The Supreme Court of India dismissed Yakub Abdul Memon's appeal against his conviction and death sentence for involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings. Memon was found guilty of financing and facilitating the terrorist attacks that killed over 250 people. He was sentenced to death for criminal conspiracy to commit terrorist acts as well as life imprisonment and various jail terms for related charges. The Court rejected Memon's arguments that his curative petition was not properly considered, affirming that he was given a fair trial and multiple appeals that found no errors requiring reversal of the conviction or sentence.

1. INDEX
1. Introduction
2. Facts of the case
3. Charges framed
4. Law appliedto charges
5. Crime and sentence
6. Case referred
7.Judgement

2. Introduction
The case decided in supreme court of India
petition (crl) No. 135 of 2015
Under article 32 (2 ) of Indian constitution
In the court of hon’ble judges Deepak mishra
,Praffuca c pant and amativa Roy J.J
This appeal and the connected matters have
been diverted against the final order and
judgment of conviction and sentence passed on
various dates by the presiding officer of the
designated court under terrorist and disruptive
activities (prevention) act 1987 for Bombay
blast case
These appeals have been filed under the
section 19 of the TADA by the accused against
their conviction and sentence and by CBI for
confirmation of the death sentence and
against the acquittal of some of the accused
person .

3. Fact’s of the case
1. Yakub abdul mamon convicted over his
involment in the 1993 Bombay blast by
special terrorist and disruptive activities court
on 27 July 2007
2. Yakub memon was the brother one of the
prime suspects in the blasts namely tiger
memon
3. The court held that memon’s role was
limited not only to extent of
correspondence between the
masterminds and all other accused but he
was also interested with task of handling
the explosive bags and for their safe
keeping
4. It also held that memon was actively
involved in hwala transaction for the
purpose of facilating the blasts
5. Justice P.D kode in a Terrorist and
Disruptive activities (prevention ) Act

4. (TADA) court found memon guilty and
awarded him Death penlity
6. Memon filed a appeal before the Supreme
court of India under section 19 of the
TADA act and state of Maharashtra filed a
reference before the court for the
confirmation of memon’s death sentence
7. On 21 march the supreme court
confirmed memon’s conviction and death
sentence for conspricay through
financing the attack
8. Memon then filed a review petition
seeking review of supreme court’s
judgement confriming his death sentence
9. On july 30 2013 Supreme court rejected
memon’s application of oral hearing and
dismissed his review petion by circulation
10. On 6 august 2013 memon’s brother
suleman filed a mercy petition before the
president of india

5. 11. His appeal and petition for clemency were
all rejected
12. President of India has rejected the Mercy
petition preferred by petitioner
The petitioner contended that by virtue of
the mercy petition the death warrant
issued would be
executed without waiting for 14 days
and hence there should be a grant to
stay .
During the period of december 1992 to April
1993 at various places in Bombay in India and
outside in dubai (UAE) , pakistan,entered into
a criminal conspiracy whose object was to
commit terrorist acts in India.
To alienate sections of the people by using
bombs and other explosive like RDX or fire
arms like AK-56 rifles , in such a manner as to

6. cause or as likely to cause death or injuries to
any person .
To organize training camps in Pakistan and
India to import and undergo weapons training
in handlings of arms ammunitions and
explosives to commit terrorist attacks.
To harbor and conceals terrorists and also to
aid, abet and knowing facilitate the terrorist
acts for any act prepared to the commission of
terrorist attacks and to render any assistance
financial or otherwise for accomplising the
object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist
attacks.
On 12/3/1993 were successful in causing bomb
emplosions at 12 different places in Bombay
which left more than 257 person dead 713
injured and property worth about 27 crore
destroyed.



7.  And thereby committed offences
punishable under section 3 (3)OF TADA (P
) act ,1987 and 120-B of IPC read with
sec.3(2)(i)(ii),3( 3)(4),5and 6 of TADA
(P)act 1987 , and read with sec. 302 ,307
,326,324,427,435,436,201, 212 of Indian
Penal Code ,and offence under section 3
and 7 read with sections 25(1-A),(1-B)(a)of
the arms act 1959,sec.9b (1)(a)(b)(c) of
explosives act,1884,sec 3 ,4(a)(b) 5 and 6
of the explosive substance act 1908 and
sec 4 of the prevention of damape to
public property act 1984

8. Charges framed
At the first instance , let us considerthe
charges, materials placed by the
prosecution,defense and details regarding
convictionand sentence.
Arranging finance and managing the
disbursement by generating the same through
his involved accused in crime for achieving the
objective of the conspiracy to commit the
terrorist act.
Arranging air tickets through his agent , who is
also involved in conspiracy namily east west
travels and others to enable the co –
conspirators and accused in the case to
undergo weapon training in Pakistan and for
having made arrangement for the loading and
boarding.

9. Purchasing motor vehicles for the purpose of
preparing them for being used as bombs and
free planting them at important locations in
furtherance of objective of conspiracy to
commit terrorist act.
Requesting the discharged to store suitcase
containing arms and ammunitation and hand
grenades which were part of consignment
smuggled into India by the absconding accused
TIGER MEMON and other co-conspirators.
At head thirdly, for commission of the offence
under section 5 of TADA act , on the count of
unauthorisely, within the notified area of
Greater Bombay from 3/2/1993 onwards by
being in possession of hand grenades,
detonators which were the part of
consignment of arms ammunations and
explosives smuggled into the country by tiger
memon and his associates for committing
terrorist acts.

10. At head fourthly, for commission of the offence
u/s 6 of the TADA act and thereby having
contravened the provision of the arms act,
1959 , the explosives act, 1884, the explosive
substances act , 1908, and the explosives rules
1008 by keeping the same in his possession and
by transporting and distributing the same to
different persons.
At head fifthly, for commission of defense
under section 3 and 4 read with section 6 of
the explosive substance act on the count of
from 3/2/1993 onwards providing premises
heaving procured, concealed, aided and
abetted tiger menon and his associates for
smuggling arms , ammunitions and explosive
into the country for commission of terrorist act
and also having possession and control
explosive substance like hand granades and
detonators with an intent and by the means
there of to endanger the lives and for causing

11. serious damage to property in india and to
enable his co-conspirators to do such acts.
Law applied to charges
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
death u/s 3(3)of TADA and section 129-B of IPC read
with the offences mentioned in the said charge .
The appellant was sentenced to R.I for life along
with a fine of rs 1,00, 000 in default to further
undergo RI for 2 years u/s3(3)of TADA .
The appellant was sentenced to RI for 10 years in
default to undergo RI 2 Years u/s 5 of TADA .
The appellant was sentenced to RI FOR 14 years in
default to further undergo RI for 2 years u/s 6 of
TADA .
The appellant was sentenced to RI for 10 years with
in default to further undergo RI for 1 year u/s 3 and
4 read with sec 6 of explosive substances act 1908.

12. Crime and sentence
Death sentence for criminal conspiracy to carry
out terrorist act and disruptive activities and
murder
Life imprisonment for aiding and abetting and
facilitating in terrorist act
Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years illegal
possessions and transportation of arms and
ammunition
Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for
possessing explosives with intent to endanger
lives.

13. Question of law
Q.1 whether or not in the facts and circumstances
of the present case emerges for consideration on
the ground of not granting of 14 days time from
the date of receipt of communication of reaction
of the mercy petition ?
Ans when the first mercy petition was rejected on
11/04/2014 there was sufficient time available to
the petitioner to make him in prison and make
necessary wordly arrangements there was
adequate time to prepare himself to meet his
maker and ,make peace with himself
In the consideration opinion to
granting further time to challenge the rejection of
the second mercy petition for which have to say the
execution of the death warrant dated 30/04/2015
would be nothing but travesty of justice

14. Q .Whether or not in the facts and circumstances’
of the present case the curative pet ion in this case
has been decide in accordance with law “?
Ans The curative petition has been considered by a
bench of three senior most judges of this court of
the supreme court rules 2013 deals with curative
petition and rule 4(1) and (2) it is found that the
procedure prescribed under the law has been
violated while dealing with the curative petition and
that too dealing with life of person
The curative person has to be considered a
fresh in terms of the mandatory requirement under
rule of the supreme court rules 2013 .

15. Case Referred
1. Shatrughan chuan and anr.v.uninon of India
and ors(2014)3 scc
It is necessary that a minimum period of 14 days
stipulated b/w the receipt of the mercy petition and
scheduled date of execution for the following
reasons : (a)it allows the prisoner to prepare himself
mentally for execution to make his peace with god
prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs
(b)It allows the prisoner to have a last and final
meeting with his family members.
2. Mohd.arif alias ashfaq vs registrar supreme
court of India and ors(2014)
Dealing with the said rule opined that in death
cases the matter should be heard by a three –
judge bench and the rivew petition should be
heard in the open court by giving maximum
time limit of 30 min to the convict.

16. Judgment
In the terms of the judgment as defined under the
rules a curative has to be circulated to the bench of
three judges
The three judges bench (H.L Dath C.J and T.S
thakur and Anil R. Dave ) held that the
petitioner has raised certain grounds in the
curative petition which would not fall within the
principles laid down in case RUPA ashok vs
Ashok HURRA 2002 . in the said that decision
the court has concluded that curative petition
can be entertained provided the petitioner
established .
Violation of the principles of natural justice in
that he was not a party but the judgement
adversely affected his interests or if he was a
party to the his he was not served with notice
of the proceedings and the matter proceeded
as if he had notice.

17. Where in the proceedings a learned judge failed
to disclose his connection with the subject
matter or the parties giving scope for an
apprehension of bias and the judgment
adversely affects the petitioner .
Some none of the grounds stated in the
curative petition would fall within parameters
indicated in rupa ashok hura the curative
petition stands dismissed.
It is a fact that the convocation of the petitioner
has been confirmed by this court and review
the petition as well as the curative petition filed
by the petitioner have also been dismissed by
the court moreover his Excellency hon’ble the
president of India and his Excellency governor
of Maharashtra have Also rejected application
for pardon made by the petitioner possibly
because of the gravity of the offence
committed by petitioner .
It has been submitted by the learned counsed
appearing for the petitioner that one more

18. applications made to his Excellency the
governor of Maharashtra is still pending if it
would be open to his Excellency the governor of
Maharashtra to depose of the said application
before the date on which the sentence is to be
executed if his Excellency wants to favour the
petitioner
 Submission made about the curative
petition do not appeal to me as they are
irrelevant and there is no substance in them
.
 In these circumstances the mrit petition
was “dismissed”