Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. N. Ganpapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, took me through the various provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and contends that on admitted facts, no offence is made out against the petitioner herein either under Section 3(3) or under Section 3(4) of the TADA Act. According to the learned counsel, the only question which has to be considered in this case is whether the petitioner can be said to have committed any offence either under Section 3(3) or under Section 3(4) of the TADA Act. He further contends that on admitted facts, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of any alleged offence under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. The learned counsel points out that the terrorist act which is supposed to have been committed in Crime No. 1205 of 1990 was on 19-6-1990, that the unsigned note which has been recovered from the said Vasanthan is admittedly by the end of Sept. 1991, and that it cannot be released to an offence committed on 19-6-1990. According to the learned counsel to hold the the petitioner herein has committed an offence under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act, it should be shown that the petitioner has abetted a terrorist act, and that to say that the petitioner has committed and offence under Section 3(4) of the TADA Act, some physical overt act is necessary with his act of "harbouring" a terrorist. He contends that first of all, there should be materials to show that the petitioner herein is a terrorist and then only after considering all these things on this aspect of the Court can give its findings. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the materials on record do not show a prima facie case against the petitioner herein and as such the finding given by the Designated Judge are perverse and based on 'no evidence'. The learned counsel relies upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Usmanbhai v. State of Gujarat, to show that at what point of time, stringent provisions of the TADA Act can be enforced. He further relies upon another judgment of the Supreme Court which is reported in Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh apart from another judgment in Kashmmira Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR SC 2147 : (1977 Cri LJ 1746) regarding the grant of bail. The learned counsel points out that, even according to the confessional statement of the said Vasanthan, the unsigned and undated letter has not reached the said Gundu Santhan alias Santhan at all. Relying upon Section 129 of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, even assuming that the petitioner has written the unsigned letter, it should be treated as a privileged document written by an advocate as an advice to a client, and that on that basis the petitioner cannot be roped in under the provisions of the TADA Act. The sum and substance of the arguments of Mr. Ganapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has not committed any offence under any of the provisions of the TADA Act, that the entire prosecution story has been built against the petitioner herein only on the basis of an unsigned and undated letter of the petitioner, confessional statement of the said Vasanthan and on a xerox copy of the letter dated 26-6-1990 received by the Superintendent of Police, Q Branch, C.I.D. Madras, which is alleged to be in the petitioner's handwriting, and that the Designated Court has erred in relying upon the aforesaid materials and has given a perverse finding stating that the petitioner has committed offence of abetting under Section 3(3) read with 2(a)(1)(ii) of the TADA Act. The learned counsel further contends that there are no materials at all to come to such a conclusion. The learned counsel further contends that the releasing of the petitioner on bail is even though the subjective of the satisfaction of the Designated Court on the admitted facts on materials, it must be reasonable. He further states that there is nothing wrong on the part of the petitioner, who appears for L.T.T.E. members, to advise has clients in such a manner and that the petitioner cannot be roped in this case as an accused for the offence of abetment. The learned counsel categorically points out the fact that the unsigned letter has not at all reached the said Gundu Santhan alias Santhan, even according to the confessional statement of the said Vasanthan.

7. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments of Mr. N. Ganapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and of Mr. I. Subramaniyam, the Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent. Before dealing with the facts of the case, for the purpose of deciding the issue involved on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the TADA Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the TADA Act which gives meaning to the "terrorist act" is as follows :

"............. Whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law establishment or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people does any act or thing by using boms, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or fire-arms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause or as is likely to cause, death of or injuries to, any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction or property of disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act ................"
The said Vasanthan has stated in his confessional statement that the said letter has been written by the petitioner herein (in Crime No. 1205 of 1990) to hand it over to Gundu Santhan alias Santhan to remain absconding. On 10-11-1991, a xerox copy of the letter said to have been written by the petitioner to the said Kittu on 26-6-1990 was received through post by the Superintendent, 'Q' Branch, C.I.D. Madras. Both these letters were sent to document expert and he opined that both were written by one and the same person. On this basis, the Designated Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has abetted another accused Gundu Santhan alias Santhan to escape from the clutches of law. Even a cursory perusal of the facts narrated above and the materials available on record would show that the said unsigned and undated letter has not at all reached the said Gundu Santhan alias Santhan. It is also seen from the confessional statement of the said Vasanthan, (which has been produced before me), that the said Vasanthan has not at all met the said Gundu Santhan alias Santhan. So, it is clear that the petitioner herein, as an advocate, has given a piece of advice to his client Gundu Santhan alias Santhan with regard to the future course of action that he has to remain absconding for some time. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner has written the said unsigned letter, I am not able to accept that the petitioner has committed an offence u/S. 3(3) of the TADA Act. The argument was that the offence u/S. 3(3) of the TADA Act is made out apart from 'harbouring' of an accused terrorist under sub-sec. (4) of S. 3 of the TADA Act. Even the Designated Court has got a doubt on this aspect and has not at all given a finding on this aspect, except to discuss the matter and leave it at that. So, on the materials available on record and the evidence, can it be said that the petitioner is an abettor under the TADA Act ? In the remand report it is stated that from the fact that both letters were proved to have been written by one and the same person, it is evident that the petitioner had abetted accused Gundu Santhan alias Santhan to escape from the clutches of law. The abovesaid statement alone is enough to say that the petitioner herein is innocent. When the said unsigned letter has not at all reached the accused Gundu Santhan alias Santhan, how can anybody say that the petitioner has abetted accused Gundu Santhan alias Santhan to escape from the clutches of law. I am to able to accept the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor based on the term "abet" which occurs in S. 2(1)(a) of the TADA Act, that communication or association or class of persons is enough for making out an offence u/S. 3(3) of the TADA Act. I do not see that the ingredients of S. 3(3) or 3(4) of the TADA Act are satisfied in the case on hand. In my view, surely the petitioner herein cannot be said to have abetted the commission of an offence under the TADA Act, more so, a terrorist act. So, I am of the view, that the conclusion arrived at by the Designated Court against the petitioner is not based on any evidence. I am aware of the extent of the jurisdiction of this Court viz. that this is not an appellate Court. Yet, when the findings of the subordinate courts and Tribunals are perverse, it is open to this Court to interfere with the same under Art. 227 of the Constitution. On the basis of the materials available on record and on evidence and also on the admitted facts of the case, no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed an offence under the TADA Act. In my view, there is no material to come to the conclusion for the Designated Court or to get satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner herein is not an innocent person.