Case Nos: 1501435633 and 1501435587

IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT
(EXTRADITION)

181 Marylebone Road,
London, NW1 5BR

Date: 12th October 2017

B e f o r e :

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) EMMA ARBUTHNOT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

	THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA	Requesting State   (RS)	
			
	v

JATINDER ANGURALA AND ASHA RANI ANGURALA

Requested Person(s) (RP)	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Sternberg appeared for the Government of India

Mr Ben Cooper, instructed by Hodge Jones and Allen LLP, appeared for Mr Jatinder Angurala
Mr Ben Keith, instructed by Hodge Jones and Allen LLP, appeared for Mrs Asha Rani Angurala
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Introduction
1.	The extradition of Mr and Mrs Angurala is requested by the Government of India, a Part 2 country, for an allegation of fraud that dates back to between 1990 and 1993.  Mr Jatinder Angurala is aged 69 born on 1st April 1948, he became a British citizen in December 2012.  His wife, Mrs Asha Rani Angurala, is aged 55 and was born on 15th April 1962. The fraud is alleged to have taken place against the Bank of India when Mr Angurala was the manager of one of its branches.  The total loss is about £24,000 which I accept in 1990 to 1993 was a large amount of money.  
2.	The certificate was issued by the Secretary of State on 1st April 2015. The couple were arrested in relation to this warrant on 4th June 2015 at their shop in Walworth Road, London.  The RPs were remanded on conditional bail and this matter came for full hearing in front of District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Purdy in September 2016.  Unfortunately he was taken seriously ill after the hearing and was unable to give judgment.  This matter has now come in front of me, over two years after the couple’s arrest for this matter.  
3.	A number of issues have been raised by those representing this couple, Mr Ben Cooper for Mr Angarula and Mr Ben Keith for his wife. These issues included Articles 3, prison conditions, Articles 6 and 8 and most importantly passage of time (section 82 of the EA).  Mr Sternberg for the RS and counsel for the RP have produced not only excellent written submissions but they have added to these with brief oral arguments.   
4.	After hearing submissions during which the parties agreed this court could consider the passage of time argument alone, I decided to hear the evidence of Mr and Mrs Angurala and the investigating officer Mr Gopal only. This was an exceptional course which I took bearing in mind the delay between the alleged offences and the request for extradition.  This consideration was combined with the fact that a number of expert witnesses were called at the last full hearing and having in mind the overall cost of the proceedings.  Passage of time was a striking feature of this case and a decision I might make may well prevent the calling of a number of witnesses to consider the other issues raised by the RPs. 
Evidence
5.	The request sets out the allegation made against the Anguralas but perhaps the most useful part of the bundle from the passage of time point of view are the two chronologies, the first prepared by the Government of India and the second by Mr Cooper and the evidence from the Anguralas and police superintendent Gopal.  
Evidence - India
6.	Between 1990 and 1993 Mr Angurala was the manager of the Malri branch of Bank of India in Nakoder Jalandhar.  He is said to have cheated the bank with his wife and others.  Mr Angurala fraudulently sanctioned and paid out loans to himself, his wife and the co-conspirators between October 1990 and April 1993.   The RP was said to have falsified records.  He later admitted the irregularities and promised to repay the bank.  He deposited money in various accounts but did not repay all the money taken.  
Evidence - Mr Angurala
7.	Mr Angurala gave evidence to this court as he had in September 2016.  I was provided with an agreed note of his then evidence and he adopted that as well as his proof of evidence.  He is a man of good character now aged 69.  In the United Kingdom he worked firstly as a bookkeeper/accountant before setting up his own pound shop in the Walworth Road using his savings.  He employs two staff there.  He obtained British citizenship in December 2012.  He has some fairly minor health issues suffering from high blood pressure and arthritis and back problems.  
8.	He said he did not know about the prosecution until he was arrested although I noted that he had found out about it in 2014 through some texts sent to him by his estranged son-in-law. He said after being suspended on 10th April 1993 he had obtained a new passport which was sent to the bank which opened it. Curiously he had applied for the passport in July 1992 during the currency of the alleged fraud. He left for the United Kingdom on 28th August 1993.
9.	He had never been told by the bank that he should not have been in the United Kingdom.  He went to tell the bank (a Mr Saroop Singh) when he was going and the condition was that he had to remain in contact with the bank.  He claimed in evidence that he had not admitted to irregularities.  The payments that he made to the bank afterwards were to pay back his personal loans.   He said he had staff loans.  
10.	He had to leave India as he needed to make a living.  The bank had stopped his pay and he could not get a job in India because he had been suspended.  He had no friends or family in the United Kingdom but wanted to make a living to support his family who remained in India. He and his wife have two children born in 1980 and 1981 who were left behind when he went to England. His wife remained living in Delhi until 1996, she lived for those three years in the same one address.  He was dismissed on 29th December 2001 although he only got a letter from the bank telling him this in August 2002.  After he had been dismissed there was no reason to correspond with the bank.    
11.	As to where they had lived, they had been in Uxbridge up to the winter of 1996.  They had moved to Peckham then moved to Walworth Road in 2015.  They had also lived at 183 Elephant and Castle. In terms of their shop, they have invested everything they have in what is a small pound shop business in the Walworth Road.  They employ two others who would lose their jobs if he was to be extradited.  
12.	He said he had no knowledge of any criminal proceedings and left before the police investigation began.  He did not know that others had been tried for fraud on the bank until he was arrested in relation to the extradition request.  He was not given notice of the trial or proceedings despite his regular contact with the Bank of India which gave his addresses in London.  He said he had not returned to India since 1993. 
13.	He explained that if he was extradited to India he would lose everything he had built up here including his investment in the business.  The business is going well and they are making a living.  At his age no one will give him a job.  He explained that they changed the company status this year and made it a sole trader in the name of his wife.  He had done that to avoid form filling and the rules that being a company entails.
Evidence - Mrs Angurala
14.	Mrs Angurala adopted her previous statement and evidence.  She agreed her husband had suddenly left his job.  They both left their home within two or three weeks and she moved to New Delhi.  This was about 400 kms or six hours away from their home by road.  After her husband left for the United Kingdom she had stayed at her brother’s house in Delhi as she did not want to leave her children who were still very young.  They did not have enough money to both leave and they had no passports.  Her brother helped her husband with some money and he was able to leave.  
15.	In 1996 she had gone to work for a family in the Ukraine.  In 1997 she went to the United Kingdom where she claimed asylum.  She overstayed her visa and then was deported to India in 2008.  She returned to the United Kingdom on 14th February 2009.  She said she did not know about the criminal case against her when she arrived in 1997.  Her husband had told her that he had been suspended over a misunderstanding over some loans which meant he could not get his salary and they could not therefore run their lives.  She came to know about the criminal case only in 2015.  
16.	As to the heavy bleeding she suffers from, it is not controlled by medication and she has no idea what would happen if she were to be extradited to India.    
17.	In terms of their business, she said that although she cannot speak English she knows enough to work in their shop and knows names of the items for sale and the prices.  She had signed the documents dissolving their company but did not know why that had happened.  She said that as an Asian wife she trusts her husband which is why she signed it.  
Evidence - Superintendent Gopal
18.	Mr Gopal adopted the evidence he had given to this court on 16th September 2016.  He had been the Superintendent of police in Chandigarh for the past two years.  He works for the CBI (the fraud department).  He confirmed the Government of India’s chronology was correct.  He said the offence had been registered on 29th November 1995.  He said that unsuccessful efforts were made to trace the Anguralas as set out in the chronology.
19.	The police had information that the Angularas were in New Delhi in 1997 but when officers visited the place they were not there.  They were told that they had perhaps gone to the USA.  Efforts were made to get their address.   He knew that postal orders had been sent from the United Kingdom in November 1997 and they had information that in the early part of 1998, they lived in Uxbridge Road, Hanwell.  He said that they found out they had moved before Christmas 1996 and owed 12 months’ rent but their new address was unknown.  
20.	On 10th August 1998, the Indian police had written letters to New Delhi, Madras and Calcutta.  Then in 2009 they had information that they were living in Peckham and efforts were made to confirm their address.  On 8th July 2009, the High Commissioner was asked to impound their passport.  It was only when in 2013 the RPs estranged son-in-law Mr Gulati gave the police their address that in April 2014 the extradition request was made.  
21.	Mr Gopal explained that all public employees are bound by the civil service conduct rules and are required to get prior permission before leaving.  He said it was “quite possible” that Mr Angurala did not have permission.  
22.	As to the letters exchanged by Mr Angurala with the bank, the CBI did not know about them.  Neither did they know that Mrs Angurala had been deported to India in 2008.   The delay in the case was due to the fact that the true address for the Anguralas was not available and as soon as it was known then the extradition process was started.  
23.	He went on to say that the trial could start promptly and the Angularas would be given as much time as they wanted to prepare their defence.  The CBI do not want to interview them.  They could apply for bail and their detention would be reviewed by the CBI court.   As to any witnesses who might be unavailable the court could rely on the depositions made at the time of the trial of the acquitted co-defendants.  The weight to be placed on them would be up to the court.  A different judge would hear the trial and if the RPs are convicted they have a right of appeal.    
Law
24.	Section 82 reads
82 Passage of time
A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if (and only if) it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have –
Committed the extradition offence (where he is accused of its commission), or
Become unlawfully at large (where he is alleged to have been convicted of it.
25.	The test to apply is the one set out in Kakis (1978) 1 WLR 779 by Lord Diplock:  “Unjust I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused of the conduct of the trial itself, ‘oppressive’ as directed to the hardship resulting from changes in his circumstances that have occurred during the period under consideration; but there is room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases when to return would not be fair…”
26.	A person who has fled the country or hidden or avoided arrest is a fugitive and will not be able to rely on the passage of time since an extradition offence (Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 963).  The burden is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the RPs are fugitives.  Garbowski v Poland [2013] is authority for saying that the conclusion is not a finding which should be made unless the evidence is compelling.  There is a difference between having an awareness of a case against one and being a fugitive.  There have been cases too where an intervening act has extinguished the fugitive status of an individual.  
27.	The relevant time to consider is the period between the alleged commission of the offences and the date of the full hearing.  Mr Cooper relies on a number of cases where different periods have led to the discharge of the RP.  I am not going to set them out here.  Where the periods are long, the court should enquire as to the reasons for them.  If the overall delay is due to the RS then that can make an order to extradite the more oppressive and unjust, this becomes a highly relevant factor when considering oppression and injustice.  
28.	In La Torre v Italy [2007] EWHC 1370, Laws LJ said “culpable delay on the part of the State…will often be associated with other factors, such as a false sense of security on the extraditees part…An overall judgment on the merits is required, unshackled by rules with too sharp edges”.  
29.	Mr and Mrs Angurala contend that their extradition to India is barred by the passage of time.  They say they are not fugitives.  The offence is said to have occurred between 27 and 24 years ago and it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite them to India.  They are both of good character and have made many changes to their lives since these events a quarter of a century ago.  They own and run a small business and employ two staff.  The RPs have always used their own names and have paid tax and lived openly.  There is no doubt that, for a number of years, Mr Angurala was in written communication with the bank and the bank had at least two of his addresses.
30.	Mr Sternberg argues for the RS that both RPs are fugitives.  Mr Angurala leaving India for a country where he had no friends or relations whilst Mrs Angurala took their children and moved 6 hours away from their home.  They both left the area in a hurry.  Mr Angurala should not have left the country without permission from the Bank of India.  Both were evasive in their evidence.  Mrs Angurala had said she knew about the alleged offence when she arrived in England which was in 1997 but later said she found out only on their arrest for extradition.  
31.	Mr Angurala was repaying some of the money he owed, that showed he knew about the matter and was trying to make amends.  He also admitted his conduct to the bank.  As for Mrs Angurala, Mr Sternberg asked whether it was really credible that she did not know what was going on.  The couple knew an investigation was going on and did not leave a contact address behind.  
32.	In any event, Mr Sternberg pointed out that they would not be prejudiced at their trial as they would be able to call defence witnesses.  The judge would decide whether to admit evidence against them if the original witnesses are no longer available and would decide on the weight to be given to it.  
33.	As to hardship, he accepted they had set up a new business and that many years had passed.  There would be disruption but there was always hardship whenever an RP was extradited.  The offence was very serious, a breach of trust by a bank manager over a number of years.  He argued that I should not find extradition barred in the circumstances.  

Decision
34.	I have found a chronology which incorporates some of the dates set out in the RS and the RPs’ chronologies helpful in trying to determine whether I could be sure that the RPs are fugitives.  I set it out below:
October 1990 to April 1993 conduct which gives rise to allegation of fraud.
On 20th July 1992 Mr Angurala applied for a passport. 
On 10th April 1993 the RP is suspended by the Bank of India (evidence of Mr A)
9th July 1993 passport issued, no reason to doubt Mr A’s evidence that it was delivered to the bank where he had worked.
In August 1993 Mr Angurala was granted a UK visa and he left India.
On 28th August 1993 Mr Angurala arrives in the UK. 
On 15th August 1994 the RP sent a letter to the bank containing British postal orders.  The RP certainly had his address on his other letters to the bank and I have no doubt that he did the same on that occasion.
31st August 1994 was the date of further postal orders which were received by the Bank of India.  The envelopes and letters were handed over to the CBI. 
On 29th November 1995 the criminal case against the Anguralas was registered  
On 11th May 1996, police go to the Aguralas address. Told that they had left in 1993.  
On 24th February 1997 is when the bank has said that Mr Angurala is under suspension and is absconding.  He has not submitted his assets and liability statement to the bank.  
On 28th February 1997 two ‘no bail warrants’ are issued in relation to both RPs.  The address given is an address in New Delhi.  It is not clear whose that address is and who provided it. 
On 3rd March 1997 it is reported that Mr Angurala’s brother has said that the RP has gone to the USA.  It was decided to take up the matter with Interpol.  
On 19th March 1997 the CBI make enquiries with the Assistant Director of Interpol to find out the date of departure and whereabouts of the RP in USA from the US embassy.  
On 3rd April 1997 Interpol says request forwarded to ”concerned authorities”.  
On 21st April 1997 the RPs were declared proclaimed offenders (p 00064 core b.).
On 24th September 1997, one Anoop Kumar says that the RP met him on 21st June 1993 and said he had been transferred to a different branch and he is busy in recovery of advances sanctioned by him and depositing the same in the bank.  
On 2nd April 1998 Hanwell Police Station tell the High Commission that Mr Angurala had lived at 211 Uxbridge Road for a few days before Christmas 1996.  
On 10th August 1998 the CBI send letters to Bombay, Calcutta, New Delhi and Madras giving the Foreigner Regional Registration Officers Mr Angurala’s address to December 1996 (211 Uxbridge Road) and saying he is in possession of passport P973679.  
On 26th September 1998, the CBI received a letter from the Indian Bank regional office telling them that Mr Angurala had given his address as 32 Lambourn Close, Hanwell. 
On 20th March 2000 Mr Angulara wrote to bank giving his new address 66 Granville Square and asking the bank to credit the balance from NIC against the loan account.  
On 28th March 2000 the CBI sent a letter to Interpol New Delhi saying the Mr Angurala was living at 66 Granville Square, SE15 6DX.  Interpol was asked to confirm his presence at the address.  
On 17th May 2000 Bank of India to Mr Angulara saying had carried out his instructions.  
On 14th August 2000 a further letter was received from the Bank of India.  
On 6th January 2001 the Judge presiding over the co-defendants’ trial in in India gives judgment.  At page 000075 of the bundle the judge says that “no effort was made either by the bank manager who succeeded [the RP] or by the prosecution to apprehend accused JK Angurala...” The judge goes on to say that the fact that the manager who replaced Mr Angurala accepted deposits from the RP even after 12th April 1993 showed that the bank staff was all out to help their Branch manager and his wife (the RPs)  to leave the country and go abroad.  “Even when the British postal orders were received, no effort was made either by the bank or the CBI to nab accused JK Angurala to elicit truth and to recover public money”.  
17th January 2001 is the date of a letter from the bank to Mr Angulara at his address.
On 27th January 2001 Mr Angulara replies from 66 Granville Sq, SE15 6DX (p 000361)
On 1st February 2001 Mr Angulara. sends a letter to the bank from 66 Granville Sq.  
On 29th December 2001 Mr Angulara. is dismissed, no evidence when told. 
On 14th May 2002 the CBI asked the Regional Passport Office for a copy of Mr Angurala’s passport application form of 9th March 1993.  
On 5th August 2002 The bank sends Mr Angulara a letter to 66 Granville Sq. and requests he go to the Indian Embassy in the UK to get the receipt for his discharge attested by them.
28th August 2002 letter to the personnel department of the head office of Bank of India sent via Malri Branch showing the RP’s address as 66 Granville Square.  
16th October 2002 Mr Angulara attends the Indian Consul, Birmingham to get document attested.   
On 8th April 2004 the RP is in communication with the Bank of India, the Zonal Office in New Delhi and the Regional Office in Chandigarh.  He give as his address, 1 Grenard Close, SE15 5GZ.
On 29th July 2008 Indian High Commission, London issues Mr Angulara with new passport.  
On 16th April 2009 the CBI asks Interpol to check the address for Mr Angulara which is Flat 4, 1 Grenard Square, SE15 5GZ.  
On 8th July 2009 the Ministry of External Affairs asks the High Commission in London to impound Mr and Mr Angurala’s passport.  
On 15th February 2010 the CBI asks that passport of 2008 issued by the High Commission be revoked.  
On 31st January 2011 the CBI asks the Jalandher passport officer to revoke Mr Angurala’s passport and asks for details of Mrs Angurala’s passport.  
On 4th March 2011 the CBI asks Interpol to take up question of “deportation” of Mr Angurala with UK.  
On 12th August 2013 the CBI New Delhi was asked by CBI Chandigarh to “intimate” the status of the Look Out Circular against Mr and Mrs Angurala.  
On 23rd December 2013 the CBI receive a letter from the Angurala’s estranged son-in-law giving their present address as Flat 4, Middleton House, 1 Grenard Close, Peckham SE14 5GZ.  He also provides mobile numbers and the office address as 331 Walworth Road with the phone number there.  
On 2nd September 2014 Warrants of arrest issued against RPs by CBI Court of Patiala.  
On 23rd September 2014 extradition was requested and Interpol Red Notices issued.  
On 4th June 2015 Mr and Mrs Angurala were arrested at their shop at 298 Walworth Road. 
35.	There is no doubt that after being suspended by the bank for financial irregularities that Mr Angulara left the country in August 1993 and came to the United Kingdom where he has lived ever since.  In the intervening years Mr Angurala has had correspondence with the bank and they have been kept informed of his addresses.  On 2nd April 1998 the CBI had information that the RP was in London and not in the USA where they had previously been told he was living.  Then in September 1998 the CBI gets information from the bank that he is living in 32 Lambourn Close Hanwell.  It is another London address.  On 28th March 2000 the CBI knows the RP is living at 66 Granville Square.  The CBI asks Interpol to check this information.  
36.	During the two or three years leading up to 2001, the trial of the co-defendants are taking place.  They are blaming Mr Angurala in particular for the fraud and the focus inevitably must have been on his whereabouts.  The CBI must have been all too aware at that point, that he was not before the court as the others were.  The CBI by then has been given three addresses for Mr Angurala in London.  There is no information about whether Interpol responded to the CBI’s enquiries but it is important to remember the RPs were using their own names and Angurala is not a common name in London. 
37.	In 2001 the judge criticises the CBI (and the bank) for not making an effort to catch the RP even when he sent in the British postal orders.  I do not accept the CBI would not have known about this criticism, in 2001 it was in possession of the RP’s address and this was the time that this court would have expected them to obtain warrants of arrest from the CBI court which would have led to a request.  In my view there was no valid reason for this not being done until 2014.  Although the CBI received more information on the RPs addresses (work and home) from the estranged son-in-law in my view it had sufficient information before then for an attempt to be made to arrest the RPs in London.
Fugitive status
38.	The evidence against Mr Angulara is that he was suspended from his position in the Bank of India in April 1993. Significantly, he had applied for a passport in July 1992 during the currency of the alleged fraud. He says that the passport was in fact received in July 1993.  He left for the United Kingdom in August 1993.  There was evidence from the Superintendent that Mr Angulara’s contract with the bank did not allow him to leave the country.  When asked whether the bank might have given him permission, Mr Gopal said it was “quite possible” that he did not have permission.
39.	I noted that the Indian Judge considered that his colleagues at the bank may have colluded to prevent his arrest.  As can be seen from the chronology he was in touch continuously with the bank until 2004 and always from London.  In 1994 he was sending British postal orders to the bank.  In 1997 admittedly the CBI was told that he had gone to the USA but by 1998 it knew he had been living in Hanwell and in 2000 he gave the bank his new address at 66 Granville Square.  In 2001, the Indian Judge trying the co-defendants criticized the CBI for making no effort to catch him.  Despite these trenchant comments, no sustained effort was made to trace him after this date.  
40.	Mr Angurala remained at addresses known to the bank until 2004 when he sent the bank his new address of 1 Grenard Close.  I noted that the latest address was sent not only to the branch at Chandigarh but also to the Zonal office (main office?) in New Delhi.  It would have been abundantly clear that the RP had been in the United Kingdom in 1994 and then had settled in the United Kingdom after the false information of 1997.  There is no evidence that Mr Angurala was ever told about an investigation into him by the CBI.  I find he knew he was being investigated by the bank as he had been suspended.  
41.	I suspect he knew about a criminal investigation for the following reasons.  He had admitted to the irregularities and he knew a major loss had been suffered by the bank.  He had applied for a passport in 1992 for himself only before he had been suspended and during the currency of the alleged fraud.  He did not apply for a passport for his wife and children, he was not planning a family holiday.  After the fraud was uncovered and he was suspended he left not just the area but the country for a place where he had no friends, leaving his wife and their children behind.  He has never returned to India.  He was in touch with the bank and it would not have surprised me, in view of what was said by the Indian Judge in his or her judgment of 2001, that the bank staff were all out to help him, if his colleagues at the bank had not tipped him about the prosecution of the bank’s customers at the instigation of the CBI.  
42.	If there was evidence to show that Mr Angulara knew about the prosecution ending in the acquittals of the co-defendants in 2001, I would find he would have known about the criminal investigation into his role.  I bear in mind though that if he was sent letters by the bank informing him of the criminal investigation, these letters have not been produced when the RS has known for at least two years that passage of time was a significant issue in the case.  
43.	When I consider Mr Angurala’s fugitive status, I look too at his behaviour in the United Kingdom.  He has used his own name throughout, he has sent his addresses to the Bank of India, the loser in the case, the CBI knew that the bank had Mr Angurala’s address and after the nudge from the Indian Judge it is really surprising that they did not follow this up.  I noted too he has attended the High Commission (once in Birmingham, why?) to validate a signature on a document required by the bank and to renew his passport.  In this case, the CBI if they had asked the Bank of India for the RP’s address they would have been able to instigate a search in this country, they should have started with a search in London, which would have led to the identification and detention of Mr Angurala. 
44.	As can be seen from above, I suspect that Mr Angurala was avoiding the prosecution, but a court’s suspicions is not the test.   I cannot be sure that Mr Angurala was a fugitive in 1993.  Even had I been sure, it seemed to me that intervening events in particular his regular correspondence with the bank and their possession of his addresses for years would lead me to the view that if he was indeed a fugitive in 1993, he was not hiding in the United Kingdom once he arrived there and he could have been found by even by the most cursory search carried out by the English authorities given this task.  
45.	When I come to consider whether it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since the alleged offence, I noted this is a very old case. It dates back to between 24 and 27 years ago.  There were 25 prosecution witnesses who gave evidence against the co-defendants in a trial 16 years ago.  The officer does not know how many, if any, of those witnesses are able to give evidence now.  I am told by Mr Angulara that he contests the allegation, whether he really would in the light of his admissions to the bank, we will never know, but taking him at his word, it would be very difficult for him to put together a persuasive defence case so long after the events complained of.  
46.	As to oppression, his life has moved on.  He is aged 69, not in the first flush of youth, he has minor health issues, importantly after so long, when he put his savings in to the small business he set up, he must have felt confident that these matters were not going to be proceeded with.  One consideration of course is the seriousness of the offence but it is just too late and it would be wrong to extradite him now.  
47.	I find I am not sure he is a fugitive and his extradition is barred by reason of passage of time as I find it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite him by reason of the quarter century that has passed since the alleged offence.
48.	Mrs Angulara says she did not know about these allegations until her arrest in 2014.  I cannot just presume her husband would have told her what was going on.  She certainly took their children and left their home hurriedly to go to her brother in Delhi but I cannot say whether that was not equally due to the fact that her husband had been suspended, was not being paid and they could not live in their home without his income.  At this far remove, there is no clear evidence that she knew about the original allegation so fraud or later the investigation by the CBI.  
49.	It is to noted too that in the futile attempts to track Mr Angulara, Mrs Angulara was hardly ever mentioned.  She was deported to India in 2008 before returning to London in 2009 and the authorities clearly never knew she had been back.  I am suspicious that her husband would have told her rather more than there had been a misunderstanding in relation to loans but in all the circumstances I cannot be sure she is a fugitive.  In view of that finding, I find that there will be prejudice and oppression in her case were she to be extradited now 24 to 27 years after the events that the CBI is concerned with.  Her extradition is barred by reason of the passage of time.
50.	I discharge both RPs.  

Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) Emma Arbuthnot
12th October 2017