CBI versus MUSTAFA AHMED DOSSA

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 22-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 969 
CBI 
v. 
MUSTAFA AHMED DOSSA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.920-922 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Criminal Trial - Bombay Blast case ~ Trial of two 
accused arising out of the same incident - Held: Cannot C 
proceed under different procedures -
On question of 
admissibility of evidence, direction made in the case of 
respondent-accused in terms of an earlier order as regards 
co-accused - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
A~1987 
D 
F 
In 1993, a series of bomb blasts took place in 
Bombay and its surrounding areas resulting in death 
and/or injuries to many and large scale damage to 
property. The State Police registered 27 criminal cases on 
E 
account of the blast. The investigation was later 
transferred to the CBI. The trial commenced and the 
Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), framed the 
charges including a common charge of criminal 
conspiracy against all the accused. The respondent-
accused, who had absconded, was declared a 
proclaimed offender on the 31st December 1997. 
Subsequently, however, the respondent was arrested. 
and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him 
before the Designated Court and separate trial ordered 
G 
as regards the respondent. On an application filed by the 
respondent, the Designated Court directed that the 
evidence collected before 31st December 1997 in the 
main trial of the· accused could not be used against the 
969 
H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A respondent unless the witnesses already examined were 
allowed to be cross-examined by him . In support of its 
decision, the Designated Court cited the precedent of a 
co-accused of the respondent, Abu Salem who too was 
arrested later on and charge-sheeted pertaining to the 
B same incident although given a separate case number. 
This order was challenged by the CBI in the instant 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
C 
HELD:1.1. The Bombay blast took place in the year 
1993 and the trial with respect to some of the accused, 
including the respondent, has yet not been completed 
though a series of applications have been filed before the 
Designated JudgEl~ followed by appeals in this Court at 
D the instance of the aggrieved parties. Therefore, the legal 
issues need not be gone into at this stage for the simple 
reason that the last order in this matter is the order dated 
24th August 2009 made by this Court in SLP (Crl) No. 
3586/2009 in the case of Abu Salem. It appears that after 
E the order dated 2nd December 2008 in the case of Abu 
Salem, the matter was carried to this Court in SLP (Crl.) 
No. 569/2009. This SLP was disposed of on 6th February 
2009. An application was thereafter filed by the 
prosecution on 23rd February 2009 that the depositions 
F of the witnesses recorded in the absence of the accused 
in BBC No.1/1993 may be taken on record in the case of 
Abu Salem and others without recalling the witnesses in 
view of the provisions of Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. This 
application was, however, dismissed vide order dated 6th 
G February 2009 in the light of the order dated 2nd 
December 2008 in the case of Abu Salem. It appears that 
the order dated 16th March 2009 in the case of Abu Salem 
was carried to the Supreme Court by way. of SLP (Crl.) 
No. 3586/2009 and after hearing both parties the SLP was 
H dispose~ of on .the 24th August 2009 with directions to 
• 
• 
CBI v. MUSTAFA AHMED DOSSA 
971 
Abu Salem to file a statement before the Special Judge 
A 
as to all the witnesses he proposed to cross-examihe and 
to the prosecution to thereafter take further steps to 
produce those witnesses for cross-examination. [Para 9] 
[980-H; 981-A-G] 
1.2. It is the case of the CBI that it would be satisfied 
8 
if a similar order is passed in the present case. There is 
merit in the submission of CBI for the simple reason that 
the trial of the respondent and Abu Salem, which arises 
out of the same incident, cannot proceed under different C 
procedures. Even otherwise the observations of the 
Designated Court in the impugned judgment that as the 
changed circumstances in the order passed by the 
Supreme Court in the case of Abu Salem were pre-
dominantand would hold the field, on this very premise . 0 
the order of the Supreme Court dated 24th August 2009. 
would now be the final word in the matter. Therefore, the· 
instant appeals are d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.