Mumbai: The sessions court judgment in the Javed Mozawala espionage case is expected on Friday. Mozawala (28), a resident of Infinity Towers, Mazgaon (East), was arrested on December 9, 2010, on charges of spying for a foreign country. His family has said he was framed.
The police’s crime intelligence unit (CIU) claimed to have seized during their probe photocopies of 42 pages with telephone and code numbers, eight pages of instructions on how to conduct secret operations and how Islamic groups exchange messages, coloured photographs of 21 defence establishments, bridges, dams and topographies of surrounding areas, 13 visa application forms for the Pakistan high commission, and 15 Indian passports.
The police claimed the numbers were EPABX (electronic private automatic branch exchange) numbers. “These are confidential numbers. How did Mozawala get hold of these and for what purpose? This question must be answered,” an officer had said after his arrest.
Advocate Wahab Khan, who is representing Mozawala, has found several loopholes in the police’s theory. Though the police claimed that Mozawala was a frequent visitor to the Pakistani high commission in New Delhi and met a Pakistani diplomat called Bhatti, witnesses in the case could not point out the ‘Bhatti’ the police were referring to. Khan has said that the ministry of external affairs has confirmed in a letter that there was no one working with the high commission who went by the name Jamal Bhatti.
In another letter, the ministry stated that the high commission has once employed Abdul Lateef Bhatti, but the gentleman had left India in March 2010, seven months before Mozawala’s arrest. One of the witnesses had told the court that an assistant police inspector had shown him someone’s photograph saying he was Abdul Lateef Bhatti, with whom Mozawala was in touch.
Also, while the police claimed that Mozawala had given a packet to a witness to hand over to Bhatti at the high commission, the witness told the court he never saw or met Bhatti. Mozawala’s lawyer had also picked holes in the police theory that his client had given a brown envelop to the witness to hand over to “someone” at the high commission.
The Times of India, July 5, 2013