MCOCA court allows alleged gangster to return to Hong Kong

Special judge Satyanarayan R Navander observed that there was no requirement to send the alleged gangster back to the extraditing country once the trial was over, and directed the state to issue the necessary no-objection certificate without insisting on his return to Singapore

MUMBAI: A special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) on Thursday permitted alleged gangster Kumar Krishnan Pillai to return to his home country, Hong Kong, rejecting the state’s contention that he be sent back to Singapore, from where he was extradited in 2016, after being acquitted in three cases of alleged extortion.

MCOCA court allows alleged gangster to return to Hong Kong

Special judge Satyanarayan R Navander observed that there was no requirement to send the alleged gangster back to the extraditing country once the trial was over, and directed the state to issue the necessary no-objection certificate without insisting on his return to Singapore.

The alleged gangster was extradited from Singapore after India sought his return in six cases, but extradition was granted only in three cases involving alleged extortion of builders and firing incidents. He was subsequently tried only in those three cases and was acquitted in all of them.

The prosecution had relied on section 21 of the Extradition Act and the order in the Daya Singh Lahoria case to argue that an extradited fugitive must be “restored” to the surrendering state.

The court, however, held that the principles operated in a different context.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the judge recorded that while an extradited person could not be tried for offences beyond those for which extradition was granted “unless he has been restored to or has had an opportunity to return to the state which surrendered him”, the provision applied where further prosecution was contemplated, not to post-trial repatriation.

“The issue is materially different” as no additional prosecution was sought, the court noted. It found no stipulation for Pillai’s return in the extradition order, any undertaking by Indian authorities, or request from Singapore seeking his return.

“The reliance placed by the prosecution… appears to be misplaced and not applicable to the facts of the present case,” the order said.

The court also emphasised on personal liberty, holding that in the absence of any statutory or treaty-based mandate, compelling Pillai to travel to a country of which he was not a citizen would be unlawful.

“The applicant cannot be compelled to obtain a visa of a foreign country…nor can he be forced to enter such a country against his will,” the judge said, adding that any such restriction “would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the rule of law”.

Under the doctrine of speciality, Pillai could not be prosecuted for other cases without Singapore’s consent, effectively limiting the scope of proceedings against him to the offences for which extradition was granted.