LexABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1061 ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 415-416 of 2012) AUGUST 5, 2013. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.) EXTRADITION ACT, 1962: A B ss.3(1) and 21 - Extradition - Accused in 1993 Bombay c Blast case, extradited to India from Portugal (Extradition order dated 28.3.2003) on the assurance that he would not be awar<fed capital sentence and imprisonment for more than 25 years - Additional charges framed - Difference of opinion between courts in India and courts in Portugal as regards trial 0 of accused for additional charges - CBI seeking to modify judgment in Abu Salem apd praying for withdrawal of additional charges - Held: 1Taking note of the fact that the off~nces for which the appellant was extradited to India are grave enough to even award him the maximum punishment and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused if the application E for modification is allowed - Accordingly, prayer of CBI allowed and additional charges permitted to be withdrawn -- However, the analysis and reasoning rendered in the judgment of Abu Salem with regard to the interpretation of the Principle of Speciality stands good as the law declared by the Court under F Art. 141 of the Constitution of India and shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 141. ss. 3(1) and 21 - Ministerial order of Government of G Portugal permitting extradition of accused in 1993 Bombay blast case - Additional charges framed by Special Court - Lisbon Court of Appeals holding the additional charges in violation of extradition order and authorization granted ought 1061 H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A to be terminated - Held: Constitutional Court of Portugal holding that Portuguese law does not provide for any specific consequence for violation of the Principle of Speciality' and the findings may not be construed as a direction to Union of India to return the appellant to Portugal but shall only serve B as a legal basis for Government of Portugal, should it choose to seek the return of appellant to Portugal through political, or diplomatic channels, which has not been done till date -- 1 n this view of the matter, order of Extradition dated 28.03.2003 stands valid and effective in the eyes of law. c CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Art. 136 - Supreme Court of India - Power to modify its decisions ~ Held: Constitution of India bestows upon Supreme Court the inherent power to modify its earlier decision if it finds D that the error pointed out in the modification petition was under mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration had resulted in miscarriage of justice - Interlocutory applications. E INTERNA T/ONAL LAW: Extradition - Explained. The appellant was <me of the 189 persons accused F in TADA Special Case No,. 1-B of 1993 and Special Case No. 1 of 2006 before the t;>esignated Court under TADA for causing serial bomb biasts in Mumbai on 12.3.1993. The Designated Court framed a common charge of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 3(3) of TADA. Various G other charges under the Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act, 1959_, the Explosives Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were also framed. Since the appellant had absconded, a Red Corner Notice was issued through H Interpol, which led to his detention by the Portuguese l '· ' J, ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRNL 111.06~ BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .' '. Police at Lisbon. The Government of India submitted a A request for extradition of the appellant in 9 criminal cases with an assurance to the Government of Portugal that the appellant, if extradited for trial in India, would neither be awarded death penalty nor be subjected to imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years. Accordingly, in view of the Ministerial order dated 28.3.2003 admitting extradition, the Supreme Court of Justice, Portugal, on 27.1.2005 granted extradition of the appellant in respect of various offences B like criminal conspiracy, murder etc. punishable u/ss 302, 307, 435, 436 IPC, ss 3(2) and 3(3) of TADA, s.3 of the C Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ss. 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. On 11.11.2005, the appellant was brought to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.