<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Centre to consider a plea by gangster Abu Salem that his imprisonment cannot extend beyond 25 years in accordance with terms of his extradition from Portugal.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh sought Centre and Maharashtra government response on Salem’s plea, which contended that the 2017 judgment of a TADA court, sentencing him to life imprisonment, was contrary to the terms of the extradition treaty.</p>.<p>Salem was brought to India in 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the 1993 Mumbai blasts by a TADA court.</p>.<p>Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing Salem, submitted that the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court did not agree with the contention that it was bound by assurance given by the Indian government to the Portugal government during his client’s extradition. </p>.<p>He maintained that the top court has the power to grant him relief in the matter.</p>.<p>According to the plea, the Indian government, on December 17, 2002, gave a solemn sovereign assurance through Deputy Prime Minister to the Portugal government that if Salem is extradited for trials in India, he would neither be conferred with death penalty nor be subjected to imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years.</p>.<p>It also said Salem was in custody since September 18, 2002 following the Red Corner Notice issued by the Designated Courts, Mumbai.</p>.<p>Even if the said date is not to be taken into consideration for the purposes of “set off”, the ministerial order of March 28, 2003, of the Ministry of Justice Portugal by which it had admitted the extradition request of the Indian government to be tried for various offences ought to have been taken into consideration, it said. </p>.<p>“The TADA Court however, held that since the appellant was released in the Portugal case on October 12, 2005, therefore, the custody for the purposes of 'set off' would be counted from October 12, 2005. The error lies in not taking custody from the Ministerial Order dated March 28, 2003," the plea said.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Centre to consider a plea by gangster Abu Salem that his imprisonment cannot extend beyond 25 years in accordance with terms of his extradition from Portugal.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh sought Centre and Maharashtra government response on Salem’s plea, which contended that the 2017 judgment of a TADA court, sentencing him to life imprisonment, was contrary to the terms of the extradition treaty.</p>.<p>Salem was brought to India in 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the 1993 Mumbai blasts by a TADA court.</p>.<p>Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing Salem, submitted that the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court did not agree with the contention that it was bound by assurance given by the Indian government to the Portugal government during his client’s extradition. </p>.<p>He maintained that the top court has the power to grant him relief in the matter.</p>.<p>According to the plea, the Indian government, on December 17, 2002, gave a solemn sovereign assurance through Deputy Prime Minister to the Portugal government that if Salem is extradited for trials in India, he would neither be conferred with death penalty nor be subjected to imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years.</p>.<p>It also said Salem was in custody since September 18, 2002 following the Red Corner Notice issued by the Designated Courts, Mumbai.</p>.<p>Even if the said date is not to be taken into consideration for the purposes of “set off”, the ministerial order of March 28, 2003, of the Ministry of Justice Portugal by which it had admitted the extradition request of the Indian government to be tried for various offences ought to have been taken into consideration, it said. </p>.<p>“The TADA Court however, held that since the appellant was released in the Portugal case on October 12, 2005, therefore, the custody for the purposes of 'set off' would be counted from October 12, 2005. The error lies in not taking custody from the Ministerial Order dated March 28, 2003," the plea said.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>