TNAG-2342-FCO40-3406-Drug-trafficking-agreements-between-Hong-Kong-and-other-coun-1991 — Page 80

RESTRICTED

116312

MDHIAN 8528

ACTION UNDER THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT, AND SOUGHT CLARIFICATION ON THREE POINTS:

A) WHETHER INDIAN LEGISLATION WAS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT, AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT

B) DETAILS OF INDIAN PROCEDURES IN RESPONDING TO A REQUEST FOR SEIZURE OR RESTRAINT UNDER THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT

C)

CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER INDIAN HAD RATIFIED THE

VIENNA CONVENTION ON DRUGS.

5. THE INDIAN SIDE, IN A LONG PRESENTATION, OUTLINED THEIR CONCERNS AT FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES IN THE UK IN SUPPORT OF SIKH TERRORISM. THEY ALSO PROVIDED

DETAILS OF EXISTING INDIAN LEGISLATION:

A) THE TERRORISM ACT, 1985

B) THE TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES PREVENTION

ACT 1987

C) THE NARCOTICS, DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1987 (AMENDED IN 1988)

D) THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFICKING OF DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPICS SUBSTANCE ACT, 1988

E) THE CRIMINAL LAW ORDINANCE, 1944

F)

6.

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (AMENDED IN 1990).

THE INDIAN SIDE THOUGHT THAT NO FUTHER

LEGISLATION WOULD BE REQUIRED BUT AGREED TO SEEK CLARIFICATION ON THIS POINT (SEE BELOW). THEY OUTLINED THE PROCEDURES IN RESPONDING TO A REQUEST UNDER THE AGREEMENT, AND CONFIRMED THAT INDIA HAD RATIFIED THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DRUGS.

DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT TEXT FOLLOWED ON 11 AND 14 JANUARY. ON 14 JANUARY, BOTH SIDES SIGNED AN AGREED MINUTE RECORDING THE DISCUSSIONS SO FAR (FULL DETAILS FOLLOW BY HAND OF RAWLINSON, SAD). THE PRINCIPAL INDIAN

2

PAGE RESTRICTED