in regard to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indian Representative's letter, which purport to define the intention of the Government of India in relation to requisitions made by the Government of Singapore, our Legal adviser comments: with regard to the Singapore case, Singapore is not a "Foreign State within the meaning of the Indian extradition Act, 1903, by reason of the definition in Section 2(c) thereof and the fact that the Extrañition Acts, 1870 and 1873, do not (so far as I know) apply in India in respect of Singapore. The declaration under Article 367 (3) of the Constitution, a reference to which is in the Indian Representative's letter, dated 30th July, seems to me irrelevant since it was expressed to be made for the purpose only of the Constitution. Section 9 of the Indian Extradition Act before 1950 applied only to the former Indian states, but, as adapted by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, expressly refers to any Part B State or any State outside India not being a foreign state". Section 9 therefore ought to be held to apply in respect of Singapore. But I do not know whether Singapore could properly be held to be a State at all. It is. therefore, a question which might be put to the Government of India whether the requisition should be made on behalf of the United Kingdom. The provico to the said Section 9 requires that the requisition shall be made through the "Political Agent, if there is one in the state, and that expression is defined in Section 3(43) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as the Principal Officer representing the Central Government of India in /the
