The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam case accused Christian Michel seeking release from jail. .A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja also rejected Michel's challenge to provisions of the India-UAE extradition treaty. .In his petition, Michel had asked the Court to declare that Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which prohibits India from trying an extradited individual for any offence not expressly listed in the extradition order, should take precedence over the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty. The latter permits prosecution not only for the offences for which extradition is granted but also for other “connected” offences.He had also challenged the trial court’s order by which his application under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to release him from jail was rejected..Michel, a British citizen, was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018 and has been behind bars since then. He is accused of having played the role of a middleman to enable helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland to secure a contract from the then-Congress-led Indian government for the sale of helicopters for VVIP transport.Michel allegedly entered into as many as twelve contracts with AgustaWestland to legitimise illicit commissions or kickbacks amounting to €42.27 million received on the procurement of VVIP helicopters by the Government of India. According to the CBI, bribes estimated at around US$33 million were transferred through bank accounts in the UK and UAE..Notably, this is the second petition filed by Michel before the High Court against the India-UAE treaty. On November 17, the High Court refused to entertain his plea seeking a declaration that Article 17 of the extradition treaty was illegal. The Court had then noted that Michel did not seek any consequential relief in the plea. .Central to Michel's petition was his argument that Indian agencies cannot rely on Article 17 of the India–UAE Treaty, which permits trial for offences 'connected' to those for which extradition was sought. He had contended that the Article violates Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which bars India from trying an extradited person for offences other than those explicitly mentioned in the extradition decree. According to the plea, Indian agencies violated this safeguard by invoking Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (punishable by life imprisonment) through supplementary chargesheets, even though this offence was not part of the extradition order issued by the Dubai courts. Michel further contended that he has already completed the maximum sentence possible for the offences for which he was extradited and his continued detention in India was illegal. According to the petition, the original 2017 CBI chargesheet accused him under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carried a maximum sentence of five years at the time. Michel’s incarceration, including time spent in custody during extradition proceedings in the UAE, has exceeded this statutory limit, it was argued..Advocate Aljo K Joseph appeared for Christian Michel. Central government standing counsel (CGSC) Satya Ranjan Swain appeared for the Central government. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) DP Singh represented the CBI. .[Read Judgement]
