12 the territory. If the "state" is to be regarded as the United Kingdom, the Aet would seem to require that the requisition should come through the Indian High Commissioner in London. This point might also be put to the Covernment of India. The difference between proceedings in India for earrender under Part I of the Fugitive Offenders Aet (if it had still been in operation there) and under the Indian xtradition Act would be that under the former the case to be made out raises a strong or probable presomption that the fugitive committed the offence, whereas under the Latters It is a prima facie case in support of the requisition. I do not think we should raise any objection on account of such difference." 5. The intentions of the Government of India as stated in relation to Singapore, would not necessarily be restricted in their application to Singapore only and perhaps it would be inexpedient to raise the Question of the channel of service of the requisition until we are in . position to submit proposals regarding future legislation to the Government of India I would appreciate your views on this point as soon as possible. 6. Another facet of this matter has been brought to our notice by New Delhi who were approached by the Political Agent at Kuwait in regard to the extredition of an Indian national, believed to be living in Bombay, to Kuwait in order that he might be tried by the Court there. A copy of the relevant correspondence is enclosed: we have not yet written to the Foreign Office neither has any communication been received from them about the case. /7. I
