Extradition Act (34 of 1962) , S.34B— Extradition - Challenge against - Accused challenging his extradition by respondent/Union of India (requested State) to Sultanate of Oman (requesting State) - A prima facie case was made out against accused for offence under Art.302-A of Penal Code of Oman - There was nothing to suggest that offence for which accused was charged i.e. murder, was in nature of a political offence - Offence of murder was punishable in both India and Oman with a punishment of more than one year imprisonment and was therefore an extraditable offence as per Extradition Treaty - For purposes of inquiry under Extradition Act, sufficient material was placed by Requesting State so as to make out a prima facie case in support of extradition - All documents were duly authenticated - All requirements for extraditing accused were satisfied - Order of extradition of accused to Sultanate of Oman was proper.

(Para 15 16 19 23 24 32)

Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138, S.141— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482— Cheque dishonour - Quashing of proceedings - Case was transferred to court at Surat for trial and disposal - Admittedly accused persons were discharged in same proceedings wherein court also directed that case would proceed against other accused persons - Said order was not challenged by complainant before any forum - Thus, when case was returned from Court at Surat, it was to proceed from stage it was and not as if it was freshly initiated case - As proceedings in case was continuing one, Magistrate erroneously issued summons against accused persons who had already discharged in same proceeding vide previous order which was not challenged - Order issuing summons and proceedings were quashed.

(Para 12 13)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Transfer - Prayer for cancellation of - Petitioner had some hardships, which were borne out from contents of writ petition and otherwise also - She prayed that she may be permitted to make representation pointing out her grievances/hardships to Competent Authority and one post was likely to fall vacant - Accordingly petitioner was directed to make representation before competent authority within 3 days which shall be decided by it within four weeks further after giving personal hearing to petitioner.

(Para 6 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) , S.15— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.313— Contravention in relation to poppy straw - Accused was allegedly involved in transporting large quantity of poppy straw - Circumstance against accused that he visited railway station and enquired with station supervisor about contraband parcels was not put to him during his examination u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. - Alleged circumstance that railway receipt was in name of accused was also not put to him - There was no other material on record to connect accused with offence - Incident was of May 2001, and therefore, it would be unjust to subject accused to further examination u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. at this stage, nearly twenty two and half years from date of the alleged recovery of contraband - As material circumstances pleaded by prosecution against accused were not put to him, serious prejudice was caused to his defence - Accused had undergone incarceration of five and a half years - Hence , failure to put relevant circumstances to accused in his examination u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. was fatal to prosecution case - Conviction was unsustainable .

AIR 2023 SC 3113-Relied on(Paras56891213)

(Para 5 6 8 9 12 13)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.438— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.147, S.148, S.294(b), S.323, S.364A, S.386, S.506— Bail - Entitlement - Accused allegedly demanded sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from complainant and when he refused, all accused persons joined together and took complainant in car to various places and shown him knife and finally dropped him in yet another place - Considering facts and circumstances of case, bail was granted subject to conditions.

(Para 3 4)