T.N. Document Writers' Association represented by Its Secretary Vs. State of T.N. and Anr. (24.09.1992 - SC) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- interpol notice: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] extradition act, 1962, section 6, 16, 34-b and 15 - matrimonial dispute - whether the cbi established under the dpse act has the authority to deal with interpol notices? - extradition of fugitive criminal from india - role of cbi - red corner notice issued by interpol - role of cbi is to circulate such notice - once a person is detained pursuant to a red corner notice, he is produced before the magistrate and then further action is taken as per the provisions of the extradition act, 1962 - c.b.i., therefore, is entitled to organize and coordinate in regard to the request made by interpol - it may have to obtain endorsed warrant. interpol notice: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] extradition act, 1962, section 6, 16, 34-b and 15 - matrimonial dispute - whether the cbi established under the dpse act has the authority to deal with interpol notices? - extradition of fugitive criminal from india - role of cbi - red corner notice issued by interpol - c.b.i., although constituted under the dspe act its functions are multiple - while acting in terms of the provisions, in particular sections 3 and 5 of the dspe act, it acts as an investigating officer - the act contemplates commission of the offences of the nature specified in the act or those specified in several notifications issued from time to time -in terms of section 3 of dspe act first information reports are required to be lodged - for the said purpose, the c.b.i. which has several branches all over india is an officer incharge of a police station within the meaning of section 154 of the code of criminal procedure - the authority specified in the dspe act, namely the superintendent of police of c.b.i. is an officer entitled to carry out any investigation - only when an investigation is carried out in relation to an offence which has been committed in a state and not in the indian territory or within the territorial jurisdiction of the central government the consent of the state concerned is required to be obtained. bhavesh jayanti lakhani v state of maharashtra & ors. [cr. a. no. 1452/2009 dd 7.8.2009]. 2009 air scw 6309: 2009 (9) scc 551: 2009 (5) lh sc 2857. interpol notice: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] extradition act, 1962, section 6, 16, 34-b and 15 - matrimonial dispute - whether the cbi established under the dpse act has the authority to deal with interpol notices? - extradition of fugitive criminal from india - role of cbi - red corner notice issued by interpol - c.b.i. has different roles to play - when it acts as ncb, being a department of cbi, it acts under a treaty - it acts in terms of the constitution of the interpol - it acts as a authority of the central government - by reason of such an act it does not carry out investigation, although it is entitled therefore - it functions as an ncb which is to give effect to the request received from interpol and/or foreign country - when it does so, indisputably it has to apply its mind - it can take any action only because it is lawful to do so - it does not exercise absolute discretion - it has to act if a case therefor has been made out including the question as whether any extraditable offence has been made out. extradition act, 1962 sections 6,16, 34-b & 15 & guardian & wards act, 1956: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] matrimonial dispute - indian citizen facing criminal charges in foreign country - estranged relations between couple residing in usa - husband came to india with daughter - wife filed suit in usa for custody of child - warrant of arrest issued by usa court - dispute between the appellant and the respondent no. 6, being essentially a matrimonial dispute, is a private dispute and no criminal extraditable offence can be made out of the same - kidnapping in case of matrimonial dispute per se is not considered to be an extraditable offence - even violation of an order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in u.s.a. being punishable for imprisonment for six months only, the appellant cannot be extradited for commission of the said offence also - high court, thus, committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration the provisions of the act, in the absence of any request having being made by the government of usa to the executive government of the union of india or any authorisation made by the latter on its behalf. matrimonial dispute as such does not constitute an extraditable offence. sections 6,16, 34-b & 15 & guardian & wards act, 1956: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] matrimonial dispute - indian facing criminal charges in usa - red corner notice issued by interpol - the extradition of a person from india to any other foreign country is covered by the parliament act, namely the extradition act - keeping in view the constitution of interpol vis-a-vis the resolutions adopted by the c.b.i. from time to time, although a red corner notice per se does not give status of a warrant of arrest by a competent court, it is merely a request of the issuing authority to keep surveillance on him and provisionally or finally arrest the wanted person for extradition. the provisions of the act and the treaty are required to be given effect to. whenever a request is received from interpol the authority must act on behalf of the central government. the interpol provides constitution of ncbs by member states. sections 6,16, 34-b & 15 & guardian & wards act, 1956: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] matrimonial dispute - extradition laws - matrimonial dispute - custody of child - whether having regard to the concept of sovereignty the executive government of india can enforce a warrant passed by the probate and family court, massachusetts? - having regard to the provisions contained in sections 44a and 13 of the code of civil procedure, is the foreign judgment enforceable in india? although the family court at bombay for all intent and purposes relying on or on the basis of the order passed by the massachusetts court directed custody of the girl in favour of her mother, the bombay high court has stayed the operation thereof - the appellant therefore, must be held to be in lawful custody of his daughter unless any other or further order is passed by a court of competent jurisdiction - state does not seek for enforcement of the custody and/ or restrain order passed by the probate and family court, massachusetts in view of the rigours contained in sections 13 and 44a of the code of civil procedure - even the family court does not appear to have dealt with this aspect of the matter - in any event, as the matter is pending before the high court, it alone will have a final say therein. extradition treaty: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] record that article 12 of the extradition treaty dated 14th september, 1999 entered into between the government of india and the government of the united states of america deals with provisional arrest of the person sought pending presentation of the request for extradition providing that the facilities of the interpol may be used to transmit such a request. furthermore, article 21 of the treaty providing for consultation also contemplates the use of the interpol's services. interpol: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] international criminal police organisation - interpol is the world's largest international police organization with 187 countries as its members. it was created in 1923. the object of establishing the interpol was `to ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities'. it facilitates cross - border police cooperation and supports as well as assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.the text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedt.n. document writers association represented by its secretary v. state of t. n. and anr. commenting on the issue as to the relief given to the appellant by the high court that the document writers should get higher grade typewriting qualification only in any language of english or tamil, the court observed that the rule prescribing such restriction was not unreasonable and directed state government to give adequate opportunity to persons holding licenses in earlier years to qualify as per amended rules.

Judgment:
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronounced

T.N. Document Writers Association represented by its Secretary v. State of T. N. and Anr. Commenting on the issue as to the relief given to the appellant by the High Court that the document writers should get higher grade typewriting qualification only in any language of English or Tamil, the court observed that the rule prescribing such restriction was not unreasonable and directed State government to give adequate opportunity to persons holding licenses in earlier years to qualify as per amended rules.