Mumbai, April 21: After around eight years, when the trial in the 26/11 terror attack case against the suspect handler Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari, alias Abu Jundal, was about to resume, the defence moved the special court pleading that the testimonies of 76 witnesses, including David Headley, be discarded by raising jurisdiction issues.
Defence raises jurisdiction challenge
Jundal’s lawyer Wahab Khan moved a plea claiming that the charges in the case were not framed by a designated court constituted under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008. Similarly, he claimed that the testimony of witnesses 1 to 76, including Headley, who was made an approver, was recorded by a court that was not a designated court.
Arguments under NIA Act
The defence claimed that Jundal is charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which are scheduled offences under the NIA Act. Hence, it argued, the trial cannot proceed before an additional sessions judge who has not been designated as a special judge under the Act. The court has asked the prosecution to submit its reply.
Accused seeks travel documents
Jundal, who claimed he was deported from Saudi Arabia in 2012, has sought travel-related documents to show he was taken into custody in Dammam before being brought to India.
Also Watch:
Background of the case
Jundal is suspected to be the key handler who coordinated with terrorists from a control room in Karachi. He was reportedly one of the key executors of the 2008 attacks.
The trial has faced stays after it was revealed that Jundal was brought to India via an emergency passport rather than being apprehended at the airport.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
