State of Maharashtra Vs. Farooq Illiyas Motorwala
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2011
Petitioner: State of Maharashtra
Respondent: Farooq Illiyas Motorwala
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2011
Judges:
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2013
Head Note:
Criminal Laws
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 3(3) – Bombay blast case – Conviction under Section 3(3) – However acquittal of the charge of conspiracy – Allegation of visiting Dubai on a fictitious passport and participation in conspiratorial meeting at Dubai alongwith other co-accused PW- 1 (approver) – As per Confessional statement of A75, respondent attended seven meetings at Dubai and took oath to take revenge on Hindus and not to disclose anything – He met Tiger Memon who spoke of teaching Indian Government a lesson by exploding bomb – He also sent PW1 to Dubai and then to Pakistan to take training in weapons – He initiated PW1 into the conspiracy – Also went to Pakistan to take training in handling arms – Whether his acquittal of the charge of conspiracy, as recorded by Designated Court justified as respondent did not do anything to further the object of conspiracy. Held, no. Finding of Designated Court, perverse.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 3(3) – Bombay blast case – Conviction under Section 3(3) – However acquittal of the charge of conspiracy – Allegation of visiting Dubai on a fictitious passport and participation in conspiratorial meeting at Dubai alongwith other co-accused PW- 1 (approver) – As per Confessional statement of A75, respondent attended seven meetings at Dubai and took oath to take revenge on Hindus and not to disclose anything – He met Tiger Memon who spoke of teaching Indian Government a lesson by exploding bomb – He also sent PW1 to Dubai and then to Pakistan to take training in weapons – He initiated PW1 into the conspiracy – Also went to Pakistan to take training in handling arms – Whether his acquittal of the charge of conspiracy, as recorded by Designated Court justified as respondent did not do anything to further the object of conspiracy. Held, no. Finding of Designated Court, perverse.
Held:
The Special Judge recorded the finding that the respondent did not do anything to further the object of conspiracy. However, he was involved in sending Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW-1) to Dubai and further to Pakistan for getting initiated in the training of weapons. The respondent received the co-accused at the airport and attended 7 conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai. Admittedly, the respondent who travelled to Dubai had a fictitious passport for a particular purpose. He further went to Pakistan and undertook the training in handling the arms, ammunition and explosives. He met Tiger Memon (AA) in Dubai, who told him that they would teach a lesson to the Indian Government by exploding bombs etc. However, the learned Designated Court did not convict him on the charge of conspiracy. Such a conclusion is not worth acceptance and the said finding being perverse, is liable to be set aside. (Para 248)
JUDGEMENT:
235. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by the Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA in Bombay Blast Case No.1 of 1993, by which the respondent has been found guilty for the offences under Section 3(3), and awarded 13 years RI with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 6 months. He was also convicted under Section 3(3) TADA, and awarded 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 6 months. However, he has been acquitted of some other charges including the larger conspiracy.
236. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :
A. In addition to the main charge of conspiracy, the charge against the respondent was that in pursuance of the conspiracy, he visited Dubai on a fictitious passport No. H-118352, obtained by him in the name of Kazi Salim Illyas and participated in conspiratorial meeting held at Dubai alongwith other co-accused Mohmed Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW- 1) (approver), who had been recruited for undergoing weapons training in Pakistan.
B. After conclusion of the trial, the Designated Court convicted the respondent as referred to hereinabove, but acquitted of some charges including the larger conspiracy.
Hence, this appeal.
237. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the respondent in larger conspiracy and the Special Judge has committed an error in acquitting him for the said charge. Thus, the appeal should be allowed.
238. On the contrary, Mr. S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (A-75) has submitted that the respondent has been awarded 13 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent has already served the sentence and also deposited the fine. Therefore, at such a belated stage, this court should not interfere against the order of acquittal, in view of the parameters laid down by this court, for entertaining the appeal against acquittal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
239. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
240. Evidence against the respondent (A-75):
(a) Confessional statement of the respondent (A-75)
(b) Confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134)
(c) Deposition of Mohd. Jabir Umar Khatlab (PW-1)
(d) Deposition of Tota Tiwari (PW-340)
(e) Deposition of Rajan Dhoble (PW-585)
Confessional statement of the respondent (A-75):
241. He disclosed that he indulged in smuggling of goods and used to go to Dubai frequently. He was introduced by his friend Latif Bagwala to Tahir Merchant. The respondent (A-75) had a passport, however, he obtained another passport in a fictitious name i.e. Kazi Salim Illyas Majid Rajkotwala and on a fictitious address. On 15.1.1993, he went to Dubai on the passport obtained in a fictitious name and attended the meetings with Tahir Merchant. Respondent (A-75) called his friend Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) (approver) to Dubai and sent him to undergo arms training in Pakistan. Respondent (A-75) returned to Bombay on 27.2.1993 and Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) also came back after having training in Pakistan in handling weapons. After the Bombay blast, Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) had told him (A-75) that a person had come from Tahir Merchant and asked him to keep guns and pistols.
Confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134):
242. The said co-accused did not name the respondent (A-75) specifically. However he corroborated that there were 7 conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai at the behest of Dawood Ibrahim and Mustafa Majnu and an oath was administered to them for taking revenge from Hindus for the damage of Babri Masjid.
243. Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW-1) deposed that on 11.2.1993, respondent (A-75) took him to Tiger Memon (AA) at Al-Husseini Building. Tiger Memon (AA) told them that during December 1992 and January 1993, Muslims had greatly suffered. Babri Masjid was demolished and Indian Government remained a mere spectator. So they should take revenge. Thereafter they were administered oath to take revenge. He further disclosed that Tiger Memon had told them that he would teach a lesson to the Indian Government by exploding bombs at various places and attack people with rifles and for that purpose he wanted persons who can participate in such actions. At this juncture, Mohmed Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) and respondent (A-75) had agreed to participate. Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) told Tiger Memon (AA) that he did not know how to handle arms. Thereafter, the respondent (A- 75) told Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) that he would be sent for weapons training in Pakistan where I.S.I. would train them and Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) agreed to go to Pakistan for the same. Tiger Memon (AA) had told them that young Muslims from all over India would be sent to Pakistan for weapons training and they decided to destroy the society and create panic and for that purpose he would get all the required assistance from Pakistan. They were also administered oath again by Tiger Memon (AA) that none of them would disclose any information about the plan. On 20.2.1993, Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) got a phone call from the respondent (A-75) from Dubai who instructed him to reach Dubai on 24.2.1993. He was also informed that one Walter DSouza, friend of respondent (A-75) would hand over the passport of Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1). On 24.2.1993, he (PW.1) received the passport and he left for Dubai on 25.2.1993. This witness also identified the air tickets etc. in the court. Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) further deposed that he reached Dubai airport on 25.2.1993 at about 4.45 p.m. and respondent (A-75) and one Tahir Bhai received him at the airport and Tahir Bhai had made arrangements for his stay at Dubai. On 26.2.1993, a meeting of Tahir Merchant with the respondent (A-75) took place at the flat of Tahir Merchant and in the said meeting Tahir Merchant told Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) that he had to leave for Islamabad where he would be given military training to fight against Hindus and particularly for throwing bombs and operating fire arms.
244. The case of the prosecution was further corroborated by the Investigating Officer as well as by the panch witnesses, particularly, Tota Tiwari (PW-340) and Rajan Dhoble (PW-585) and the documents (i.e. his fictitious passport, embarkation and disembarkation cards.) which facilitated the journey of the respondent (A-75) from Bombay to Dubai and Dubai to Bombay.
245. The learned Designated Court after appreciating the entire evidence held:
19. Thus, considering all the aforesaid self-eloquent matters revealed from the evidence of PW-1, the same squarely reveals the manner in which A-75 had taken PW-1 to Tiger Memon. It is significant to note that upon Tiger Memon telling the matters narrated in clause (3), PW-1 had expressed to him that he was not knowing to operate weapon and thereafter A-75 had told PW-1 that he will be sent for weapon training at Pakistan where ISI will help him in training and PW-1 had agreed for going to Pakistan for weapon training.
20. Since the further matters stated in further part of evidence of PW-1 having revealed the manner in which he had been to Dubai, A-75 along with Tahir Bhai had been to the airport for receiving him and the further acts committed by A-75 and the fact of PW-1 having been to Pakistan and having participated in training programme, clearly reveals PW-1 was initiated in conspiracy by A-75 i.e. the conspiracy to which he was party since earlier. Needless to add that all the said material clearly establishes A-75 having committed the offence under Section 3(3) of TADA for which he was charged with and so also himself being in conspiracy for commission of terrorist acts as observed earlier during the discussion made in Part-10.
21. Though the aforesaid evidence clearly reveals involvement of A-75 in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and himself having initiated PW-1 in the said conspiracy still the evidence reveals that A-75 had not committed any act after 26th February 1993 for furthering the object of conspiracy to which he was party or to the larger conspiracy for which he has been charged at head firstly.
22.Now considering the evidence which has surfaced at trial, it is clear that the targets for commission of bomb Blast at Bombay were discussed by Tiger Memon for the first time to other co- conspirators in the meetings which had taken place after 6th of March, 1993 at the house of Babloo or Mubina. Thus, there being hardly any evidence on record of A-75 being aware that the serial bomb Blast were to be committed by committing explosions at such place and/or himself having not participated in any other operation after 26th February, 1993, though the evidence reveals his involvement in conspiracy still the same does not transcend further than establishing involvement of A-75 in the conspiracy other than commission of terrorist acts made punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. Since knowledge of the object of conspiracy is the vital part for determining liability of conspirator in a conspiracy to commit the offences and even though some suspicion might be arising due to the acts committed by A-75 also being involved in larger conspiracy as every conspirator need not know every act to be committed by other conspirators or the other conspirators still the same cannot take the place of proof of involvement of A-75 for the larger conspiracy.
(Emphasis added)
246. The Special Judge while dealing with the sentence part observed :
Thus guilt of A-75 for offence of conspiracy has remained confined to the extent of himself being guilty for offence of conspiracy to commit terrorist act. Needless to add that it was neither prosecution case nor any evidence has surfaced on record revealing that either A-75 had participated in any of the further operation which were effected for furthering the larger object of conspiracy and/or himself being aware that the explosions were to be committed in Bombay by the co- conspirators.
xxxxx
Thus in light of reasoning given aforesaid, it will be difficult to accept submission of ld. Chief P.P. to give maximum to A-75 for the reasons canvassed by him and dealt earlier and so also for any other reason, Which is also precisely absent. At the cost of repetition, it will be necessary to say, that even it is accepted that inducting such person into conspiracy is a heinous act still merely on said count awarding maximum punishment to accused responsible for same de hors considering the extent of other acts committed by him and thereby assessing the element of criminality existing in him would amount allowing oneself to be swayed by feelings and would amount of having acted without any logical reasoning behind it. Needless to add that an adult person joining any conspiracy would be always due to such decision taken by him the entire liability of his such a decision cannot be fastened upon other who have advocated with him for joining such a conspiracy. Having regard to the same, while awarding punishment to A-75 it will be necessary to take into account the gravity of the act committed by him and so also the other circumstances relevant to same as urged on his behalf or even otherwise.
However, at the same time the relevant facet spelt from evidence that A-75 had not committed any terrorist act at any point of time or after 24th Feb., 1993 any act furthering the object of conspiracy for which he has been found to be guilty or furthering object of larger conspiracy of which outcome was Serial Bomb Blast.
247. The parameters laid down by this Court in entertaining the appeal against the order of acquittal have to be applied.
248. The Special Judge recorded the finding that the respondent did not do anything to further the object of conspiracy. However, he was involved in sending Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW-1) to Dubai and further to Pakistan for getting initiated in the training of weapons. The respondent received the co-accused at the airport and attended 7 conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai. Admittedly, the respondent who travelled to Dubai had a fictitious passport for a particular purpose. He further went to Pakistan and undertook the training in handling the arms, ammunition and explosives. He met Tiger Memon (AA) in Dubai, who told him that they would teach a lesson to the Indian Government by exploding bombs etc. However, the learned Designated Court did not convict him on the charge of conspiracy. Such a conclusion is not worth acceptance and the said finding being perverse, is liable to be set aside.
248.1 The appeal is allowed. The respondent has now been convicted for the charge first and awarded the life imprisonment. He is directed to surrender before the learned Designated Court within a period of four weeks to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the Designated Court will secure his custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence.
236. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :
A. In addition to the main charge of conspiracy, the charge against the respondent was that in pursuance of the conspiracy, he visited Dubai on a fictitious passport No. H-118352, obtained by him in the name of Kazi Salim Illyas and participated in conspiratorial meeting held at Dubai alongwith other co-accused Mohmed Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW- 1) (approver), who had been recruited for undergoing weapons training in Pakistan.
B. After conclusion of the trial, the Designated Court convicted the respondent as referred to hereinabove, but acquitted of some charges including the larger conspiracy.
Hence, this appeal.
237. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the respondent in larger conspiracy and the Special Judge has committed an error in acquitting him for the said charge. Thus, the appeal should be allowed.
238. On the contrary, Mr. S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (A-75) has submitted that the respondent has been awarded 13 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent has already served the sentence and also deposited the fine. Therefore, at such a belated stage, this court should not interfere against the order of acquittal, in view of the parameters laid down by this court, for entertaining the appeal against acquittal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
239. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
240. Evidence against the respondent (A-75):
(a) Confessional statement of the respondent (A-75)
(b) Confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134)
(c) Deposition of Mohd. Jabir Umar Khatlab (PW-1)
(d) Deposition of Tota Tiwari (PW-340)
(e) Deposition of Rajan Dhoble (PW-585)
Confessional statement of the respondent (A-75):
241. He disclosed that he indulged in smuggling of goods and used to go to Dubai frequently. He was introduced by his friend Latif Bagwala to Tahir Merchant. The respondent (A-75) had a passport, however, he obtained another passport in a fictitious name i.e. Kazi Salim Illyas Majid Rajkotwala and on a fictitious address. On 15.1.1993, he went to Dubai on the passport obtained in a fictitious name and attended the meetings with Tahir Merchant. Respondent (A-75) called his friend Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) (approver) to Dubai and sent him to undergo arms training in Pakistan. Respondent (A-75) returned to Bombay on 27.2.1993 and Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) also came back after having training in Pakistan in handling weapons. After the Bombay blast, Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) had told him (A-75) that a person had come from Tahir Merchant and asked him to keep guns and pistols.
Confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134):
242. The said co-accused did not name the respondent (A-75) specifically. However he corroborated that there were 7 conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai at the behest of Dawood Ibrahim and Mustafa Majnu and an oath was administered to them for taking revenge from Hindus for the damage of Babri Masjid.
243. Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW-1) deposed that on 11.2.1993, respondent (A-75) took him to Tiger Memon (AA) at Al-Husseini Building. Tiger Memon (AA) told them that during December 1992 and January 1993, Muslims had greatly suffered. Babri Masjid was demolished and Indian Government remained a mere spectator. So they should take revenge. Thereafter they were administered oath to take revenge. He further disclosed that Tiger Memon had told them that he would teach a lesson to the Indian Government by exploding bombs at various places and attack people with rifles and for that purpose he wanted persons who can participate in such actions. At this juncture, Mohmed Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) and respondent (A-75) had agreed to participate. Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) told Tiger Memon (AA) that he did not know how to handle arms. Thereafter, the respondent (A- 75) told Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) that he would be sent for weapons training in Pakistan where I.S.I. would train them and Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) agreed to go to Pakistan for the same. Tiger Memon (AA) had told them that young Muslims from all over India would be sent to Pakistan for weapons training and they decided to destroy the society and create panic and for that purpose he would get all the required assistance from Pakistan. They were also administered oath again by Tiger Memon (AA) that none of them would disclose any information about the plan. On 20.2.1993, Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) got a phone call from the respondent (A-75) from Dubai who instructed him to reach Dubai on 24.2.1993. He was also informed that one Walter DSouza, friend of respondent (A-75) would hand over the passport of Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1). On 24.2.1993, he (PW.1) received the passport and he left for Dubai on 25.2.1993. This witness also identified the air tickets etc. in the court. Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) further deposed that he reached Dubai airport on 25.2.1993 at about 4.45 p.m. and respondent (A-75) and one Tahir Bhai received him at the airport and Tahir Bhai had made arrangements for his stay at Dubai. On 26.2.1993, a meeting of Tahir Merchant with the respondent (A-75) took place at the flat of Tahir Merchant and in the said meeting Tahir Merchant told Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW.1) that he had to leave for Islamabad where he would be given military training to fight against Hindus and particularly for throwing bombs and operating fire arms.
244. The case of the prosecution was further corroborated by the Investigating Officer as well as by the panch witnesses, particularly, Tota Tiwari (PW-340) and Rajan Dhoble (PW-585) and the documents (i.e. his fictitious passport, embarkation and disembarkation cards.) which facilitated the journey of the respondent (A-75) from Bombay to Dubai and Dubai to Bombay.
245. The learned Designated Court after appreciating the entire evidence held:
19. Thus, considering all the aforesaid self-eloquent matters revealed from the evidence of PW-1, the same squarely reveals the manner in which A-75 had taken PW-1 to Tiger Memon. It is significant to note that upon Tiger Memon telling the matters narrated in clause (3), PW-1 had expressed to him that he was not knowing to operate weapon and thereafter A-75 had told PW-1 that he will be sent for weapon training at Pakistan where ISI will help him in training and PW-1 had agreed for going to Pakistan for weapon training.
20. Since the further matters stated in further part of evidence of PW-1 having revealed the manner in which he had been to Dubai, A-75 along with Tahir Bhai had been to the airport for receiving him and the further acts committed by A-75 and the fact of PW-1 having been to Pakistan and having participated in training programme, clearly reveals PW-1 was initiated in conspiracy by A-75 i.e. the conspiracy to which he was party since earlier. Needless to add that all the said material clearly establishes A-75 having committed the offence under Section 3(3) of TADA for which he was charged with and so also himself being in conspiracy for commission of terrorist acts as observed earlier during the discussion made in Part-10.
21. Though the aforesaid evidence clearly reveals involvement of A-75 in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and himself having initiated PW-1 in the said conspiracy still the evidence reveals that A-75 had not committed any act after 26th February 1993 for furthering the object of conspiracy to which he was party or to the larger conspiracy for which he has been charged at head firstly.
22.Now considering the evidence which has surfaced at trial, it is clear that the targets for commission of bomb Blast at Bombay were discussed by Tiger Memon for the first time to other co- conspirators in the meetings which had taken place after 6th of March, 1993 at the house of Babloo or Mubina. Thus, there being hardly any evidence on record of A-75 being aware that the serial bomb Blast were to be committed by committing explosions at such place and/or himself having not participated in any other operation after 26th February, 1993, though the evidence reveals his involvement in conspiracy still the same does not transcend further than establishing involvement of A-75 in the conspiracy other than commission of terrorist acts made punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. Since knowledge of the object of conspiracy is the vital part for determining liability of conspirator in a conspiracy to commit the offences and even though some suspicion might be arising due to the acts committed by A-75 also being involved in larger conspiracy as every conspirator need not know every act to be committed by other conspirators or the other conspirators still the same cannot take the place of proof of involvement of A-75 for the larger conspiracy.
(Emphasis added)
246. The Special Judge while dealing with the sentence part observed :
Thus guilt of A-75 for offence of conspiracy has remained confined to the extent of himself being guilty for offence of conspiracy to commit terrorist act. Needless to add that it was neither prosecution case nor any evidence has surfaced on record revealing that either A-75 had participated in any of the further operation which were effected for furthering the larger object of conspiracy and/or himself being aware that the explosions were to be committed in Bombay by the co- conspirators.
xxxxx
Thus in light of reasoning given aforesaid, it will be difficult to accept submission of ld. Chief P.P. to give maximum to A-75 for the reasons canvassed by him and dealt earlier and so also for any other reason, Which is also precisely absent. At the cost of repetition, it will be necessary to say, that even it is accepted that inducting such person into conspiracy is a heinous act still merely on said count awarding maximum punishment to accused responsible for same de hors considering the extent of other acts committed by him and thereby assessing the element of criminality existing in him would amount allowing oneself to be swayed by feelings and would amount of having acted without any logical reasoning behind it. Needless to add that an adult person joining any conspiracy would be always due to such decision taken by him the entire liability of his such a decision cannot be fastened upon other who have advocated with him for joining such a conspiracy. Having regard to the same, while awarding punishment to A-75 it will be necessary to take into account the gravity of the act committed by him and so also the other circumstances relevant to same as urged on his behalf or even otherwise.
However, at the same time the relevant facet spelt from evidence that A-75 had not committed any terrorist act at any point of time or after 24th Feb., 1993 any act furthering the object of conspiracy for which he has been found to be guilty or furthering object of larger conspiracy of which outcome was Serial Bomb Blast.
247. The parameters laid down by this Court in entertaining the appeal against the order of acquittal have to be applied.
248. The Special Judge recorded the finding that the respondent did not do anything to further the object of conspiracy. However, he was involved in sending Mohd. Jamil Omar Khatlab (PW-1) to Dubai and further to Pakistan for getting initiated in the training of weapons. The respondent received the co-accused at the airport and attended 7 conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai. Admittedly, the respondent who travelled to Dubai had a fictitious passport for a particular purpose. He further went to Pakistan and undertook the training in handling the arms, ammunition and explosives. He met Tiger Memon (AA) in Dubai, who told him that they would teach a lesson to the Indian Government by exploding bombs etc. However, the learned Designated Court did not convict him on the charge of conspiracy. Such a conclusion is not worth acceptance and the said finding being perverse, is liable to be set aside.
248.1 The appeal is allowed. The respondent has now been convicted for the charge first and awarded the life imprisonment. He is directed to surrender before the learned Designated Court within a period of four weeks to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the Designated Court will secure his custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence.
