The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have opposed before the Delhi high court a plea by Christian Michel James, the alleged middleman in the Augusta Westland VVIP chopper case, seeking release from prison on the ground that he has already served the maximum sentence for the offences for which he was extradited and cannot be detained or tried for charges outside the extradition decree.
In separate replies filed on January 8, the agencies contended that the extradition decree expressly permits the trial of Michel for misuse of position, fraud, collusion and money laundering, which encompass the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery and thus Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which restricts prosecution to extradited offences, does not apply in his case.
The affidavits further contended that Michel has not completed the maximum sentence, as he is also accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy, which carry a maximum punishment of seven years, and forgery, which is punishable with life imprisonment.
“The Extradition Decree in the case takes note of the offence of misuse of occupation or position, fraud as well as collusion. Such offences mean that the Extradition Decree covered sections 420 and 120B of the IPC as well. The Extradition order is clear in as much as it records misuse of position or job, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation and offering illegal gratification to be the allegations levelled against the petitioner. As such, there is no bar in trying the petitioner for the offences alleged in the present case,” CBI’s affidavit stated.
It added, “The petitioner wrongfully contends that a maximum of 5 years is applicable to him. He is accused of conspiracy for commission of various offences such as 420 IPC and section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act in the same extradition order, which entail an imprisonment up to 7 years. Further he is accused of committing several other connected offences including forgery section 467 IPC entailing life imprisonment. Once the petitioner has been extradited for the offence of conspiracy (collusion), section 21 of the Extradition Act cannot come in the aid of the petitioner.”
The ED’s reply said, “The extradition decree records misuse of position or job, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation and offering illegal gratification to be the allegations levelled against the petitioner. As such, there is no bar in trying the petitioner for the offences alleged in the present case.”
Dudeja on Friday, it was adjourned for February 20, after the court asked Michel’s lawyer, Aljo K. Joseph, to file a rejoinder to the agency’s response.
Michel had approached the high court against the trial court’s August 7 order denying his request to be released from prison. He had challenged Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty (“treaty”), which allows India to prosecute people for offences for which extradition is sought and for connected offences as well.
In his petition, he had asserted that he had already undergone five years of sentence for the offences under the though the CBI in its chargesheet filed in 2017, had chargesheeted him under sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carried a maximum sentence of five years before its amendment in 2018, it later also invoked section 467 of the IPC which carries a life imprisonment through supplementary chargesheets. He further submitted that his client has already undergone five years of sentence in addition to the pre-extradition incarceration of five years, and the invocation of section 467 has resulted in continued detention.
Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2018. He was, though, granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on February 19 and in the ED case by the Delhi High Court on March 4, but remains in prison.
The trial court in August had refused to release Michel from prison, noting that he had been accused of serious offences carrying a punishment of up to life imprisonment.
The CBI had alleged that senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Special Protection Group (SPG), and Air Force agreed in 2004 to tweak the mandatory service ceiling of helicopters to favour AgustaWestland. This allegedly caused a loss of €398.21 million (approx. ₹2,666 crore) to the government in a deal worth €556.262 million ( ₹3,726.9 crore). The ED is probing the money trail linked to kickbacks in the deal.
Curated by Aisha Patel
