ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

                     [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1061


          ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI                              A
                                  v.
     CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
        (Criminal Appeal Nos. 415-416 of 2012)
                      AUGUST 5, 2013.
                                                                     B
   [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.)

     EXTRADITION ACT, 1962:

      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: Taking note of the fact that the
                              1



 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 and additional charges permitted to be withdrawn -- However,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 --
  1n 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 ofjustice
  - 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. CENTRNL111.06~
         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         B
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
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 India and was
produced before the Designated Court, Mumbai in RC-
1(S/93)/CBl/STF, i.e., BBC No. 1 of 1993.
                                                                0
     On 01.03.2006, a supplementary charge sheet u/s
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed
in respect of the appellant before the Designated Court
in BBC No. 1 of 1993.By order dated 18.03.2006, the
substantive charges, in addition to the. charge of              E
conspiracy, were framed against the appellant. By order
dated 13.06.2006, the Designated Court allowed the
application for separation of trial and held that the trial
would continue as BBC-1·B of 1993 in continuity with the
earlier joint case being BBC No. 1 of 1993. It was also held    F
that the assurances were given with respect to sentence
which could be imposed and not with respect to the
offences with which he could be tried. The said order was
challenged before the Supreme Court of India in Criminal
Appeal No. 990 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 171 of 2006,       G
as being in violation of the extradition decree.

     The appellant also moved an application before the
Lisbon Court of Appeals stating that he was being tried
in India in violation of Principle of Speciality as contained
                                                                H
    1064   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 7 S.C.R


A in Article 16 of Law 144 of 99. The Court of Appeals, by
  order dated 13.10.2008, adjourned the matter till the
  Supreme Court of India passed the final order in the
  Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006 as well as in Writ Petition
  No. 171 of 2006. The Supreme Court of India, by judgment
B dated 10.09.2010 in Abu Salem 1 dismissed the appeal as
  well as the petition .filed by the appellant. The Lisbon
  Court of. Appeals, by judgment dated 14.09.2011, held
  that the authorization granted for the extradition of the
  appellant ought to be terminated. The Supreme Court of
c Justice, Portugal dismissed the appeal of Union of India
  as not maintainable, However, the Constitutional Court of
  Portugal, on 05.07.2012, decided the appeal preferred by
  the Union of India holding that in spite of having
  considered the trial for new crimes illegal and of having
  decided to terminate the authorization granted for the
0
  extradition of the appellant, "the decision of the Lisbon
  Court of Appeals only concludes for the violation of the
  Principle of Speciality. It does not by itself bind the
  requesting State to the practice of a certain act and
  namely to return the extradited person and thus it is not
E a decision rendered against the Union of India, a decision
  that directly and effectively prejudices it".

       The appellant then filed applications before the
  Special Court, which dismissed the same. The appellant
F filed the appeals. Pending disposal of the appeals, the
  respondent- CBI filed Crl. Misc. Petitions Nos. 3301-3302
  of 2013 praying for clarification/modification of the
  judgment dated 10.09.2010 in Abu Salem, as also for
  permission to withdraw charges (iii) to (viii) leveled
G against the appellant by order dated 18.3.2006, and for
  vacation of the stay order dated 17.02.2012.              ·

      . The questions for consideration before the Court
    were: (i) whether Court could modify the judgment
    rendered in Abu Salem under the grounds raised by the
H
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1065
         BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

respondent; and (ii) whether the order of Extradition            A
dated 28.03.2003 stood annulled/cancelled as alleged by
the appellant.
    Disposing of the appeals and the Crl. Misc. Petitions,
the Court                                                        B
    HELD: 1.1 The Constitution of India bestows upon
the Supreme Court the inherent power to reconsider,
modify and revise its earlier decisions for the reason that
law has to bend before justice. Certainly, nothing would
preclude this Court from rectifying the error if it finds that   C
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. [para 11] [1081-D-E]                     D

     1.2 In the given case, the only ground on which the
respondent/CBI seeks modification is to harmonize the
situation created by the divergent views expressed by the
Indian Courts and the Courts in Portugal with regard to          E
violation of the Principle of Speciality, and accordingly
seeks permission to withdraw the additional charges
framed against the appellant [para 12] [1081-F; 1082-B-C]

     1.3 Extradition is a system consisting of several
processes whereby one sovereign surrenders to another            F
sovereign a person sought after as an accused, criminal
or a fugitive offender~ This delivery of individuals to a
requesting sovereign is usually based on treaties or
bilateral agreements but sometimes it also occurs by
reciprocity and comity as a matter of courtesy and               G
goodwill between sovereigns, as in the instant case.
Therefore, 'world public order' is the recurring theme
based on which the extradition is practiced by the States.
[para 13] [1082-C-E]
                                                                 H
    1066    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A      1.4 Taking note of the fact that the offences for which
  the appellant was extradited to India are grave enough
  to even award the appellant with maximum punishment
  and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused if the
  application for modification is allowed, this Court is of the
B considered view that allowing the modification petition
  under the existing peculiar circumstance will not be
  detrimental to any of the parties. However, it is pertinent
  to clarify that by allowing the modification petition filed
  by the respondent, it cannot be construed that this Court
c is reviewing the judgment in the light of the verdict of the
  Constitutional Court of Portugal. Both India and Portugal
  are two sovereign States with efficient and independent
  judicial system. As a consequence, in unequivocal terms,
  the verdict by the Constitutional Court of Portugal is not
  binding on this Court but only has persuasive value.
0 [para 14] [1082-F-H; 1083-A]

       1.5 Consequently, though this Court has rendered a
  decision in favour of the CBI, in the interest of comity of
  Courts and on the statement made by the Attorney
E General that the matter is being pursued through
  diplomatic channels, while allowing the modification
  petition, the respondent-CBI is permitted to withdraw the
  charges (iii) to (viii) in the additional charge-sheet. The
  Attorney General also assured this Court that they are in
F the process of withdrawing other charges too pending
  in various States against the appellant which are claimed
  to be in violation of the Extradition order. [para 15] [1083-
  B-D]
G         1.6 Nevertheless, it is clarified that the modification
    petition is allowed only to the extent of withdrawal of the
    additional charges framed against the appellant. However,
    the analysis and reasoning rendered in the judgment with
    regard to the interpretation of the Principle of Speciality
    still stands good as the law declared by this Court under
H
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1067
        BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Art. 141 of the Constitution of India and shall be binding        A
on all courts within the territory of India. [para 16) [1083-
0-E]
      2.1 As regards the status of the order of Extradition
dated 28.03.2003, the Constitutional Court of Portugal
                                                                  8
has categorically held that Portuguese law does not
provide for any specific consequence for violation of the
Principle of Speciality and their findings may not be
construed as a direction to the Union of India to return
the appellant to Portugal but shall only serve as a legal
basis for the Government of Portugal, should it choose            C
to seek the return of the appellant to Portugal through
political, or diplomatic channels, which has not been done
till date. In this view of the matter, the order of Extradition
dated 28.03.2003 stands valid and effective in the eyes of
law. [para 17) [1083-F, G-H; 1084-A-B]                            D
     2.2 In the result, the respondent-CBI is permitted to
withdraw charge Nos. (iii) to (viii) of the additional
charges. Consequently, the stay order dated 17.02.2012
is vacated and the trial is allowed to continue. [para 18)        E
[1084-C-D]
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 415-416 of 2012.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2011 of the
Designated Judge (designated Court of TADA) for Greater           F
Bombay at Mumbai in Exhibit No. 208 in TADA Special Case
No. 1-B of 1993 and Exhibit No. 491 in TADA Special Case
No. 1 of 2006.
     G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Sudeep             G
Pasbola, Shobha Kurshi, Sushil Karanjkar, K.N. Rai, Mohd·,
Nizam Pasha, Supriya Juneja, Bairam Das, Arjun Divan, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Asha G. Nair, Sanjay Kharde for the appearing
parties.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    H
    1068     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013] 7 S.C.R.


A       P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. These appeals, at the instance
  of the appellant - Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari, have been
  filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
  (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') challenging the
  final judg.ment and order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the
B Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast
  Case, Greater Bombay in TADA Special Case No. 1-B of 1993
  and Special Case No. 1 of 2006 whereby the Designated
  Judge dismissed both the applications filed by the appellant
  in view of the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Court of
c Appeals of Lisbon, Portugal terminating the extradition order
  dated 28.03.2003 for stay of all further proceedings.

       2. Pending disposal of the above appeals, the
  respondent- CBI filed Criminal Misc. Petitions being Nos.
  3301-3302 of 2013 praying for clarification/modification of the
D judgment and order dated 10.09.2010 in Abu Salem Abdul
  Qayoom Ansari vs. State of .Maharashtra and Another (2011)
  11 SCC 214. In the same applications, the CBI has also prayed
  for permission to withdraw certain charge:s leveled against the
  appellant-Abu Salem. They also prayed for vacation of the stay
E order dated 17.02.2012 and to allow the trial to continue.

           3. In view of the applications filed by the CBI for
    clarification/modification of the earlier order dated 10.09.2010,
    it is useful to highlight the factual aspects of the case to decide
F   the present applications.

         4. Brief facts

       (i) On 12.03.1993, a series of 12 bomb blasts took place
  one after the other in the city of Bombay which resulted in the
G death of 257 persons, injuries to 713 others and properties
  worth about Rs.27 crore were destroyed. Thereafter, 27 criminal
  cases were registered in relation to the said incident at various
  police stations in Bombay City, District Thane and District
  Raigarh. Upon completion of the investigation, a single
H
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1069
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

chargesheet was filed against 189 accused persons including          A
44 absconding accused (AA) persons on 04.. 11.1993.

     (ii) During the course of investigation, large number of
arms, ammunitions and explosives were recovered from the
possession of accused persons. Since the appellant was an
                                                                     B
absconder, he was shown as an absconding accused (A-139)
in the charge sheet and a proclamation was issued against the
appellant on 15.09.1993. A Red Corner Notice bearing No. A-
103/3-1995 was. also issued through Interpol for the a.rrest of
the appellant herein.
                                                                     c
     (iii) The Designated Court framed a common charge of
criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA as
well as various charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {in
short 'the IPC'), the Arms Act, 1959, the Explosives Act, 1884,
the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Prevention of             D
Damage to Public PropertyAct, 1984 were also framed.

      (iv) The specific role attributed to Abu Salem in the said
chargesheet was that he was entrusted with the task of
transporting illegally smuggled arms and ammunitions, their          E
storage and distribution to other conspirators. Some of the
arms and explosives which were smuggled into India on
09.02.1993 were transported to Village Sansrod, District
Bharuch. In the second week of January, 1993, Abu Salem
brought AK-56 rifles, ammunitions and hand grenades from
village Sansrod to Bombay and distributed them among various         F
co-accused.

    (v) At the time of trial, the Designated Court directed that
evidence to be adduced against the absconding accused
persons for the purpose of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal       G
Procedure, 1973.

    (vi) The appellant herein entered the territorial jurisdiction
of Portugal in assumed name of Arsalan Mohsin Ali on a
Pakistani Passport. On 18.09.2002, Abu Salem was detained            H
    1070    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A   by the Portuguese Police at Lisbon on the strength of the said
    Red Corner Notice.

       (vii) In December 2002, Government of India submitted a
  request for the extradition of Abu Salem in 9 criminal cases (3
B cases of CBI, 2 cases of Mumbai Police and 4 cases of Delhi
  Police). The request was made relying upon the International
  Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of which
  India and Portugal are signatories. The requisition was signed
  by the then Minister of State for External Affairs and was
  supported on facts with a detailed affidavit sworn by Mr. Om
C Prakash Chhatwal, the then Sr.· Superintendent of Police, CBI/
  STF.

       (viii) On 13.12.2002, the Government of India issued a
  Notification under Section 3(1) of the Extradition Act, 1962 to
D the effect that the provisions of the Extradition Act (other than
  Chapter Ill) will apply to the Portuguese Republic with effect
  from 13.12.2002.

         (ix) On 17 .12.2002, the Government of India extended an
E   assurance to the Government of Portugal through the then
    Deputy Prime Minister that the appellant, if extradited for trial
    in India, would neither be conferred with death penalty nor be
    subjected to imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years.

       (x) On 28.03.2003, the Ministerial order came to be passed
F admitting extradition, amongst others, under Section 120-B
  read with Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2) of TADA.
  However, the Ministerial order declined extradition of the
  appellant under Section 25(1-A) and (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959
  Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
G Sections 5 & 6 of TADA and Section 9-B of the Explosives
  Act,1884.

        (xi) The Ambassador of India in Lisbon gave a further
    assurance on 25.05.2003 that -
H
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1071
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

      (i)    Abu Salem will not be prosecuted for offences other   A
             than those for which his extradition has been
             so4ght; and

      (ii)   Abu Salem would not be re-extradited to any third
             country.                                              B

     (xii) On 27.01.2005, the Supreme Court of Justice, in view
of the guarantee given by the Indian Government, granted
extradition of the appellant in respect of various offences like
criminal conspiracy, murder punishable under Section 302 IPC,
attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, offence punishable        C
under Section 435 IPC, mischief by fire or explosive punishable
under Section 436 IPC, offence punishable under Sections 3(2)
and 3(3) of TADA, offence punishable under Section 3 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and offence punishable under
Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,      D
1984.

    (xiii) On 10.11.2005, the custody of the appellant was
handed over to the Indian Authorities and on 11.11.2005, the
appellant was brought to India and was produced before the         E
Designated Court, Mumbai in RC-1 (S/93)/CBl/STF, i.e., BBC
No. 1 of 1993.

      (xiv) On 01.03.2006, a supplementary charge sheet under
Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was
filed in respect of the appellant before the Designated Court      F
in BBC No. 1 of 1993.

     (xv) By order dated 18.03.2006, the substantive charges,
in addition to the charge of conspiracy, were framed against
the appellant and his plea of not guilty and claim of trial was    G
recorded. The charges which have been framed by the
Designated Court are:

      (i)    Criminal Conspiracy punishable under Section 3(3)
             of TADA and Section 1208 IPC read with Section
                                                                   H
    1072         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A                  3(2)(i), (ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of TADA read with
                   Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201,
                   212 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 read with
                   Section25(1A), (1B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, Section
                   9-B (1)(a), (b), (c) of Explosives Act, 1884, Sections
B                  3, 4(a), (b), 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act,
                   1908 and Section 4 of Prevention of Damage of
                   Public Property Act, 1984.

           (ii)    Section 3(3) of TADA;
c          (iii)   Section 5 of TADA;

           (iv)    Section 6 of TADA;

           (v)     Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act,
                   1908;
D
           (vi)    Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;

           (vii)   Section 25(1-A) (1-B) (a) read with Section 387 of
                   the Arms Act, 1959 and
E          (viii) Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884

         (xvi) The additional charges which were framed by the
    Court (which Abu Salem contends are in violation of the
    Extradition Order) pertain to offences under Section 5 of TADA,
F   Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,
    1908 and Section 9-B of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884.

      (xvii) On 31.03.2006, the prosecution filed an application
  being M.A. No. 144 of 2006 seeking separation of the trial of
G the appellant in the same manner as was done by the
  Designated Court in respect of Mustafa Ahmad Dossa (AA).

       (xviii) On 12.04.2006, the appellant also filed an
  application being M.A. No. 161 of 2006 seeking production of
  relevant record of extradition and sought joint trial along with
H other 123 accused whose trial was nearing completion.
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1073
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
     (xix) By way of order dated 13.06.2006, the Designated          A
Court allowed the application for separation of trial and held
that the trial would continue as BBC-1-B of 1993 in continuity
with the earlier joint case being BBC No. 1 of 1993. It was also
held that the assurances were given with respect to sentence
which could be imposed and not with respect to the offences          B
with which he could be tried.

     (xx) In September, 2006, Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006
came to be filed before this Court. A writ petition was also filed
invoking Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the said
orders. It was his grievance that time and again the authorities     C
abused the process of criminal law by failing to file the orders
passed by Portugal courts and by wilfully and deliberately
violating the solemn sovereign assurance. It was his categorical
claim that the respondents are lowering the esteem of the nation
by their deceitful behaviour in the field of international law,      D
breaching the principle of speciality established under the rule
of international law and recognised by Section 21 of the
Extradition Act after securing the extradition and gaining control
of the appellant. The construction made by the Designated
Court is not acceptable and the appellant is being wrongly tried     E
by the Designated Court in violation of the extradition decree
and: prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings. It was
contended by the appellant·that he has been charged with the
offe!ices other than that for'which he was extradited and to that
extent the order framing charges is bad. The appellant further       F
contended that the order of separation of trial is prejudiced
inasmuch as the confessions and evidence recorded in the trial
of BBC No.1 of 1993 will not be available to him. He also
contended that the separation is against the spirit of the
extradition decree which confines the trial of the appellant to      G
the Bombay Bomb Blast case.

     (xxi) In view of the above, the appellant moved an
application before the Court of Appeals of Lisbon stating that
he is being tried in India in violation of Principle of Speciality
as contained in Article 16 of Law 144 of 99.                         H
    1074    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         (xxii) By order dated 18.05.2007, the Court of Appeal
    expressed its inability to enquire into the question of surrender
    by the Indian State on the ground that the Indian State has
    violated certain conditions on which extradition was granted and
    when the said order was carried in appeal, the Supreme Court
8   of Justice, by order dated 1312.2007, remitted the matter to
    the Court of Appeal to enquire whether there has been violation
    of any condition as alleged by the appellant.

      (xxiii) The Court of Appeal, by order dated 13.10.2008,
  adjourned the matter till this Court passed the final order in the
C abovesaid proceedings, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 990 of
  2006 as well as in Writ Petition No. 171 of 2006.

          (xxiv) This Cpurt, by judgment and order dated 10.09.2010
    in Abu Salem (supra) dismissed the appeal as well as the
o   petition filed by the appellant holding that:-

        "72. We have already highlighted how the Government of
        India and the Government of Portugal entered into an
        agreement at the higher level mentioning the relevant
        offences and the appellant was extradited to India to face
E       the trial. We have also noted the notification of the
        Government of India about the applicability of the
        Extradition Act, 1962. In the light of the said notification,
        the additional charges that have been framed fit well within
        the proviso to Section 21 (b) of the Extradition Act. The
F       offences with which the appellant has been additionally
        charged are lesser than the offences for which the
        appellant has been extradited. To put it clear, the offences
        with which the appellant is charged are punishable with
        lesser punishment than the offence for which he has been
G       extradited. The extradition granted in the present case had
        due regard to the facts placed which would cover the
        offences with which the appellant has been charged. As
        rightly pointed out by the learned Solicitor General, the
        offences are disclosed by the same set of facts placed
H       before the Government of Portugal. We agree with the
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1075
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

    submission of the learned Solicitor General and the               A
    ultimate decision of the Designated Court".

      (xxv) Subsequent to the judgment dated 10.09.2010, the
Court of Appeals of Lisbon, by judgment dated 14.09.2011,
took a contrary view and held that the authorization granted for      B
the extradition of Abu Salem ought to be terminated. It was held
that Article 16 of the Portuguese Law No. 144/99 clearly
provides that a person cannot be tried for an offence other than
the one that gives rise to request for cooperation by way of
extradition. It was further held that Article 16(2) provides that a   C
person cannot be tried for offences other than those determined
in the request for cooperation. However, the said two sub-
articles need to be read with sub-Article (5) which provides that
an extradition can be sought in respect of facts other than those
that laid the foundation for the request. The Court of Appeals
of Lisbon has concluded that                                          D

     " ..... In the light of the Portugese legal system, the Indian
     Union were not considering the limits imposed by the
     Portuguese Republic to the extradition of Abu Salem of
     which it was perfectly aware ..... violated the principle of     E
     Speciality."

     (xxvi) Being aggrieved of the above order, Union of India
preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice,
Portugal but the same was dismissed as not maintainable. The
                                                                      F
Constitutional Court of Portugal has, however, on.05.07.2012,
decided the appeal preferred by the Union of India. For the sake
of brevity and convenience, certain portions are relevant which
are as under:

     "8. Independent of the manner how the question of violation      G
     of the principle of speciality is framed, whether or not it is
     seen as an incident of the delivery of the extradited person
     that still falls within the judicial phase of the extradition
     procedure, the considerations just made apply to the
     judicial procedure that gave rise to the present appeal. In      H
    1076   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A      spite of the judgment whose possibility of appeal is under
       consideration being in the sense of the violation of such
       principle by the Union of India, terminating the authorization
      ·granted by the extradition of the appellant, the judicial
       decision does not impose by itself the devolution of the
B      extradited person. The Principle of Speciality according to
       which the extradited person cannot be prosecuted held
       tried or subjected to any other restriction of his freedom
       for a fact or a condemnation previous to his leaving the
       Portuguese territory other than those determined in the
c      request for extradition (Article 16, No.1 of Law No. 144/
       99) is an internationally recognized principle by means of
       which the sovereignty of the requested State is protected
       and the protection of the extradited person is assured
       (about this, Gregory 8. Richardson, "The Principle of
       Speciality in extradition" ; and Dominique PonceUPaul
D
       GullyHart, "Le Pricnipe de la specialite en matiere
       d'extradition.", Revue Internationale de Droit Penal, 1991,
       respectively, page 86, and pages 201 and following). The
       question of violation of the principle presupposes,
       therefore, two distinct plans: that of the relations between
E      the requesting State and the requested State, with an
       eminently political basis; and that of the relations between
       the requesting State and the extradited person in relation
       to which the form how the latter makes the assurance that
       the Principle of Speciality represents for the extradited
F      person avail against the former is analysed (cf. point 2. of
       the Legal Basis, above and such authors, pages 86 and
       following and pages 217 and following respectively). When
       what is under consideration is the plan in which the
       relations between the requesting State and the extradited
G      person are established, even if the violation of the Principle
       of Speciality is determined in the internal legal order of the
       requested State within the scope of a judicial procedure
       brought by the extradited person which occurred in the
       present records, without the admissibility of this via being
H      peacefully understood (cf.point2. of the Legal Basis, above)
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1077
           ..
BUREAU. OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
   the State·requesting the extradition request is no'\ in this A
   procedure in a position of procedural confrontation in
   relation to such State. It is not vested with· any role as
   procedural participant (party) in relation to which it can be
   concluded that a decision against it or in its favour was
   rendered which directly and effectively prejudices it B
   because the legal nature of the extradition would always
   prevent that, a form of international judicial cooperation
   between sovereign States in criminal matters. An
    understanding that is also sustained by Article 7 No.1 of
   the CRP, when in respect of matters of international c
    relations it sets out that Portugal is governed among other
    international law principles by the principles of equality
    between States and of non-interference in the internal
    matters of other States. The legal decision that terminates
   the 'authorization extradition, namely for violation of the D
    Principle of Speciality, must be considered only as one
   element among others that the requested State takes into
    consideration when it politically ponders on the attitude to
   take in the plan of its relations with the requesting State.
   Therefore, it cannot have the reach of a decision that just E
    by itself sets off the consequence of violation of the
    Principle of Speciality, applying as a decision against the
    requesting State, as a decision that directly and effectively
    prejudices it. All the more so that unlike what occurs in the
    judicial phase of the extradition procedure which is
    necessarily preceded by an administrative decision in the F
    sense of granting the extradition request, there has not yet
    been any decision made with an eminently political basis,
    and it is certain that the violation of the Principle of
    Speciality has direct repercussions on the plan of the
    relations between the States involved since such principle G
    also protects in an autonomous manner the sovereignty of
    the requested State."

        What has just been said is in consonance with the
   judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 13.12.2007,     H
    1078   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A       which although deciding in the sense of the internal legal
        order having to take a position on the alleged violation of
        the principle of speciality, concludes that the declaration
        of termination of the authorization granted should
        "subsequently be· referred to the political power instances
B       through the central authority, in order for the Portuguese
        State to take the attitude it deems to be the most
        convenient, through diplomatic channels" (cf. point 2 of the
        Report above). As well as with the judgment of the Lisbon
        Court of Appeals of 14.09.2011 the judicial decision whose
c       non-possibility of appeal arises out of the rule under
        appraisal that fulfilled it. In reply to the two questions that
        it undertook to appraise and decide upon the said
                                                   '
        judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeals concludes that
        in the light of the Portuguese Legal system, the Union of
        India violated the Principle of Speciality laid down in Article
D
        16 of Law No. 144/99 (sheet 587); and that, although such
        law does not set out in general terms any specific
        consequence for the violation of the Principle of Speciality
        by the State requesting the extradition, that does not
        impair that in case of violation the Portuguese State can
E       react through political diplomatic channels, and for such .
        purpose the judgment formulated by Portuguese judicial
      · instances will be relevant. Further to the possibility of the
        Portuguese State requesting the intervention of
        international jurisdiction instances and extracting due
F       political consequences from the case. That is: in spite of
        having considered the trial .for new crimes illegal and of
        having decided to terminate the authorization granted for
        the extradition of Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, the
        decision of the Lisbon Court of appeals only concludes for
G       the violation of the Principle of Speciality. It does not by
        itself bind the requesting State to the practice of a certain
        act and namely to return the extradited person and thus it
        is not a decision rendered against the Union of India, a
        decision that directly and effectively prejudices it. As a
H       result of the reply to the question of knowing which is the
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1079
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

    consequence of the violation of the Principle ,of Speciality       A
    in the light of Portuguese Law, it will be incumbent on the
    Portuguese State rather than on Portuguese judicial
    instances to decide what such consequence will be, which
    will have to do with the political diplomatic plan of the
    relations between the two sovereign States."                       B

     5. Heard Mr: Sudeep Pasbola, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for
the respondent-CBI.

Discussion:                                                            c
     6. This Court, in Abu Salem (supra) (2011) 11 SCC 214
has held that in view of the Indian Laws, there has been no
violation of the Principle of Speciality on the part of the Union
of India whereas the Courts in Portugal have decided                   D
otherwise; The reason given by this Court while arriving at such
conclusion is that the appellant could have been tried for
offences which are lesser in nature than the offences for which
the extradition has· been granted. In view of the above, it is clear
that there exist differences of opinion in the ratio of judgments
                                                                       E
of this Court and the Courts in Portugal.

     7. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondent
submitted that though the Constitutional Court of Portugal may
not have entertained the appeal of Union of India on a
constitutional issue, still the Court has observed that the issue      F
of whether the person extradited has to be returned to the
requested State or not, is something which may be decided
by both the countries diplomatically. It is also pointed out that
the· Union of India, through diplomatic routes, is in touch with
the Government of Portugal on the present issue. According to          G
learned Attorney General, the Constitutional Court of Portugal
has simply dismissed the appeal of the Union of India on the
ground that they had no locus standi to appeal since it is not
an order against them. H is also brought to our notice that
pursuant to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Portugal,      H
    1080    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A the appellant-Abu Salem had made a representation dated
  14.09.2012 to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of
  External Affairs trying to make out a case of annulment of
  Extradition Order due to its alleged violation by the prosecution.
  Further, the appellant has filed a petition to the Court of Appeals
B of Lisbon on 19.09.2012 praying that directions may be given
  to the Government of Portugal for taking steps for his devolution
  to Portugal in view of the orders passed by the Portugese
  Courts.

       8. It is relevant to mention that out of the eight charges
C mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet filed against the
  appellant supra, the charges mentioned at S. Nos. (iii) to (viii)
  hereinabove have been termed as "Additional Charges" by the
  Portuguese Court because of which it has come to the
  conclusion that there has been a violation of the Principle of
D Speciality. More so, the technicality on which the appellant has
  raised various objections/litigations/representations in India as
  well as in Portugal has been with respect to the charges at
  S.Nos. (iii) to (viii) hereinabove. In view of the earlier
  commitment given to the Government of Portugal and also in
E view of the comity of Courts as well as in the interest of justice,
  the respondent-CBI seeks to withdraw the abovementioned
  charges, i.e., charges at S.Nos. (iii) to (viii). It is stated by
  learned Attorney General that no prejudice would be caused
  to the appellant if the present applications are allowed by this
F Court and the stay on the trial of the appellant is vacated in view
  of the above.

        9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-Abu
  Salem submitted that the present application of the respondent
G praying for clarification/modification of the judgment and order
  dated 10.09.2010 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 990 of
  2006 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 171 of 2006 is vexatious and
  serves no purpose and the same should be dismissed. It is
  submitted by the appellant that since the order of Extradition
  itself has been set aside and is no longer valid and subsisting,
H
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1081
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

the withdrawal of additional charges will have no effect and the       A
appellant cannot be tried in India.

    10. In view of the above, the following points arose for
consideration:-
      •     "Firstly, whether this Court can modify the judgment       B
            rendered in Abu Salem (supra) dated 10.09.2010
            reported in (2011) 11 sec 214 under the grounds
            raised by the respondent.

      •     "Secondly, whether the order of Extradition dated          c
            28.03.2003 stands annulled/cancelled as alleged
            by the appellant.

     11. As regards the first question, no doubt, the Constitution
of India bestows upon the Supreme Court the inherent power
to reconsider, modify and revise its earlier decisions for the         D
reason that law has to bend before justice. Certainly, nothing
would preclude this Court from rectifying the error if it finds 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       E
perpetration had resulted in miscarriage of justice.

     12. In the given case, the only ground on which the
respondent/CBI seeks modification is to harmonize the situation
created by the divergent views with regard to the violation of         F
the Principle of Speciality. It is further submitted that in the
interest of comity of Courts, united fight at international level
against the global terrorism, the Government of India is taking
further efforts through diplomatic channels. As a result, the
respondent is of the view that the additional charges framed           G
against the appellant, which were held valid by this Court in the
order dated 10.09.2010, may come as impediment for
furthering the diplomatic talks. As on date, there exist two
divergent views with regard to the violation of the Principle of
Speciality rendered by the Supreme Court of India and the              H
    1082    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A Constitutional Court of Portugal. The available options for the
  Union of India are either to approach an international forum to
  settle the divergent view or in alternate reconcile via diplomatic
  channels. Considering the two decades delay in the
  prosecution of the accused/appellant, the respondent is ofthe
B view that withdrawal of additional charges framed against the
  appellant will cut short the process. Therefore, the respondent
  seeks permission to withdraw the additional charges levied
  against the appellant via this modification petition. While it is
  made clear that this petition is moved before this Court only to
c avoid endless deferral of the trial of the appellant.

        13. It is vital to comprehend the cause behind the concept
  of extradition before we decide the issue at hand. Extradition,
  throughout the history of the practice, has·remained a system
  consisting of several processes whereby one sovereign
D surrenders to another sovereign a person sought after as an
  accused criminal or a fugitive offender. This delivery of
  individuals to a requesting sovereign is usually based on
  treaties or bilateral agreements but sometimes it also occur by
  reciprocity and comity as a matter of courtesy and goodwill
E between sovereigns as in this case. Therefore, 'world public
  order' is the recurring theme based on which the extradition is
  practiced by the States.

       14. Taking note of the submission of the respondent that
F the offences for which the appellant was extradited to India are
  grave enough to even award the appellant with maximum
  punishment and therefore no prejudice would be caused if the
  present application for modification is allowed, we are of the
  considered view that allowing the present modification petition
G under the existing peculiar circumstance will not be detrimental
  to any of the parties. However, it is pertinent to clarify that by
  allowing the modification petition filed by the respondent, it
  cannot be construed that this Court is reviewing the judgment
  in the light of the verdict of the Constitutional Court of Portugal.
  Both India and Portugal are two sovereign States with efficient
H
ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARI v. CENTRAL 1083
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

arid independent judicial system. As a consequence, in                   A
unequivocal terms, the verdict by the Constitutional Court of
Portugal is not binding on this Court but only has persuasive
value.

     15. Consequently, though this Court has rendered a
                                                                         B
decision in favour of the CBI in the interest of comity of Courts
and on the statement made by learned Attorney General that
the matter is being pursued through diplomatic channels, while
allowing the modification petition, we permit the respondent-
CBI to withdraw the charges (iii) to (viii) as mentioned in              C
paragraph supra. Learned Attorney General also assured this
Court that they are in the process of withdrawing other charges
too pending in various States against the appellant which are
claimed to be in violation of the Extradition order and the same
is hereby recorded.
                                                                         D
      16. Nevertheless, it is clarified that the modification petition
is allowed only to the extent of withdrawal of tlie additional
charges framed against the appellant. However, the analysis
and reasoning rendered in the impugned judgment with regard
to the interpretation of the Principle of Speciality still stands        E
good as the law declared bythis Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India shall be binding on all courts within the
territory of India.

      17. As regards the second question; whether the order of
Extradition dated 28.03.2003 stands annulled/cancelled as                F
alleged by the appellants, it is submitted by the respondent that
the decision of the Courts of Portugal themselves does not
contain any direction to the Union of India to return the appellant
to Portugal as is being agitated by the appellant. The
Constitutional Court of Portugal has categorically held that             G
Portuguese law does not provide for any specific consequence
for violation of the Principle of Speciality and their findings may
not be construed as a direction to the Union of India to return
the appellant to Portugal but shall only serve as a legal basis
                                                                         H
    1084    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A for the Government of Portugal, should it choose to seek the
  return of the appellant to Portugal through political, or diplomatic
  channels, which has not been done till date according to the
  statement made by learned Attorney General. In view of the
  above discussion, it is vividly clear that the order of Extradition
B dated 28.03.2003 still stands valid and effective in the eyes of
  law. Accordingly, the second question stands responded.

       18. In the light of the above discussion, we allow Criminal
  Misc. Petition Nos. 3301-3302 of 2013 for modification of our
  order dated 10.09.2010 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 990
C of 2006 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 171 of 2006 and permitting
  the respondent-CBI to withdraw the charges viz., charge Nos.
  (iii) to (viii) as mentioned in paragraph supra. Consequently,
  we vacate the stay order dated 17.02.2012 and allow the trial
  to continue. It is made clear that we have not expressed any
D opinion in respect of other charges and both the parties are•
  free to put forth their respective stand.

       19. In view of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Petition
  Nos. 3301-3302 of 2013, no further adjudication is required in
E the above appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos. 415-416 of 2012
    filed by the appellant-Abu Salem. These appeals are
    accordingly disposed of in terms of the order passed in
    Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 3301-3302 of 2013. In view of the
    above, no order is required in the application for impleadment.
F   R.P.              Appeals & Crl. Misc. Petitions disposed of.