In a major boost to India’s extradition efforts, the Antwerp Court of Appeal has ruled that the offences linked to fugitive diamond trader Mehul Choksi are extraditable under both Indian and Belgian laws. The verdict clears the path for Choksi’s possible return to face trial in connection with the ₹13,000-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.
According to the detailed judgment, the court held that the offences cited in the Indian extradition request are punishable under Sections 120-B read with 201, 409, 420, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Each of these carries a sentence exceeding one year.
The court also noted that the alleged conduct involving criminal organisation, swindle, embezzlement, and forgery constitutes offences under Belgian law — specifically under Articles 66, 196, 197, 213, 240, 241, 245, 246, 247 SSSS2-4, 324a-b, and 496 of the Belgian Criminal Code. This satisfies the dual criminality principle required for extradition.
However, the judges excluded the charge under Section 201 IPC — causing disappearance of evidence — on the grounds that this is not recognised under Belgian law and therefore cannot be part of the enforceable declaration.
The ruling clarified that the alleged crimes occurred in India between December 31, 2016, and January 1, 2019, and prosecution remains within limitation under both jurisdictions. It dismissed Choksi’s plea that the extradition proceedings were politically motivated or infringed on his basic rights. The court emphasised that the alleged acts “cannot be considered political, military or non-extraditable tax offences,” and added that “there are no grounds to believe that the request was made with the intention of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his race, religion, nationality, or political affiliation.”
Choksi’s long-standing claim that he was abducted from Antigua on India’s instructions was also rejected. The bench said, “it cannot be inferred from the documents supplied by the person concerned that he was kidnapped in Antigua on the instructions of the Indian authorities.”
The court described the INTERPOL Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) decision of October 12, 2022, as “inconclusive and cautious,” and observed that expert opinions from Prof. Dr. F Tulkens, Sir K. Jones, and E Fitzgerald KC did not alter its findings.
While acknowledging that Choksi’s defence had presented an extensive dossier of material — including media articles, court rulings, and NGO reports concerning prison conditions in India — the judges concluded that none of these documents proved an actual or imminent risk of mistreatment or unfair trial. It observed that comparisons with cases involving Sikh activists or Tihar Jail inmates were “not applicable” to Choksi’s situation.
“The documentation provided by the person concerned is not sufficient to establish in concrete terms that he personally runs a real, present and serious risk of being subjected to flagrant denial of justice or to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment in the requesting State,” the court stated.
The judgment further noted that Indian authorities had provided explicit guarantees about Choksi’s detention and healthcare. As per the assurance, he will be housed at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, in Barrack No. 12 — a 46-square-metre facility comprising two cells with private sanitation. His movements will be restricted to court appearances and medical visits, under judicial, not investigative, supervision.
The court found “no credible evidence” suggesting that Choksi would be denied adequate medical care or fair treatment upon extradition.
Choksi, who was arrested in Antwerp on April 11, 2025, following India’s formal extradition request, has remained in custody since then, with multiple bail pleas rejected. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had earlier submitted a detailed assurance to Belgian authorities covering his confinement conditions, medical facilities, and monitoring by the National and State Human Rights Commissions (NHRC/SHRC).