The UK’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Thursday ruled that diamond merchant and prime accused in the PNB credit fraud case Nirav Modi has a case to answer before Indian courts. With the UK court now clearing the legal pathway for Modi’s extradition, the judgment will now need ratification of British Home Secretary Priti Patel for sending the fugitive back to India.
Reacting to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruling, the CBI said the British court has accepted the contention of the Centre to extradite him.
“The UK Court delivered the verdict wherein it held that the evidence against Nirav Modi is prima facie sufficient to order his extradition to India to face the charges. The (UK) court also upheld the assurances of the Government of India and rejected the submissions of defence regarding human rights violations, fair trial and prison conditions.
Rejecting the arguments of defence, the UK court decided to send his case to the Secretary of the State, the UK for final decision,” the CBI said in a statement.
India is a designated Part 2 country under the Extradition Act 2003 and the UK’s Cabinet Minister has the authority to order the requested person’s extradition after considering a number of further issues.
Under the Act, the Secretary of State must consider the possibility of imposition of the death penalty, in which case extradition cannot be ordered; the rule of specialty, which prohibits a person being dealt with in the requesting state for matters other than those referenced in the extradition request; and whether or not the person was in the UK following extradition from another state, in which case that state’s permission must be obtained before extraditing to a third state.
If these factors do not apply, the Minister must order extradition within two months of the day on which the District Judge referred his decision to the office of Secretary of State, in this case by the end of April.
The Home Secretary’s order rarely goes against the court’s conclusions, as she has to consider only these provisions under the Act which cannot apply as the court has already junked those claims of the defendant.
However, the Westminster’s court has granted Modi a window of appeal in the High Court and has up to 14 days to make that application after the Home Secretary makes her decision known. Any appeal, if granted, will be heard at the Administrative Division of the High Court in London.
Modi can also appeal to the UK Supreme Court but only after the High Court certifies that the appeal involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court gives leave for the appeal to be made.
Meanwhile, Indian-origin Minister Priti Patel has a number of matters related to Indian economic offenders adding up. Mallya’s case is yet to be fully concluded and that of accused arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari is set to begin its magistrates’ court proceedings from April.
The UK Court’s judgment is a significant achievement in the context of CBI’s efforts to curb corruption and is a reminder that fugitives, who have eluded the process of law after commission of large value frauds, cannot consider themselves above the process merely because they have changed jurisdictions. The judgement also vindicates the painstaking investigation by CBI, especially since Nirav Modi had raised various issues with regard to the admissibility of evidence, the fairness of investigation, trial, prison conditions, availability of health facilities in India and extraneous consideration, with a view to divert attention from his own acts, it said.
The CBI had registered the case on January 31, 2018 against the partner of three private firms and others including then officials of Punjab National Bank on a complaint from Punjab National Bank on the allegations that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves to defraud the Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs 6,498 crore (approximately) by fraudulently issuing Letters of Undertaking. During investigation, CBI conducted searches at 42 premises and arrested fifteen persons. A large number of witnesses were examined and voluminous documents were collected.