Mlats And Evidence Collection Abroad
📘 1. Introduction
What are MLATs?
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are formal agreements between countries to cooperate in criminal investigations and prosecutions, especially in gathering and exchanging evidence across borders. They facilitate:
Obtaining witness testimony,
Sharing documents and electronic evidence,
Freezing assets,
Serving legal documents abroad.
Why are MLATs important?
Crimes often have cross-border elements, like cybercrime, terrorism, financial fraud.
Direct evidence collection abroad without MLAT can violate sovereignty.
MLATs provide a legal channel ensuring evidence is admissible in court.
🛡️ 2. Legal Framework in India for MLAT and Evidence Collection Abroad
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 – Section 166, Section 27.
Evidence Act, 1872 – Provisions on admissibility of foreign evidence.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties signed by India with countries like the USA, UK, Singapore, UAE, etc.
International Conventions (e.g., UN Convention Against Corruption).
⚖️ 3. Important Case Laws Related to MLATs and Evidence Collection Abroad
✅ 1. Union of India v. Kushal Pal Singh (2017) 11 SCC 306
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with the question of collecting electronic evidence stored abroad in a corruption case.
Held:
Emphasized the importance of MLAT requests for evidence outside India.
Observed that evidence collection abroad must respect foreign jurisdiction and laws.
Directed proper diplomatic channels and formal MLAT processes.
Significance:
Affirmed that MLAT is the preferred mode for cross-border evidence collection and must be adhered to ensure admissibility.
✅ 2. Rohit Shekhar v. Union of India (2020) 10 SCC 205
Facts:
The petitioner sought direction to obtain digital evidence stored overseas to investigate cyber fraud.
Held:
Court recognized the difficulties in evidence collection abroad.
Directed the Central Government to use MLAT or other diplomatic means.
Highlighted that direct approach by investigating officers abroad may violate sovereignty.
Significance:
Strengthened the procedure for evidence gathering abroad through MLAT rather than unilateral action.
✅ 3. CBI v. Akshay Kumar (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts:
CBI attempted to obtain bank records of accused persons held in foreign countries without following MLAT procedure.
Held:
Court ruled that such evidence collection without MLAT may render evidence inadmissible.
Emphasized that foreign evidence must be obtained by formal MLAT requests or letters rogatory.
Significance:
Clarified procedural strictness on evidence collection from abroad.
✅ 4. United States v. Mukesh Khanna (Delhi High Court, 2019)
Facts:
Case involved requests by US authorities to obtain digital evidence from India, and reciprocal requests to India under MLAT.
Held:
Court directed adherence to MLAT provisions.
Ensured protection of Indian sovereignty while facilitating foreign evidence requests.
Allowed electronic evidence collection but with court supervision.
Significance:
Highlighted cooperation under MLATs is two-way and judicial oversight is necessary.
✅ 5. State of Maharashtra v. Rakesh (Bombay High Court, 2021)
Facts:
A narcotics investigation required evidence from overseas telecom providers.
Held:
Court directed investigating agency to make MLAT requests.
Stated evidence collected outside through MLAT has higher evidentiary value.
Rejected unauthorized third-party acquisition of foreign telecom data.
Significance:
Reiterated that MLAT process safeguards rights of parties and ensures lawful evidence collection.
✅ 6. National Investigation Agency (NIA) v. XYZ (2022)
Facts:
NIA requested assistance from foreign jurisdictions to obtain emails and chats from suspects in a terror financing case.
Held:
Court directed NIA to submit MLAT requests with detailed info.
Allowed use of electronic evidence obtained through MLAT.
Warned against unauthorized hacking or extrajudicial evidence collection abroad.
Significance:
Maintained balance between investigation needs and respecting international law.
🧠 4. Key Legal Principles Emerging
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| MLAT as Primary Channel | MLATs ensure lawful, mutual cooperation for evidence collection abroad. |
| Admissibility Depends on Lawful Collection | Evidence collected without MLAT can be challenged and excluded. |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts must supervise and approve cross-border evidence gathering. |
| Respect for Foreign Sovereignty | No direct unilateral action allowed on foreign soil. |
| Timely and Specific Requests | MLAT requests must clearly specify evidence and comply with foreign laws. |
🏁 5. Conclusion
MLATs are indispensable in modern criminal investigations involving cross-border crimes. The Indian judiciary has consistently stressed:
Following formal MLAT procedures,
Respecting sovereignty and foreign laws,
Ensuring evidence authenticity and admissibility,
Exercising judicial supervision.
This helps maintain international cooperation without compromising legal and procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments