Back
2010 (6) Supreme 417
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, J.
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006
with
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1142-1143 of 2007
and
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 171 of 2006
Decided on : 10-9-2010
(b) International Convention for Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997 – Article 9.3 – Offences for which extradition not granted are also covered under definition of extraditable offences – Punishment for such offences lesser than for the offences for which extradition granted – Trial for such offences permissible. (Para 5)
(c) Indian Extradition Act, 1962 – Section 21 – Rule of speciality – When a person is extradited for a particular crime, he can be tried for only that crime. (Para 24)
(2001) 4 SCC 516 – Relied upon
(d) Indian Extradition Act 1962 – Section 21 – Rule of Speciality – Slight variation in the description of the offence in the extradition proceedings and in the subsequent indictment or information does not violate the Rule of Speciality – The additional indictment has to be lesser than the offences for which the extradition has been granted. (Paras 25 and 26)
(2007) 5 SCC 634 – Relied upon
(e) Indian Extradition Act, 1962 – Sections 3 and 19 – Extradition granted not only on the basis of the treaty but also on the basis of reciprocity – Hence the appellant’s contention that he can be tried only for the offences which are related to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings cannot be sustained. (Para 27)
(f) Indian Extradition Act, 1962 – Section 21 – In addition to the offences for which he has been extradited the appellant can also be tried for lesser extradition offence/offences disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his surrender. (Para 29)
(g) International Convention for Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997 – Article 1(3)(d) – AK-56 rifles as well as hand grenades, by virtue of their design and capability being lethal device or weapon are covered under Article 1(3)(d). (Para 30)
(h) Indian Extradition Act, 1962 – Section 21(b) – No bar having been placed by the Portuguese Courts for the trial of lesser offences, designated Judge has correctly concluded that the appellant can be tried for ‘lesser offences’, even if, the same are not covered by the Extradition Decree. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
1. The grievance of the appellant-Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari in the appeals and writ petition is that the criminal courts in the country have no jurisdiction to try in respect of offences which do not form part of the extradition judgment, by virtue of which he has been brought to this country and he can be tried only for the offences mentioned in the extradition decree.
2. The designated Court separated the trial of the accused-appellant from the main trial in the Bombay Bomb Blast Case and framed charges against him under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 387, 382 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5) and 5 of the TADA Act.
3. The accused-appellant filed the instant criminal appeal and the Writ petition against framing of charges.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant has been charged within the permissible scope of Section 21(b) of the Extradition Act and the Designated Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
Result : The appeals as well as the writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. —
1) The appeals and the writ petition raised a common question, as such were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The grievance of the appellant-Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari in the appeals and writ petition is that the criminal courts in the country have no jurisdiction to try in respect of offences which do not form part of the extradition judgment, by virtue of which he has been brought to this country and he can be tried only for the offences mentioned in the extradition decree.
2) Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006, filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the TADA Act”), arose out of framing of charge on 18.03.2006 against the appellant by the Designated Court at Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai in RC No.1(S/93)/CBI/STF known as Bombay Bomb Blast Case No. 1 of 1993 and the order dated 13.06.2006 passed by the said Court separating the trial of the accused/appellant from the main trial in the Bombay Bomb Blast Case.
3) The appellant filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1142-1143 of 2007 against the order dated 16.04.2007 by the same Designated Court, framing charges against him under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 387, 382 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5) and 5 of the TADA Act.
4) In addition to filing of the abovesaid appeals, the appellant has also filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 171 of 2006 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a) to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the charges framed against him in Bombay Bomb Blast Case No. 1 of 1993 arising out of RC No. 1 (S/93)/CBI/STF by framing of charge on 18.03.2006; b) to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Designated Court under TADA Act dated 13.06.2006 passed in Misc. Application No. 144 of 2006; c) issue a writ of Certiorari to declare that the charges framed on 18.03.2006, in Bombay Bomb Blast Case No. 1 of 1993, as violative of the Rule of Speciality and Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962; (d) issue a writ of Mandamus to release and discharge the writ petitioner by quashing all the proceedings against him; (e) issue a writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from prosecuting the writ petitioner any further for the offences for which the petitioner has not been extradited by the Court of Appeals at Lisbon as affirmed by the order of the Supreme Court of Portugal; f) issue a writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Designated Court at Arthur Road Jail at Mumbai from separating the trial of the writ petitioner from the other accused whose trial is stated to have been completed.
5) Prosecution Case:
a) On 12.03.1993, there were a series of bomb explosions in the Mumbai City which resulted in death of 257 persons, injuries of various types to 713 persons and destruction of properties worth more than Rs. 27 crores (approximately). These bomb explosions were caused at vital Government installations, public places and crowded places in the city and its suburbs with an intention to overawe the Government established by law, and to strike terror among the public at large and also to adversely affect the peace and harmony among different sections of the people. Twenty-seven criminal cases were registered at respective Police Stations with regard to the said bomb explosions and subsequent recovery of arms, ammunitions and explosives, which were illegally smuggled into the country with the intention to commit the said terrorist acts. On completion of investigation, it was disclosed that various acts committed by the accused persons were out of a single conspiracy and, therefore, a single charge-sheet was filed in the specially created Designated Court, Mumbai, against 189 accused persons including 44 absconders on 04.11.1993 for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 324, 326, 427, 435, 121, 121-A, 122, 307, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
