MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Dual Criminality Principle Satisfied, Prima Facie Case Established: Delhi High Court Upholds Extradition to Oman

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the extradition of Majibullah Mohammad Haneef to the Sultanate of Oman. Mr. Justice Amit Bansal delivered the judgment on 24th November 2023, in response to a writ petition filed by Haneef challenging his extradition for his alleged involvement in a murder case in Oman.

The High Court's decision was anchored on the principle of 'Dual Criminality,' a cornerstone in extradition law, which mandates that the offence for which extradition is sought must be punishable in both the requesting and requested states. "The principle of ‘Dual Criminality’ stands satisfied," observed the Court, setting the tone for its ruling.

The case, marked as W.P.(CRL) 275/2022 & CRL.M.A. 27212/2023 (directions), CRL.M.A. 28432/2023 (directions), revolved around the petitioner's arrest under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962. The Sultanate of Oman had formally requested Haneef's extradition, following an incident involving the death of an Omani national and his family, wherein Haneef was implicated.

In the courtroom, Haneef's legal team raised concerns over the authentication of documents provided by Oman and questioned the fairness of the trial he would receive in the requesting state. However, the Court, after meticulous examination, found the inquiry conducted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to be thorough and conclusive. The judgment highlighted, "A prima-facie case was made out against the petitioner in support of the requisition of the Requesting State."

The Court also noted that all documents submitted by Oman were duly authenticated, dismissing the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of authentication as per the Extradition Treaty. Furthermore, the Court recognized the assurances from Oman regarding a fair trial, which played a crucial role in the decision-making process.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Amit Bansal underscored the significance of the extradition process, ensuring that it adheres to the legal standards and obligations under the Extradition Act and the relevant treaty. The case, which drew significant attention due to its international implications, sets a precedent in extradition law, particularly concerning the dual criminality principle and the assessment of fair trial assurances from a requesting state.

Represented by Mr. Bahar U. Barqui and Mr. Maroof Ahmad, the petitioner's case was rigorously argued, while the Union of India's stance was defended by Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, and his team. Despite the dismissal of the petition, the case highlights the complex interplay of international law, national legal frameworks, and human rights considerations in extradition proceedings.

D.D: 24th November, 2023

MAJIBULLAH MOHAMMAD HANEEF VS UNION OF INDIA

Latest Legal News