Extradition treaty permitting trial for connected offences is consistent with Section 21 of the Extradition Act.

The petitioner, a British national, was alleged to be a middleman in the VVIP helicopter procurement deal (AgustaWestland), involving the subversion of mandatory altitude requirements through kickbacks to Indian officials.

Following an investigation by the CBI, the petitioner was extradited from the UAE to India on 04.12.2018.

The Dubai Court's Extradition Decree mentioned offences of "misuse of occupation, money laundering, collusion, fraud, and illegal gratification".

While the petitioner faced charges under Sections 415/420 IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act, the CBI also invoked Section 467 IPC (forgery of valuable security).

The petitioner challenged the trial for Section 467 IPC, arguing it violated the principle of specialty under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962.

He further sought to declare Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty ultra vires Section 21 of the Extradition Act.

1. Whether Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty is ultra vires Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, to the extent it allows trial for "offences connected therewith".

2. Whether an extradited person can be prosecuted for an offence (Section 467 IPC) not specifically named in the extradition decree but arising from the same factual matrix.

Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, which prohibits trial for offences other than the extradition offence, a lesser offence proved by facts, or an offence for which the foreign state has given consent.

Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty, which permits prosecution for the requested offence or "offences connected therewith".

Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India (2001) to distinguish treaties with restrictive specialty clauses from those providing broader consent.

The court observed that there is no conflict between Article 17 of the Treaty and Section 21 of the Extradition Act.

It reasoned that Article 17 provides "inbuilt consent" by the UAE for the prosecution of "offences connected therewith," which satisfies the requirement for state consent under Section 21(c) of the Extradition Act.

The court distinguished the precedent in Daya Singh Lahoria, noting that the treaty in that case lacked the expansive language of "offences connected therewith".

Regarding the factual basis, the court found that the Dubai Extradition Decree was rooted in allegations of deceit and conspiracy, and Section 467 IPC was directly linked to the factual scenario presented to the UAE authorities.

Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner was re-agitating issues already considered prima facie by the Supreme Court in earlier bail proceedings.

The court held that the petitioner could be tried for Section 467 IPC as it qualifies as an "offence connected" to the charges for which he was extradited, falling within the scope of both the Treaty and Section 21(c) of the Act.

The court dismissed the petition.

No costs were awarded.