Foreign arrest does not exhaust an Indian warrant until the accused is physically produced before the issuing Court.

The Appellant, Sanjay Bhandari, challenged the judgment dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge declaring him a Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO) under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEO Act).

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings following a Prosecution Complaint under Section 51 of the Black Money Act (BMA), 2015, alleging undisclosed foreign assets and bank accounts exceeding Rs. 100 crores.

A Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the Appellant on 31.10.2019.

The Appellant, currently residing in the UK, resisted extradition; while the Westminster Magistrate Court initially allowed extradition, the UK High Court reversed the decision on human rights grounds.

The Appellant contended that the NBW stood exhausted upon his arrest in London and that the monetary threshold of Rs. 100 crores for the "Scheduled Offence" was not met as assessment was not finalized.

The court applied Section 2(1)(f) of the FEO Act, which defines an FEO based on a warrant issued and the individual avoiding prosecution or refusing to return.

It relied on Section 2(1)(m) regarding the Rs. 100 crore threshold for Scheduled Offences.

The court invoked the "Mischief Rule" of interpretation to ensure offenders do not evade Indian jurisdiction.

Under Section 70(2) of the CrPC, a warrant remains in force until cancelled or executed.

Regarding tax evasion, the court applied Sections 48 and 51 of the Black Money Act, 2015, noting that prosecution for "willful attempt to evade tax" can proceed simultaneously with or prior to finalized assessment.

The court rejected the Appellant's "Spent Warrant" theory, clarifying that "execution" of a warrant under the FEO Act requires the physical production of the accused before the issuing Indian court; mere arrest by foreign police for extradition does not extinguish the warrant if the accused remains abroad.

To hold otherwise would allow offenders to exploit foreign bail to stay immune from FEO proceedings.

Regarding the monetary threshold, the court held that "reasons to believe" under Section 4 do not require conclusive proof or finalized assessment.

The court observed that while valuations fluctuated, the final assessment of undisclosed assets (Rs. 655 crores) and the resulting tax liability (Rs. 196 crores) both comfortably exceeded the Rs. 100 crore jurisdictional requirement.

The court emphasized that Section 51 BMA punishes even the attempt to evade, making the total value of assets sought to be concealed relevant to the threshold.

The court held that the NBW dated 31.10.2019 remains legally "unsatisfied" as the Appellant has not been produced before the Special Court in India.

It further held that the monetary threshold of Rs. 100 crores was satisfied based on the substantial material in the ED's possession and the Assessment Order dated 23.03.2020.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.