Microsoft Exchange Conference: April 22 - 24

Cut your internet cost now! -- Netwatch

Search
The Indian Express

The Financial Express

Latest News

Screen

Express Computer
Feedback
Travel

Matrimonials

Careers

Lifestyle

Astrology

E-Cards

Columnists

Graffiti

Crossword

Letters

Environment

Jewellery
Info-tech

Power

Steel

Advertisers Forum

Business Forum

In association with Amazon.com

Books Music

Enter keywords


INDIAN EXPRESS FRONT PAGE

Politics

Business

Expressions

General

World

Sports

Leisure

States

 

Monday, April 19, 1999

Former CBI officer gropes for answers on Yakub's arrest

S Hussain Zaidi  
MUMBAI, April 18: The circumstances surrounding the dramatic arrest of Yaqub Memon, key accused in the serial bomb blasts case, have come under a cloud following the then superintendent of CBI's special task force Harishchandra Singh's inability to answer some vital questions in the on-going serial blasts trial at the designated TADA Court of Judge P D Kode.

Singh's cross-examination has also exposed a series of lapses committed by the CBI while arresting Memon.

Singh -- now Assistant Director, Interpol India -- who reportedly arrested Memon from Delhi railway station on August 5, '95, was subjected to three days of gruelling cross-examination by defence counsels Majeed Memon and Adhik Shirodkar. The cross-examination ended on Friday evening.

The first faux pas Singh admitted to was the panchanama carried out in the wake of Yakub's arrest. A panchanama has to be made in the presence of two independent witnesses, but Singh said that in the present case, those who had signed as witnesseswere deputy superintendent of CBI V K Bindal and another CBI officer S S Dagar. Thus the basic procedure had not been followed.

After admission of the procedural lapse, Singh also could not remember some of the vital details of the arrest. To begin with, Singh had trouble recollecting the Section under which Memon had been held. When the defence counsels pressed for an answer, he went through the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Manual and stated the wrong section. ``I had effected the search and seizure under Section 51 of CrPC,'' he said, when the section under which search and seizure are effected under Section 101 of the CrPC.

Singh, who claimed to be an outstanding CBI officer, could recall all his successes between 1978 to 1993. But had trouble recollecting the events between 1993 and and 1996, when he was elevated to the post of AD in Interpol. Most of Singh's replies were peppered with lines like ``I don't remember,'' ``I can't recollect,'' and even ``I did not think it necessary andimportant.''

Among the things Singh had not considered necessary was asking for Yaqub's remand as an accused in the blasts case. The CBI officer charged Memon under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) but made no mention of the blasts case in the remand application. The only detail given to the court was Memon was member of an international terrorist outfit.

At the time of Yaqub's arrest, the CBI had seized three micro-cassettes and transcripts from him which not only established the involvement of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the blasts but also exposed the alleged involvement of then additional collector of customs S N Thapa.

However, Singh also did not think it important to mention this important seizure in the remand application.

Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.


Top


 

Click here for a printer-friendly page Printer-friendly page

Search and order from the largest database of Indian books



EXPRESSindia.com
News   Business    Sports   Entertainment
The Indian Express | The Financial Express | Latest News | Screen | Express Computers
Travel | MatrimonialsCareersLifestyle | Astrology
E-Cards | Graffiti | Environment | Jewellery | Info-tech | Power