مجموعة ٦/٢٥ "مراسيم ملكية: مسقط: تقارير عن العمل، ١٩٣٠" [و‎‎٩‎٩] (٢٦٦/١٩٧)

^0 V *~
sr
/(
1 think we should avoid saying anything in the
telegram which assumes that the power of extradition exists
at any rate in regard to places in the Persian Gulf*
As regards British India, the powers undoubtedly
exist under Chapter II of the Indian Extradition Act, the
procedure being laid down in section 3 or section 4*
The Extradition Act of 1870 oould only affect
fugitive criminals of a foreign state who are in or suspected
of being in any part of His Majesty^ Dominions or, under
section 17, in a "British Possession" which is defined in
Section 26 as any colony, plantation, island territory or
settlement within His Majesty’s Dominions* This would
therefore seem to exclude the places in the Persian Gulf*
A reference to the various orders in Council relating
to the Persian Gulf shows that though the Fugitive Offenders
Act 1881 is made applicable, the Extradition Act 1870 is not.
The Indian Extradition Act 1903 is not one of the Indian Acts
applied in the Orders in Council. In the Persian Coasts
1907
and Islands Order in Council,/3t!ie Maskat Order in Council
and the Bahrein Order in Council 1913
1915/ there is a provision that nothing in the order is to
affect the powers of jurisdiction conferred by the (Indian)
Foreign jurisdiction and Extradition Act 1879 oti in the Indian
(Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council 1902. That Act of
1879 was repealed by the Indian Extradition Act of 1903, and
was therefore not in being when these Orders in Council came
into force. As regards the Kuwait Order in Council 1925,
the corresponding provision is that nothing in the Order shall
affect any power or jurisdiction conferred by the Indian
Extradition Act 1903, but in my opinion that is only intended
to preserve the rights and powers as regards the surrender of
fugitive criminals under the procedure in Chapter III
Indian Extradition Act, which corresponds to the Fugitive
Offenders Act, 1881.