Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Hafiz Saeed Gets 10 Years In Jail For Two Terror Cases

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Nov 24, 20, 20:31, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 18283
In a latest, landmark, laudable and learned judgment, a Pakistani court on November 19, 2020 gave Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed, held responsible for masterminding the 2008 Mumbai

In a latest, landmark, laudable and learned judgment, a Pakistani court on November 19, 2020 gave Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed, held responsible for masterminding the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and two close aides prison sentences totalling ten-and-a-half years in two cases of terror financing – a decision likely influenced by the unremitting pressure brought to bear on Islamabad by the Financial Action Task Force. It is this same Hafiz Saeed whom former Pakistani Army Chief Chief and former President of Pakistan – General Pervez Musharraf had hailed as hero. He had said that, Hafiz Saeed to hero hain ji hero. Bharat ke liye yeh aatankwadi hain paar Pakistan ke liye to Hafiz Saeed hero hain ji hero. Bilkul aasli hero hain ji. Bharat neh to ajma keh dekha hain. Now where is the same hero Hafiz Saeed? He is in Lahore jail! This is the reward that he has got for sponsoring terrorism.

Needless to say, it must be mentioned here that Hafiz Saeed was given two separate five-year prison term and a six-month jail term for being a member of a banned group. The sentence for November 19 charges will run concurrently. Hafiz is already in a Lahore jail serving two sentences of five-and-a-half-years each in other terror funding cases.

Truth be told, the Judge also ordered the seizure of Hafiz Saeed's movable and immovable property and directed him to pay fines totaling Pakistani Rs 110,000. All three sentences will run concurrently. Since Hafiz is already in jail serving two sentences of five-and-a-half years given to him in February, he will not serve any extra jail time. The Court's order said elegantly, eloquently, effectively and emphatically that, Since the convict has already been convicted... by this court vide judgment dated 12.02.2020, so the punishment awarded to him in this case shall also run concurrently with punishment in said cases.

To put things in perspective, the people who are familiar with all these developments said on condition of anonymity that the sentencing of Saeed was largely due to pressure on Pakistan from western powers and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to crack down on terror groups and terror financing, including prosecution of those funnelling funds to terrorists. It is being widely speculated that Hafiz Saeed's conviction in four separate cases this year could be an indication the military establishment no longer considers him an asset. Virtually all of Saeed's top aides have been arrested and put on trial, and there are indication that they are no longer playing a role in directing LeT's operations.

Be it noted, a total of 41 cases were registered against Hafiz Saeed and his aides by Punjab Police after he was arrested in July 2019. Of these cases, cases, two were decided on November 19, bringing the tally of cases decided so far to 24. The rest are still being heard by anti-terrorism courts. Hafiz Saeed and his aides are being held in Lahore's Kot Lakhpat jail. Hafiz has been convicted in four cases.

No doubt, Hafiz Saeed's conviction clearly suggests that it is also being seen as an indication of Saeed's decreasing utility to the deep State in Pakistan that is the Army and the ISI! Besides, Hafiz Saeed, the others sentenced by the anti-terrorism court in Lahore are Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) leaders Zafar Iqbal and Yahya Mujahid, who served as JuD's spokesperson for many years. All three have been sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

It is worth noting that Hafiz Saeed's brother-in-law Abdul Rehman Makki who is also a top leader of JuD was given a six-month sentence in the same cases. Hafiz Saeed who is currently serving a prison term in connection with other terror financing cases, was produced for the sentencing by anti-terrorism court Judge Arshad Hussain Bhutta. Hafiz was given two separate five-year prison terms under provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act for using and providing funds for acts of terrorism.

Not stopping here, Hafiz was also given a six-month prison term for being a member of a banned group. The Judge Arshad Hussain Bhutta also ordered the seizure of Hafiz Saeed's movable and immovable property and directed him to pay fines totaling Pakistani Rs 1,10,000. Judge Arshad of ATC-I heard the cases filed by the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) of Punjab province and announced the verdict after statements of witnesses were cross-examined.

To say the least, the CTD accused them of using properties of religious seminaries and mosques for terror financing. Saeed was arrested on July 17, 2019 and has been lodged in the high security Kot Lakhpat jail in Lahore. The CTD had registered dozens of FIRs against Hafiz Saeed and his accomplices on terror financing charges in Lahore, Gujranwala, Multan, Faisalabad, Sahiwal and Sargodha. All cases were transferred to Lahore following an order passed of the high court on the petitions of the accused.

In hindsight, a dreaded terror chief like Hafiz Saeed certainly deserved much harsher punishment. He should have been sentenced either to death or with life term! Ten years jail is just not enough but still it has proved that crime never pays and even the Pakistani Army and ISI can do nothing when courts come into action!

As it turned out, many are questioning the time of his conviction with the sword of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) blacklisting Pakistan hanging on the horizon over its unrestricted, unhindered and uninhibited support to various terror groups directed against India. FATF had recently concluded that Pakistan had not addressed six of its 27-point action plan items to check terror financing and money laundering. One of these six points relate to action against UN Security Council proscribed terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar who heads another dreaded terror outfit termed as Jaish-e-Mohammad.

It goes without saying that this alone explains why Sameer Patil who is an eminent fellow for international security studies at Gateway House said very rightly that, Pakistan could say after Saeed's sentencing in several cases that it has delivered on FATF's demand for prosecution of those involved in terror financing and claim a moral victory. He also very rightly pointed out in simple and straight language that, But it's more important to see what Saeed does next, including the outcome of any appeals in higher courts. The Pakistani establishment may have sacrificed Saeed but his network remains and his son Talha Saeed and Lakhvi are still active. The game is not over yet.

It is worthwhile to mention here that the US has named Hafiz Saeed as a specially designated global terrorist and has offered a $ 10 million reward for information that brings him to justice. If US sincerely wanted it could have easily killed Hafiz but US feels that he is more of a threat to India and not to US which alone explains as to why they have still not killed him! So why should US bother? India has to fight its own war itself by storming fiercely the bases of Pakistan where terrorists get training!

Interestingly enough, Hafiz Saeed was also listed as a terrorist under the UN Security Council Resolution 1267 in December 2008. Yet it is the worst travesty of justice that he still is roaming around in Pakistan and not being punished most severely for his involvement in masterminding so many terror attacks including that of 26/11, 2008 carnage of Mumbai that left 166 people dead including 6 Americans and many others injured! This again is solely because UN stands fully and firmly with Pakistan for the proxy war that it has waged against India and inspite of knowing full that Pakistan is the hub of terrorism still ensures that no strict action is taken against Pakistan!

Tragically enough, what is worst is that the Indian Government led by PM Narendra Modi still shamelessly feel that UN will make India a permanent member of UN Security Council! How long will we continue fooling ourselves and not see the clear writing on the wall! We all know many terror leaders like Syed Salaluddin are enjoying full protection of Pakistani Army and ISI and plan terror strikes against India with them yet UN laughs at us and asks us to foolishly engage in talks and dialogues with a rogue state like Pakistan who has got unfettered licence to export terror warfare in India!

All thanks to US, UK, UN and China for always fully standing with Pakistan in its proxy war that it has waged against India and ensuring that only a terror head like Osama bin Laden who acts against US is killed right in Rawalpindi where Pakistani Army Headquarters are located and others like Masood Azhar, Syed Salaluddin, Hafiz Saeed are never touched under any circumstances except for the sham trial by the kangaroo courts of Pakistan where Judge himself fears for his life if he awards death penalty or even life term to dreaded terror leaders like Hafiz Saeed! Herein lies the real rub! US, UK, UN and China are the root cause for Pakistan not doing anything to check terror war that it has declared against India as they never want India to prosper, progress and become powerful no matter what they say for just public consumption! Only and only France along with Russia stands fully, firmly and finally with India!

Truly speaking, we all know this very well but some politicians both in ruling party and in Opposition pretend to not see all this and stupidly, shamelessly and senselessly keep demanding a permanent seat for India in UN Security Council just like more than 9 crore people of West UP keep demanding a high court bench since independence and even Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by late Mrs Indira Gandhi government had recommended it in Agra in late 1970s yet not a single bench has been set up in any of the 26 districts of West UP till 2020 even though Jawaharlal Nehru had set up a bench in July 1948 at Lucknow which is just about 200 km away from Allahabad where high court is located leaving the people of West UP, Bundelkhand and other regions high and dry as both high court and a single bench are in Eastern UP! Leaders of even ruling BJP keep demanding high court bench even in Parliament time and again yet Centre shamelessly, senselessly and stupidly refuses to create even a single bench in any hook and corner of UP leave alone West UP even though smaller states like Karnataka which has just 6 crore population as compared to 9 crore of West UP has 3 benches at Dharwad, Gulbarga and Hubli thus emulating US, UK, UN and China on this key issue!

How tragic it is that lawyers of West UP have even gone on strike for 6 months in a row as was done in 2001 and for 3 to 4 months as was done in 2014-15 and so many other times also apart from 37 year old strike every week on Saturday! Centre refuses to realize that people of West UP have to travel more than 700 km on an average to travel all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings which is most disgraceful! Centre must introspect honestly on this that why a State like UP which has maximum population, maximum pending cases and here too West UP accounts for more than half of pending cases and still it has no bench as one bench is only in Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad even though many other state capitals like Bhopal which is capital of MP, Dispur which is capital of Assam, Thiruvananthapuram which is capital of Kerala, Raipur which is capital of Chhattisgarh, Dehradun which is capital of Uttarakhand, Bhubaneshwar which is capital of Odisha etc has neither high court nor bench! Then why is it that in UP both high court and a single bench are in Eastern UP only and that too very close? Also, why a peaceful state like Maharashtra which has topped in justice index list has 4 high court benches at Kolhapur, Panaji, Nagpur and Aurangabad and UP which fares so poorly has just one and West UP where maximum crimes occur has none?

Is Centre not behaving like US, UK, UN and China which refuses to see India's woes? Centre must also first itself change on this high court bench issue before asking others to change! The 230th report of Law Commission of India recommended creation of more benches but Centre has implemented it only in Karnataka and Maharashtra but not in UP which has maximum pending cases! Centre must also reform on this and similarly on Hafiz Saeed and relentless support by Pakistan to terror acts directed against India must become more vocal and punish Pakistan in all respects so that they dare not ever think to send terrorists to India! All that is needed is a strong political will as was demonstrated after the Uri terror attack in 2016 and Pulwama terror attack in 2019!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top