JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.—

1.I have perused the judgment of my learned brother Hon’ble S.B. Sinha, J. in this case. The facts of the case have been narrated in the judgment of my learned brother and hence I am not repeating the same. I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother.

2.However, there is an important constitutional point which though not taken in the Criminal Appeal before us, is of such great importance that I wish to express my opinion on the same.

3.The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) stated initially in Section 1(4) thereof that the said Act will remain in operation for a period of two years from 24.5.1987, but thereafter by amendments from time to time the period of two years was extended to four years, then six years and lastly for eight years.

4.Thus Section 1(4) of the Act as it stood ultimately read as follows :

“It shall remain in force for a period of [eight years] from the 24th day of May, 1987, but its expiry under the operation of this sub-section shall not affect

(a)the previous operation of, or anything duly done or suffered under this Act or any rule made thereunder