RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and the present petition is filed through its Managing Director, Dr. Anil Sharma, for the purpose of issuance of writ order or direction to the respondents for initiating extradition proceedings against Frank Martin Ruseler and Gerrit Jan Vijfvinkel. THE Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur issued bailable warrants against following persons:- i) Mr. Frank Ruseler (International Sales and Marketing Manager of M/s. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Centre International By Oude Singe 12, 3211 B. A. Geervliet, Holland) New Address : Scheijdelveweg 2, 3214 vn Zuibland, THE Netherlands ). ii) G. Vijfvinkel, President, M/s. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Centre International By Oude Singe 12, 3211 B. A. Geervliet, Holland ). (New Address : Scheijdelvweg 2, 3214 VN Zuibland, THE Netherlands ).
(2.) THE bailable warrants were issued on 22. 2. 95 which reads as under:- 22. 2. 1995 "application for exemption of attendance of complainant produced and it was accepted for today. File was examined. Complainant and Vastalla Garg, have corroborated the complaint. THE complaint is based on the facts that the complainant purchased ophthalmic equipments from accused no. 1 and 3 and the payment of the same was to be made through accused no. 4 and 5 and it was the settled term that in case there was no complaint of any nature regarding those equipment, the payment could be made after the expiry of six months but the equipment did not work properly within that period of six months and accused no. 4 and 5 made the payment of those equipments to accused no. 1 and 3 before the expiry of the period of 6 months and the accused persons committed criminal breach of trust. these facts had been verified from the statements of complainant and his witness Vatsalla Garg, and prima facie case of offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC has been made out against all the accused persons from the complaint, prosecution evidence and the documents produced and the cognizance is taken against the accused persons under those sections. Case be registered, after deposit of list of witnesses and the process fee bailable warrants of Rs. 3,000. 00 may be issued against the accused. For requisitioning accused adjourned to 1. 5. 1995. " A letter of request was sent by the Ministry of Home affairs to the Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 3. 4. 95 for execution of warrants issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 128/95. In response to the aforesaid letter, the Ministry of External Affairs, sent a letter to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City. Again, the Ministry of External Affairs responded vide letter dated 13. 6. 2001 and it was informed that the warrant of arrest involve arrest of persons and production of the arrested persons before the court. Such process has affect of extradition. It is informed that the Govt. of India and Govt. of Netherlands have entered into extradition treaty w. e. f. 28. 7. 99 hence, the warrants of arrest are returned with a request to the Investigating Officer to prepare the extradition of the individual accused. A letter of request was also sent by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City to the Director (CPV) Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi on 9. 11. 2001 and warrant of arrest were sent to Ministry of External Affairs through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court vide letter dated 9. 9. 02. Again, the Ministry of External Affairs vide its letter dated 29. 10. 2002 informed the Registrar (Admn.), Rajasthan High Court that since the offence for which warrants have been issued are in a criminal case and an extradition treaty exist between the Government of India and the Netherlands, hence the Government of India in principal have no objection to the extradition request from the legal angle however such request should come through the State Government. The petitioner thereafter made a request to the State Government for initiating extradition proceedings against the accused, but the Home Department vide its letter dated 7. 5. 2003 informed the petitioner that the Police Officer cannot personally effectuate execution of warrants under the General Rules (Criminal), 1980 which provides that the execution of proceedings are made through Indian Embassy.
(3.) SINCE the warrants which are issued by the Court under sections 406 and 420 IPC are not being executed therefore, the present writ petition is preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Rule 16 of the General Rules (Criminal) 1980 which deals with the process for execution in foreign country and no legal process of any kind shall be sent for execution in violation to the Ministry of External Affairs Govt. of India. As per Rule 16 since the Registrar High Court has forwarded the warrant to the Ministry of External Affairs Govt. of India for execution of the warrant it is not essentially to make any request through State. ;