Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—(Majority opinion)

Notwithstanding my profound respect for Brother Shah’s erudition, I am unable to agree with his conclusions. While dealing with an accused tried under the TADA, certain special features of the said Statute need to be focused. It is also necessary to find out the legislative intent for enacting it. It defines “terrorist acts” in Section 2(h) with reference to Section 3(1) and in that context defines a terrorist. It is not possible to define the expression ‘terrorism’ in precise terms. It is derived from the word ‘terror’. As the Statement of Objects and Reasons leading to enactment of the TADA is concerned, reference to The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Old Act’) is necessary. It appears that the intended object of the said Act was to deal with persons responsible for escalation of terrorist activities in many parts of the country. It was expected that it would be possible to control the menace within a period of two years, and life of the Act was restricted to the period of two years from the date of its commencement. But noticing the continuanc.e of menace, that too on a