Court rejects deportation plea of eight Pakistanis in drug case
A special court in Mumbai has rejected the deportation plea of eight Pakistani nationals, who were nabbed by the Indian Coast Guard off the Gujarat coast with a boat allegedly carrying over 200 kg of heroin in 2015. The accused had been apprehended with 232 kg of heroin worth Rs. 6.96 crore and were later handed over to Yellowgate Police station in South Mumbai.
On what basis were they seeking deportation?
The accused, who are facing trial under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, sought deportation from India to Karachi, Pakistan on the ground that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. While the plea was rejected on Monday, the detailed order was made available on Tuesday.
The argument presented by the petitioner's lawyer
The petitioner's lawyer argued the accused were apprehended from international waters when they were found allegedly carrying heroin. He said, according to the testimony of a prosecution witness, the boat was found 157 nautical miles away from Mitha Port (Gujarat), which is the closest Indian port from the said location. Thus, the point of their interception was beyond the territorial limits of India's jurisdiction.
The accused were first produced in court in 2015
He further said when the accused were first produced before a court at Porbandar in 2015, it had observed that Indian courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offenses committed by foreign nationals on a foreign vessel outside India's territorial jurisdiction. Hence, if the trial proceeds further, it would vitiate the same on account of want of jurisdiction to this court.
Why did the prosecution oppose the deportation plea?
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the deportation plea, stating that India's territorial waters continued up to the continental shelf, exclusive economic zone, and others as per the Maritime Act 1976. As per the act's provision, there is an Exclusive Economic Zone of India, which is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters, and the limit of such zone is 200 nautical miles.
Further arguments presented by the prosecution
He further argued that there is a resolution adopted by the United Nations Conference for the adoption of a convention against illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988. "Article 4 (b) (iii) of the said Resolution clearly mentions that the offense committed outside its territory with a view to the commission of any offense within its territory shall be covered," he said.
Judge rejected the plea terming it as premature
Special judge VV Vidhwans after considering submissions of both sides rejected the plea, terming it as "premature." "Considering the seriousness of offenses, the quantity of narcotics allegedly seized and the aspect of national security involved, it will be proper to give the prosecution a reasonable opportunity to prove the aspect of the jurisdiction of the court and its case on merits," the court added.
