U.K. court rejects CBI plea for Ravi Shankaran’s extradition

April 03, 2014 02:15 am | Updated June 08, 2016 07:39 am IST - LONDON:

In a major setback to the CBI, the case against Ravi Shankaran, key accused in the naval ‘war room leak’ case, was rejected by the England and Wales High Court on Tuesday.

In addition, the judges, Lord Brian Leveson and Mr. Justice Blake, ordered the CBI to pay Shankaran Rs. 1 crore in legal costs. They said there was no prima facie case against him.

Shankaran had appealed to the High Court after an extradition order passed by Home Secretary Theresa May in May 2013. The order came after the decisions of District Judge Nicholas Evans at the Westminster Magistrates Court in December 2011 and again in March 2013.

Tuesday’s High Court order overrules both Judge Evans’ ruling and the extradition order.

The judges re-examined the evidence to establish if a prima facie case existed for extradition.

Concluding his ruling, Justice Lord Leveson said: “For the sake of completeness and in deference to the comprehensive arguments that have been advanced on this appeal, each of the grounds has been considered. In the event, I would allow this appeal on the sole ground that the District Judge failed properly to re-evaluate the admissibility of the third (and only operative) hearsay statement attributed to Kushwaha against the further evidence advanced on behalf of the appellant. Performing that exercise with due regard to the provisions of s. 84 of the Extradition Act 2003, I have little doubt that it should not have been admitted as the only evidence linking the Vic Branson email to the appellant. Without that link, the prima facie case that must be established collapses.”

The judges also remarked on the “sluggish pace” at which the proceedings had moved in India. “It took around six years [from initial arrest in April 2006 until an appellate decision of the Indian courts dated 11 May 2012] for the other Indian defendants to secure bail. As at that date, the documentary basis of the case… had still not been disclosed,” the ruling states.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.