Rediff India Abroad
 Rediff India Abroad Home  |  All the sections

Search:



The Web

India Abroad




Newsletters
Sign up today!

Article Tools
Email this article
Top emailed links
Print this article
Contact the editors
Discuss this article
Home > News > PTI

Parliament attack case: SC sets aside
HC order on phone conversation


May 09, 2003 11:15 IST

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a Delhi high court order holding evidence collected by police in the Parliament attack case by intercepting cell phone calls not admissible under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The court accepted Delhi police's argument that since the calls were intercepted before the anti-terrorism law was invoked against the accused, the evidence was admissable under POTA.

There are stringent regulations for interception of telephonic conversations under POTA, and defence lawyer, Shanti
Bhushan, had argued that these were not followed by the Delhi police.

The SC bench comprising Justice S N Variava and Justice Brijesh Kumar, however, said the merit of this evidence was open to arguments before the Delhi high court, which is hearing an appeal filed by the accused against a trial court order convicting them.

The attack on Parliament took place on December 13, 2001 and POTA was invoked against accused Shaukat Hussain Guru, Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan, Mohammed Afzal and S A R Geelani on December 19.

A designated court on December 18, 2002 awarded death penalty to Mohd Afzal, Shaukat Hussain Guru and suspended lecturer of a Delhi University College, S A R Geelani, holding them guilty of waging a war against India.

Shaukat's wife and the fourth accused, Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, wassentenced to five-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000.

The accused have now moved an appeal in Delhi HC against the designated court's order.


More reports from Delhi
Read about: Assembly Election 2003 | Attack on Parliament

© Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.
Share your comments


 What do you think about the story?




Read what others have to say:


Number of User Comments: 2




Sub: We inherited jursiprudence.....

We inherited jusrisprudence from the British. Before them it was the durbar. It is high time a second look is given to our inherited jurisprudence. ...


Posted by p chandra





Sub: Good

In the age of rapid development of technology, it's very difficult have proper legislation on the the subject matter. But, judicial interpretation can effectively fill ...


Posted by ANURAG JOHARI




Disclaimer

Advertisement






Copyright 2005 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.