Court for Headley’s presence,non-bailable warrants against Pak Army officials

District Judge H S Sharma took cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against all the nine accused for their alleged roles in various terror acts in the country.

“In view of facts contained in the report (chargesheet) under section 173 of the CrPC,1973 and the documents placed on record,I take cognizance against accused one to accused nine. I would like to add that the prosecution is still in the process of collecting more evidence which is permissible under section 173 (8) of the CrPC.

“Process to procure the presence of accused one to accused four (Headley,Rana,Saeed and Lakhvi) be got issued for March 13,2012. NBWs against accused five to accused nine (other accused) have already been issued for that day,” the judge said.

The court also allowed the NIA’s plea to issue a letter of request to the Kingdom of Morocco for judicial assistance.

“What the NIA intends to do is to investigate the matter i.e. to collect more evidence. Without having the assistance of the court or the authority in Kingdom of Morocco,it would not be possible for the investigating agency to collect evidence against the accused…. The investigation can not be throttled,” the court said,adding,the letter of request would be handed over to the NIA on February 29.

The NIA,in its charge sheet filed on December 24,had accused 51-year-old Headley,Rana,Saeed and six others for planning and executing terror strikes in India,including the 26/11 Mumbai attack.

The NIA had initially registered a case against Headley and Rana but after a thorough probe,seven other names were included in the case.

The charge sheet,which was filed after two years of probe by the central agencies,contained statements of 134 witnesses along with 210 documents and 106 e-mails.

Headley and Rana are at present in the custody of the US authorities and the NIA has only got a limited access to Headley who had entered into plea bargain with US authorities to escape harsh sentence.

The court,in its order while taking cognizance,noted that Headley was taken into custody by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on October 3,2009.

“Headley had been taken into custody by FBI on October 3,2009. Headley,as per the documents….,under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,entered into a ‘plea agreement’.

“He voluntarily made plea of guilt before the competent authority. He admitted the charges against him,” the court noted.

The NIA told the court that Red Corner Notice (RCN) has already been issued by the Bombay Police against Headley and Rana.

It said Government does not have a mutual legal treaty with Morocco and probe in the case could not be conducted without recourse to section 166 A of the CrPC which deals with letter of request to competent authority for investigation in a country or place outside India.

It also said the Ministry of Home Affairs had already granted them the permission to obtain an order under section 166 A of the CrPC from the court. It said that assistance was being sought to collect more evidence against the accused.

“There is indeed justification to issue a letter of request under section 166-A of the Code,as prayed for in the application (of NIA). The application is,therefore,allowed,” the court said.

The District Judge also noted that a court here,in its order on July 21,2010,had issued NBWs against Lakhvi,Malik,Abdul Rehman Hashmi,Major Iqbal,Major Ali and Kahmiri.

“My predecessor vide a detailed order dated July 21,2010 had directed that the NBWs against accused four to accused nine be issued. NBWs against accused four to accused nine had thereafter been issued from time to time. Headley and Rana,as per the procseution,are in US custody,” the judge noted.

The judge said the NIA is relying on other documents but,”I need not refer the same in detail as the same may prejudice the case of the parties”.

The court also said that while taking cognizance on the charge sheet,it has to take only a prima facie view.

“The taking of cognizance means the point in time when the court takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such offence which appears to have been committed.

“Only a prima facie view is to be taken. No detailed narration of facts and appreciation of evidence,as is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge,is required to be undertaken by the court,” it said.