Direct answer
Compare the facts alleged, then apply each legal system to those facts
Extract the requesting state's allegation into dated acts: representation, transfer, possession, concealment, corporate decision, public act, document use or benefit. Do not add facts missing from the authenticated request merely to make an Indian offence fit. Then identify the Indian offence potentially covering that conduct at the relevant time and the treaty's required punishment or offence threshold.
Differences in terminology, procedure, jurisdictional facts or offence structure do not necessarily defeat dual criminality; equally, a broad shared label such as fraud, conspiracy or money laundering does not establish it. Limitation, retrospectivity, corporate attribution, attempt or conspiracy, fiscal-offence treatment, speciality and partial extradition may require separate analysis under the exact instrument.
Legal analysis
A defensible dual-criminality analysis uses four aligned columns
The court should be able to see the alleged conduct, foreign provision, proposed Indian analogue and unresolved mismatch without searching a narrative bundle.
Authenticated conduct
Use the factual acts actually alleged in the formal request, with dates, place, person and object. Avoid prosecution or defence embellishment.
Practical focus: Prepare a neutral conduct statement linked to dossier pages.
Foreign legal character
Obtain reliable text, translation and explanation of the requesting-state offence, status and maximum or minimum punishment where relevant.
Practical focus: Coordinate a source-backed foreign-law note through qualified counsel.
Indian analogue
Identify the Indian provision covering the substance of the same conduct at the relevant time. Test each necessary ingredient and legal person attribution.
Practical focus: Use an element matrix and flag facts absent from the request.
Treaty threshold and limits
Apply punishment threshold, excluded categories, temporal clauses, limitation, attempt or conspiracy language and speciality. The treaty may modify a general assumption.
Practical focus: Quote the official treaty article beside each conclusion.
Evidence plan
The conduct matrix should be traceable to authenticated source pages
A secondary summary may aid orientation, but the legal comparison should use the transmitted request and official legal texts.
| Record | What it may establish | What it cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Formal request fact statement | Conduct, date, person, place and alleged result | Truth of each fact or facts not stated |
| Foreign charge and warrant | Offence invoked and current judicial status | Complete foreign-law explanation |
| Official treaty or arrangement | Dual-criminality wording, threshold and exclusions | Satisfaction without applying the conduct |
| Foreign legal text and certified translation | Elements and punishment in the requesting state | Indian analogue automatically |
| Indian statutory text at relevant time | Possible domestic offence and temporal law | That the foreign allegation proves its ingredients |
| Transaction and role evidence | Support or contradiction for person-specific conduct | Authority to rewrite the request |
Response roadmap
Build the cross-system conduct comparison
- 01
Freeze the requested conduct
Extract only facts formally alleged and cite each dossier page.
- 02
Verify both legal texts
Use official treaty and Indian law plus reliable foreign-law material and translations.
- 03
Map offence elements
Compare substance, person attribution, mental element, result and punishment threshold.
- 04
Test temporal and treaty limits
Address dates, limitation, retrospective changes, excluded offences, attempt, conspiracy and partial extradition.
- 05
Frame the stage-appropriate submission
Present the mismatch or compliance question to the inquiry, government or reviewing court without asking it to try guilt.
Delhi forum context
The Indian inquiry applies the extradition instrument, not a free-standing academic test
The magistrate, Central Government and reviewing constitutional court have different roles. The submission should identify where the dual-criminality question arises under the applicable Act or treaty and the relief available at that stage.
Delhi's connection may arise through MEA and the assigned Patiala House proceeding, but territorial and assignment facts still require proof. Foreign-law issues should be supported responsibly rather than stated from an unsourced web article.
Focused questions
Questions commonly arising at this stage
Must both countries use the same offence name?
Not necessarily. The treaty generally requires a conduct-based and punishment-related comparison, but the exact wording controls. Identical section titles are not the test.
Can one foreign charge match several Indian offences?
Potentially, if the same alleged conduct satisfies the relevant provisions and treaty. The analysis should not combine separate facts to manufacture a match.
What if only part of the conduct is extraditable?
Treaty terms and the foreign and Indian decisions may address partial extradition or defined offences. Speciality and the precise surrender grant then become important.
Does dual criminality prove guilt?
No. It addresses extraditability of the alleged conduct under the applicable framework. The requesting-state court ordinarily determines criminal guilt.
Primary materials
Official sources for verification
Use the current statutory text, rules, notifications, roster and orders. This page is an issue map, not a substitute for checking the live record.
Case preparation
Convert the papers into a dated, transaction-level brief
For an initial assessment, organise the latest summons or order, case particulars, a one-page chronology, the relevant bank or property trail, and the exact next deadline. Do not alter, rename or selectively delete electronic records.
Part of the Extradition & Cross-Border Process research cluster. Substantive legal propositions must be checked against the current Act, rules, notifications and binding decisions applicable to the actual record.