CBI challenges Salem order

The Portuguese High Court’s decision to revoke underworld don Abu Salem’s extradition to India is being viewed as downright illegal by the legal wing of the CBI, which has contested the decision at the Supreme Court in Lisbon.

In its appeal in the Portuguese Supreme Court, the CB has contended that there was no violation of rules during Salem’s trial in different cases in India.

Officials here said that there was no question of sending back such a hard-core terror mastermind back to Portugal when legal process was still on against him in India in as many as nine cases.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan said that he would take up the issue of cancellation of Salem’s extradition with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). Salem is one of the main accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.

The High Court in Lisbon had last month revoked the extradition citing breach of undertaking given by India to the Portuguese authorities. Salem had filed a petition in the Portuguese High Court alleging violation of Rule of Speciality under which he was handed over in 2005 to the Indian authorities for trial in various cases pending here.

The CBI, through Ministry of External Affairs, filed the plea in the Portuguese Supreme Court arguing that it was a matter of interpretation of Rule of Speciality by the Supreme Court of India, which is binding on all subordinate courts in the country. On the other hand, the High Court of Lisbon has interpreted the Rule of Speciality differently, official sources said.

India has said slapping of additional charges on Salem is very much within the ambit of Section 21(b) of Extradition Act, 1962, which states that additional charges could be imposed on an accused if they were of lesser offence under which the person had been extradited.

In its affidavit submitted with the Portuguese Supreme Court, New Delhi has assured that fresh charges levelled against Salem, a key accused in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, attracted less jail term than the offences for which he had been extradited, the sources said.

There is no mention of death penalty in the affidavit in the review petition in that country’s Supreme Court as India is bound by an ‘executive assurance’ to Portugal that Salem would not be given death penalty or charged with any section of law which entailed jail term of more than 25 years.

Abu Salem had challenged the framing of charges for the lesser offences in the Supreme Court here alleging that there has been violation of Rule of Speciality. The apex court in its judgment on September 10, 2010 rejected the petition filed by Salem.

The SC considered the Rule of Speciality as available in the laws of the US, the UK and Portugal and the Indian Extradition Act, and held that there has been no violation of Rule, since the additional charges framed against Abu Salem are made out from the same facts, which were considered for his extradition and provide lesser sentence as compared to the sentence provided for the offences for which his extradition was granted.

Abu Salem was detained on the basis of an Interpol Red Corner Notice in Lisbon on September 18, 2002 and thereafter a request for his extradition was made by India in nine cases which were pending against him. After long-drawn legal battle, Abu Salem was extradited to India in November, 2005. Salem was charged with stringent MCOCA for allegedly making extortion calls to Delhi-based businessman Ashok Gupta in 2002 demanding Rs 5 crore as protection money.

The Portuguese High Court had contended that in view of the new charges, the authorisation granted for his extradition has been terminated as it violated the Principle of Speciality.

The underworld don is facing trial in nine cases which included the Mumbai serial blasts, two cases of forgery of passports in Lucknow, three cases of extortion in Delhi and two murder cases in Mumbai which included murder of Ajit Dewani, secretary of Bollywood actress Manisha Koirala.

Abu Salem was an active member of criminal conspiracy, hatched by Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (designated Global Terrorist), Tiger Memon, Mohammad Dossa and others, to commit various terrorist acts including bomb blasts.

Abu Salem actively participated in transporting and distribution of sophisticated arms and ammunitions which were smuggled into the country in the beginning of 1993. The bomb blasts took place on March 12, 1993..

Following the blasts, Salem left India after obtaining a passport in an assumed name from the Lucknow Passport Office, and joined Anees Ibrahim Kaskar and others at Dubai.

Read more...

CBI may reinvestigate the Haren Pandya Murder Case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will reinvestigate the Haren Pandya Murder Case, if so desired by the Supreme Court.

The CBI got the green signal from the home minister to move a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India to challenge last month's Gujarat High Court judgment which acquitted 12 accused of the murder charge.

Stung by the HC's castigation of CBI for its sloppy investigation, CBI chief A P Singh met Chidambaram on Monday to discuss further course of action. Sources said Singh gave a detailed half-hour presentation in the presence of a legal expert where he admitted to loopholes in the investigation resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.

The discussed veered around to the view that the agency should not shy away from re-investigation, if directed by the Supreme Court. This is a demand which has already been raised by the victim's family members. Interestingly, the Brahma Samaj in Gujarat has also jumped into the fray and has demanded that a fresh probe be ordered. Leaders of the Brahmin community are scheduled to state a protest at Law Garden on Wednesday evening, at the same spot where Pandya was shot dead on the morning of March 26, 2003. The community is also expected to intervene in the case, when the CBI approaches the SC, and had already lined up a senior lawyer for the purpose.

Meanwhile, three senior Congress leaders of Gujarat - Shankarsinh Vaghela, Shaktisinh Gohil and Arjun Modhvadia - also met Chidambaram in New Delhi on Tuesday and represented the feelings of family members and the community. They added that even the Gujarat government had suggested on the day of HC judgment that CBI should go to the apex court.

While Chidambaram promised to expedite the matter, a highly-placed CBI source said there were sufficient grounds for re-investigation as fresh leads had been obtained about the Pandya killers during subsequent investigations of fake encounters in Gujarat.

Read more...

CBI tampering with evidence

The Supreme Court was told by an accused in the 2G case Tuesday that the Central Bureau of Investigation was tampering with evidence by asking the telecom regulator to revisit its opinion that the precise value of the spectrum, if it had been auctioned, could not be arrived at.

Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani told an apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu that "CBI intended correspondence so that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India should change its opinion amounts to tampering with evidence - a habit his client are totally free of".

Jethmalani was arguing on the bail plea of Unitech's Sanjay Chandra. The court was hearing a plea by Chandra and Vinod Goenka of Swan Telecom challenging the Delhi High Court's May 23 verdict rejecting their bail applications.

As Jethmalani told the court that "if CBI don't want to rely on a piece of evidence as it does not suit them, it is entirely up to them. But the disclosure of that evidence must be made", Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval gave the copy of TRAI's opinion to the court and the petitioner's counsel.

Senior counsel told the court that normally the apex court did not interfere with the high court's findings in bail matters, but if "there is grave, blatant and atrocious miscarriage of justice and raises important question of law" then the apex court may interfere with it.

The court was told that Chandra had cooperated and made himself available to the investigating agency as and when it asked him to. The court was told that in one instance when Chandra was abroad and was required by the investigating agency, he cut short his visit and came back to India.

Describing the high court judgment as "wonderful", Jethmalani said that the fact that his client was not arrested by the investigating agency was held against him (in the high court) as his being "very influential".

Referring to certain media reports, the court said: "Irrespective of the dignity of any person in the society, leave aside those who are accused in the case, they are assassinated in the society."

Read more...