ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 10-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 8 
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
· Extradition Act, 1962 - ss. 21 and 19 - Absconded 
accused charged under various provisions of /PC, TADA, 
C Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act - The accused 
detained in Portugal - No formal extradition treaty existed 
between Portugal and India - Indian Government by a 
Notification, making the Extradition Act applicable to Portugal 
- India making request to Portugal for extradition of the 
o accused under International Convention on Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings - India also assuring that the accused, if 
extradited, would not be visited by death penalty or 
imprisonment beyond 25 years - Portuguese Go~·ernment 
extradited the accused for Section 1208 rlw. s. 302 /PC and 
E s. 3(2) TADA among others, but denied extradition for s. 25 
(1A) and (128) of Arms Act and ss. 4 and 5 'or Explosive 
Substances Act - India also assured that oocused would not 
be tried for the offences other than those for which extradition 
sought - After extradition, accused tried for all the offences -
F Accused challenged before Supreme Court of India as well 
as Portuguese courts, his trial for the offence.....for which 
extradition was not granted - Portuguese Court adjourned the 
matter till the disposal of the matter in the instant cases by 
Supreme Court - Held: The extradition of the accused. was 
not only under the provisions of the convention, but also in 
G the light of the principle of reciprocity made applicable 
through the application of the Act to the Portugal and also the 
provisions of the Act applicable to Non-Treaty States - Trial 
of the extradited accused is permissible u/s. 21 for 'lesser 
H 
8 
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI v. STATE OF 
9 
MAHARASHTRA 
offences', even if the same are not covered by extradition 
A 
Decree - There has been no violation of Rule of Speciality -
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 r/w. ss. 324, 326, 427, 435, 121, 
121A, 122, 307, 302 and 201 -
Terrorist and Disruptive 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3, 4 and 5 - Arms Act, 
1959- ss. 3, 7(a), 25(1A), 25(1AA) 26, 29 and 35- Explosive 
B 
Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Convention on 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombing - Articles 2(1) and (3) and 
1 (3)(d) - Notification No. GSR-822 (E) dated 13. 12. 2002 
issued by Government of India 
International Law - The term 'extradition' - Explained. 
Criminal Trial - Separation of trial - Absconded accused 
charged under various provisions of /PC, TADA, Arms Act 
and Explosive Substances Act alongwith 189 accused - On 
c 
the detention of the absconded accused, trial of the accused D 
separated from the trial of the other 123 accused whose trial 
was nearing completion - Propriety of separation of the trial 
- Held: On facts, separation of trial was correct - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of 'Speciality' - Applicability of. 
Doctrine of 'Reciprocity' - Applicability of. 
Rule of non-inquiry - Applicability of. 
Doctrine of 'Double Criminality' - Applicability of 
Doctrine of 'Clean Slate' - Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 
'Extradition' - Connotation of 
'Lesser Offence' and 'Minor Offence'- Difference between 
E 
F 
G 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
'Lesser Offence'- Meaning of, in the context of s. 21 of 
Extradition Act, 1962. 
The Appellant-accused, and 189 other accused 
persons, were charged with offences punishable u/s. 
8 120B r/w. ss. 324, 326, 427, 435, 121, 121-A, 122, 307, 302 
and 201 IPC r/w. SS. 3, 4 and 5 of TADA Act r/w. SS. 3, 7 
(a), 25 (1A), 25 (1AA), 26, 29, 35 of Arms Act, 1959 r/w. ss. 
3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in 
connection with the serial bomb Blast cases of ·1993 in 
Bombay, The appellant was one of the 44 absconders. 
C He was declared proclaimed offender. The Designated 
Court issued non-bailable warrant against him and 
INTERPOL also issued Red Corner''Notice for his arrest. 
Portuguese police detained the appellant on the 
D basis of the Red Corner Notice. As no formal extradition 
treaty existed between India and Portugal, Government 
of India requested the Portuguese Government for 
extradition of the appellant under the International 
Convention on Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. 
E Government of India also, by Notification dated 
13.12.2002; made the Extrad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.