunishment
ifor ilife ionly ifor ithat ioffence.

Extradition ihas ibeen idefined iby iOppenheimas i"the idelivery iof ian iaccused ior ia
iconvicted iindividual ito ithe iState ion iwhose iterritory ihe iis ialleged ito ihave icommitted, ior
ito ihave ibeen iconvicted iof, ia icrime iby ithe iState ion iwhose iterritory ithe ialleged icriminal
ihappens ifor ithe itime ito ibe." i

The iright ito idemand iextradition iand ithe iduty ito isurrender ian ialleged icriminal ito ithe
idemanding iState iis icreated iby ia itreaty. iAs ithe iquestion iof isurrendering ian ialleged
icriminal ito ithe idemanding iState ialways iinvolves ithe iquestion iof ihuman irights, itherefore
ithe iessence iof imaintaining ithe isanctity iof ithe iagreement i(that iSalem ishall inot ibe
iawarded ideath ipenalty) ishall ibe iattributed ito ithe iconcept iof ihuman irights iinvolved iin
iextradition ilaws, iwhich ilays iemphasis ion ithe ilaw iof ithe icountry iin iwhich ithe ioffender
iseems ito ibe iat ithe itime iof iextradition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:

 P. iRamanatha iAiyar‟s iConcise iLaw iDictionary, iLexis iNexis, iFifth iEdition i

 Black‘s iLaw iDictionary, iCentennial iEdition i(1891-1991), iSixth iEdition i
 J.G. iStarke, iIntroduction ito iInternational iLaw, iTenth iEdition

STATUTES:

 The iFugitive iOffenders iAct, i1881 i

 The iForeigners iAct, i1946 i
 The iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860
 The iExplosive iSubstances iAct, i1908 i
 The iExtradition iAct, i1903
 The iExtradition iAct, i1962
 The iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973

ARTICLES:

 Gajanan iKhergamker, i‘Don ito iDoom’

 V. iS. iMani, i‘Extradition i& iinternational ilaw’ iThe iHindu i(New iDelhi, iDecember
i17, i2002)