All about Extradition of Vijay Mallya

image description

The code of criminal procedure 1973 provides 5 categories of trial.  Constitutionally for every trial the act needs the accused before the court or within its jurisdiction. How to proceed against a person who is avoiding jurisdiction and has fled to foreign country. A Mumbai Court has issued a non bailable warrant against Vijay Mallya under Money Laundering Act,  2002 alleging money laundering worth 950 crores. A consortium of 17 banks moved to Supreme Court to prevent Mallya from leaving country,  accusing him of defaulting of loans worth 9000 crore.

India has also taken a step towards the extradition policy by passing Indian Extradition Act, 1962 in the Parliament. This act gave the illustrative procedure for the formation of treaty with other states and person can be extradited. There are few exceptions who cannot be extradited if the crime relates to political, religious matters etc. One of the most essential factor is that the act should be crime in both the countries. For the purpose of extradition sufficient evidence against the person should be given by the country with the formation of the treaty fulfilled by both countries. For e.g. India has failed to extradite an Italian envoy who was convicted in  Bofors commission Bribery case living in Malaysia as there was no treaty with Malaysia for Extradition.

Fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya is staying in England since a case against him is charged in Indian Court. India has formally send all the essential evidence for the requirement extradition process according to the rules mandated by both the countries. It is settled principles of UK Extradition Act, 2003 that if there is prima facie strong evidence against the court and the west minister is satisfied with the information given, then it is the sole power of the UK government to extradite him. And if the evidence is not sufficient, person can be discharged. Beginning of the trail date was given on 4th December, 2017 onwards and Mallya was asked to file a defense against accusation.

The UK's Westminster Magistrates' Court ordered the extradition of fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to India to face fraud charges resulting from the collapse of his defunct Kingfisher Airlines. Chief Magistrate Judge Emma Arbuthnot has found prima facie a case against Vijay Mallya for fraud, conspiracy and money laundering

On 4 February 2019, the UK Home Office announced that Home Secretary Sajid Javid had approved the extradition of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to India. The extradition case was forwarded to Javid by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 10 December 2018, after over a year of deliberations to consider whether or not Mallya should be sent back to India.

The UK Home Office said that Javid had considered all relevant matters before signing the order on 3 February, and noted that Mallya is “accused in India of conspiracy to defraud, making false representations and money laundering offences. The decision by Sajid Javid on 3 February is not final, and is subject to appeal in the high court and the Supreme Court. Mallya now has a 14-day window to appeal to a higher court. According to sources, the entire procedure to bring back Mallya to India may take at least 7-8 months if he uses all his legal options.

Overall its a long and lengthy procedure for the conviction of accused in the sense of 'Justice Delayed is to Justice Denied'. Let us see who is bigger? Mr. Mallya or arms of the law?