Document Exhibits Jabir's Case:-                                                                          

The details of exhibits of Mr. Jabir, the 'Judgment Creditor' - (Hereinafter referred to as 'Our Client'):- Updates

RTI Application to the Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India - February 24, 2015

For the last two decades the applicant is painstakingly working for the recognition of his individual dignity and justice as well as representing for recognition of the inherent dignity and rights of the ‘Indian Diaspora’ as a whole. ... "RTI Application - Full text" MEA


Reminder to the Government of India [MEA], dated July 16, 2014

The Government of India is duty bound to safeguard the interests of its citizen who was victimized by Abu Dhabi, UAE, the receiving state. These actions and omissions on the part of the Government is contrary to the ‘Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) 1963’ particularly Article 5, enforced from 19-3-1967. Download full text: "Reminder to the Ministry of External Affairs, dated July 16, 2014" MEA

Indo Gulf Reparation Mechanism Timeline - 'Highlighting Submissions & Responses' MEA


Annotations
:
Exhibit a1; b1
[ARCHIVE - DOCUMENTS RELATING TO 'JABIR CASE']

ARBITRARY DETENTION.

The arrest and detention were against the basic principles of law. The arrogant policemen of Abu Dhabi, however, committed the atrocities in full view of the public. This proved to be their undoing.

THE REACTION OF THE COURT.

The Court expressed its shock while noticing that a victim who sought for police help from trespassers was arrested and detained by the police!

THE JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT.

The Judgment of the ‘Legal Court of First Instance’ was pronounced on 10-04-1996.

The Judgment Creditor and his brother who were charged with offences by the Abu Dhabi Police, were acquitted. The Court directed the Authorities, to prosecute the policeman involved in the illegal activities. It was found that Hassan Saeed was guilty of deception and assault. The Court criticized the Public Prosecution for concealing the assault of the policeman on the Judgment Creditor, and its tampering of evidence. Some of the material findings of the Court are:-

i) The policeman and Hassan Saeed had committed the offences of trespass and assault.

ii) The Judgment Creditor had only exercised his legal right, and he and his brother were attacked by the policeman and Hassan Saeed by taking the law into their hand.

iii) The police, which was expected to help the victims, unjustifiably protected the trespassers who were the law breakers.

iv) The Criminal Court observed that, the Interim Judgment of the Abu Dhabi Civil Court, ruled that the Judgment Creditor was the really aggrieved person and had deserved help.

v) The conduct of the police clearly proved the malicious motives in initiating the criminal complaint against the Judgment Creditor.

vi) Ultimately, the Court found that the policeman indulged in the illegal criminal act due to his greed, and that the police framed false charges against the Judgment Creditor to save their face.

DIRECTIONS OF COURT – AN ENQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF POLICE.

The Court took a serious view of the entire events. It ordered an enquiry into the conduct of the police. The records were forwarded to the Public Prosecution for facilitating the investigation. [Source: Judgment For Sale]

1
Exhibit a1; b1 Judgment (Legal Court of First Instance) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE                               

:
Annotations
:
Exhibit a2; b2


CONTINUATION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE APEX COURT.

Ultimately, the prosecution filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi. The case was posted for hearing on 18-04-1996.

APEX COURT ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ‘JUDGMENT CREDITOR’.

The Court granted bail to the Judgment Creditor on the day the prosecution filing an appeal. However, despite the bail and sureties the Judgment Creditor was not released from the prison.

INTERVENING EVENTS CONFIRMING VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMISSION OF POLICE ABOUT SUCH VIOLATIONS.

In the meantime, policeman Ahmed Abdulla Abdul Kadir filed a declaration dated 17-03-1996, attested by a Notary, where-under he dropped the contentions in his complaint. Hassan Saeed followed the suit and admitted his guilt. The two other policemen submitted that they were misguided by Ahmed Abdulla Abdul Kadir in committing arrest and torture against the Judgment Creditor with a view to extort money.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court advised the Judgment Creditor to sue against the perpetrators of the crime for damages and malicious actions.

JUDGMENT OF UAE SUPREME COURT WHICH AFFIRMED THE LANDMARK RULING OF LOWER COURT.

The final Judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on 19-05-1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that the Judgment Creditor was totally innocent of the charges. The case hoisted against the Judgment Creditor was wholly false, baseless and fabricated by the police for personal gains. The Court observed further that all the pieces of evidence proved propriety in the acts and conduct of the Judgment Creditor.

The conduct of the Prosecutor was strongly condemned. Referring to the principles of Islamic Law, the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi observed that the law had honoured the man who protected his freedom, his honour, his property and his soul. A person dying while protecting that freedom is considered a ‘martyr’.

With regard to the facts of the case, Supreme Court observed that it was proved that the policemen and other officials sought to arrest the Judgment Creditor without any right and that they curtailed his freedom. [Source: Judgment For Sale]

2
Exhibit a2; b2 Judgment (Final, Legal Court of Appeal) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE                               
:
Annotations: Exhibit a3; b3

Yet another gross violation of Human Rights was the dare devil action of the Executive of deporting the Judgment Creditor from the country as if the Judgment Creditor was convicted for a crime by the ‘Court of Law’, ignoring the concurrent judicial declaration of the Courts in UAE, the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court. While so deporting the Judgment Creditor, the Executive Branch was well aware that ‘the reason shown in the deportation order was against the truth.

The deportation order was prepared with the false and fabricated statement, with an intention to save face and simultaneously to avoid paying any reparations. The fraud committed by the Executive Branch of Abu Dhabi has caused grave injury to the Judgment Creditor, that has left him in the worst position than he was in before the fraud.

The U.S. Supreme Court has quoted that, “There can be no doubt that the continuation of a malicious prosecution beyond the initial act of instigation may inflict additional damage upon the victim”.

The Judgment Creditor was subjected to total deprivation of his liberty, his business establishments, loss of his accumulated savings and properties, and a great suffering in his dignity as a human individual. Each deprivation by itself justifies the strongest action by the competent authority, in the light of the solid evidence placed before it. [Source: Judgment For Sale]

3
Exhibit a3; b3 'Deportation Order' of General Directorate Police, Abu Dhabi, UAE                                                    

Annotations
:
Exhibit a4; b4


Deprivation of the entire property and life savings constitute a grave violation of Human Rights and the very Right to Life. There are multiple infractions of Human Rights, which constitute a more serious case calling for strongest action on the part of the competent authority. The right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the person in authority.

The ‘Debtor, the Government of Abu Dhabi, UAE‘ will stand as the fiscally responsible party until the Court Judgment is satisfied. His responsibility to do so will pass on to his successor-in-office; the successor regime is obliged to compensate the victim of state wrongs.

4
Exhibit a4; b4 'No Entry to UAE' Endorsement in the Passport of petitioner                                                              

Annotation
:
Exhibit a5


PURSUIT OF LEGAL REMEDIES IN INDIA.

The Judgment Creditor fought for justice by invoking all legal flora, including the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India, by filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996. The Supreme Court found merit in the case suggested that the Delhi High Court could be approached in the matter under Article 226. The Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 20-11-1997, directed the Government of India to settle the issue within two months of the date of the judgment.

5
Exhibit a5 In the High Court of Delhi, Appellate Civil Jurisdiction: 20/11/1997                                                   

Annotations
:
Exhibit a1; a2


From Al Wathba Central Prison, Censored Letters:-
Some of the letters received by our client from Al Wathba Prison, later his release. The censor's seal is visible in each and every page. As to maintain security the prison administrators take steps by various means as such censoring the correspondence of prisoners.


6
Exhibit (a)1 Mr. George Titus' Letter                                                                                                                      
7
Exhibit (a)2 Mr. Abdulla Khoori' Letter                                                                                                                 

Annotations
:
Exhibit (a)1; (b)2


The Documented Evidence of Torture!

The most heinous forms of torture by police, our client fell unconscious and he was taken to hospital-emergency, Abu Dhabi Central Hospital. An hospital staff still remembers the day, as treatment was made without removing the shackles, hands cuffed behind the back... Many X-rays were taken there in.

Our client was admitted in Hinduja hospital Mumbai, by the next day of his release from UAE Prison. There he was treated by different doctors, specialities including psychiatrist. Our client was advised diabetic treat due to the Pancreas disorder symptoms.

Our client have had a greater degree of psychological stress and physical harm as a consequence of brutal methods used by the Abu Dhabi police.

A near-death experience of our client and his first-hand knowledge of the realities are ample illustrations that goes into the very heart of the matter: A link to the testimonials of our client is available here - 'The Serious Consequences'.


8
Exhibit (a)1 Hospital Register Emergency Department, Abudhabi                                                                          
9
Exhibit (b)2 Hospital Register Hindula Hospital, Mumbai                                                                                      

Annotations
:
Exhibit a1; a7


Our client have been unsuccessful in getting a sanction to pursue remedies in India against the offending State of UAE which is responsible vicariously for the crimes, torts and other illegal actions of its officials.

Under the provisions, the permission of the Government of India is needed to file a suit against the foreign country. The efforts to secure such permission through legal remedies entailed much time and expenses. ...


10
Exhibit a1 Ambassador of India, Abu Dhabi - United Arab Emirates: 21/09/1998                                               
11
Exhibit a2 NHRC To Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi: 25/06/1998 (2 Pages)                                              
12
Exhibit a3 Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 29/01/1998                                           
13
Exhibit a4 H.H. Faisal, Govt-Ras Al Khaimah, UAE                                                                                                    
14
Exhibit a5 Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 25/06/1999                                          
15
Exhibit a6 Fax Message to UAE Ambassador, New Delhi, India 23/10/1999                                                       
16
Exhibit a7 To The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs, UAE: 31/03/1999                                                                   

Annotations
:
Exhibit a1; a11


Copies of Letters from Ministry, Indian Mission, other institutions and personalities in relation to ‘Jabir's Case'
Since the last 16 years, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, have been trying to contact with the UAE Authority ...


17
Exhibit (a) 1 Secretary to Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi - United Arab Emirates: 21/12/1996                                   
18
Exhibit (a) 2 Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer to National Human Rights Commission: 4/03/1997                                     
19
Exhibit (a) 3 Centre for Human Rights, United Nations, Geneve: 28/02/1997                                                             
20
Exhibit (a) 4 Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi, India: 15/06/1998                                                                                
21
Exhibit (a) 5 Smt. Vasundhara Raje, Minister of State for External Affairs: 16/06/1998                                              
22
Exhibit (a) 6 O.Rajagopal, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha: 19/06/1998                                                             
23
Exhibit (a) 7 Commonwealth Secretariat, Political Affairs, London: 22/06/1998                                                         
24
Exhibit (a) 8 Shri. I.K. Gujral, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha: 23/06/1998                                                            
25
Exhibit (a) 9 Amnesty International, Secretariat, London: 16/08/1999                                                                         
26
Exhibit (a) 10 Non Resident Keralites' Affairs (A)Dept, Government of Kerala: 18/12/1999                                       
27
Exhibit (a) 11 Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 07/09/2000                                              
28
Exhibit (a) 12 B-diary proceedings of the court - High Court of Delhi-2003-2007                                                     
29
Exhibit (a) 13 Case No: WP(C) NO.6149/1998 Date of Judgement 19/09/2007                                                    
30
Exhibit (a) 14 Information sought under RTI Act Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi/11 Jul, 2012 (PDF)
31
Exhibit (a) 15 Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi under RTI No. RTI/551/763/2012/26 Sep, 2012
32
Exhibit (a) 16 Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi under RTI MEA No.997/CPVRTI/2012/26 Nov, 2012
33
Exhibit (a) 17 Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms - Timeline Submissions & Responses - 2013
Documentations - Case No 2557 UAE Timeline Case 2557 UAE India
Exhibits Main Case No 2557 UAE Premier Contracting Case No 2557 UAE
Asset Details Case 2557 UAE Ramla Electromechanical Case No 2557 UAE
Photo Images Case 2557 UAE Miscellaneous Case 2557 UAE
 
© 2010 All Right Reserved, Lawyers India, Legal Research & Outsourcing, www.Lawyersindia.com
 


Powered By MintValley Technologies