The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'intent' for constituting an offence under section 21 of POTA and the implications of the deeming provision under section 2(3) of the Repealing Act.

S. Rajeswaran, J.

1. The above appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order made in MP.No.33/2004 dated 03.09.2004 in Special CC.No.1/2003 on the file of the learned Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

[a] On 29.06.2002, between 8.45 p.m., and 11.30 p.m. at Thirumangalam in Madurai District, the members belonging to Madurai District Wing of MDMK Party conducted a public meeting under the Presidentship of Veera Ilavarasan, who is the Madurai District Secretary of MDMK. Mr. Vaiko, the first appellant herein, was the special Speaker in the said meeting. It was alleged that the first appellant herein delivered objectionable speech, encouraging support for the terrorist Organisation, i.e., LTTE. Since the speech attracts commission of offence u/s.21[3] of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 [hereinafter called POTA], a complaint was lodged against the first appellant herein and 8 others which was registered in Cr.No.280 of 2002 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District, on 30.12.2002. A final report was filed by them stating that the appellants herein were accused of committing the offences punishable under section 21 of POTA and the Special Court constituted under section 23 of POTA took cognizance in Special CC.No.1/2003, framed the charges and proceeded with the trial.

[b] In the meantime, the Central Government nominated a Review Committee under section 60 of POTA. On the application filed by the appellants herein, the Review Committee enquired the matter in detail, analysed the speeches made by the appellants herein and found that the speeches made cannot be said to be speeches made for the purpose of encouraging support for LTTE or to further its activities. With regard to speech of the first appellant, the Review Committee, in due consideration of the materials made available, found that there is nothing to suggest that the first appellant, has, at any time, been involved in any act of violence, much less acts of terrorism. It was further observed by the Review Committee that sympathy or oral support for the cause of Eelam Tamils does not mean support for the ideology or methodology adopted by LTTE. Thus, the Committee concluded that the speech of the first appellant would not fall within the ambit of section 21[3] of POTA. Finally, the Review Committee concluded in its order dated 08.04.2004 that there was no prima facie case for proceeding against the appellants herein in Crime No.280/2002, registered before the Thirumangalam Town Police Station under POTA. Consequently, the Review Committee directed the State of Tamil Nadu to take suitable steps forthwith, including giving of instructions to Public Prosecutor to seek appropriate orders from the concerned courts in this case, in accordance with law.

[c] Therefore, in pursuance of the said directions issued by the Review Committee by its order dated 08.04.2004, the Public Prosecutor filed an application in MP.No.33/2004 under section 321[b] Cr.P.C. seeking sanction of the Special Court to withdraw from prosecution of all the accused, the appellants herein, as empowered under section 321[b] Cr.P.C., in the light of the order passed by the Review Committee on POTA dated 08.04.2004. But, the Special Court, by its order dated 03.09.2004, dismissed the said MP.No.33/2004. Aggrieved by the order made in MP.No.33/2004 dated 03.09.2004 in Special CC.No.1/2003 passed by the Special Court, the appellants herein approached the Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in SLP [Crl.] No.4801/2004. On 08.10.2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted leave to issue notice and stayed the trial court’s proceedings. The SLP [Crl.] No.4801/2004 has been numbered as Crl.A.No.1165/2004. After about 9 years, the above said criminal appeal came up for final hearing on 05.03.2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, during the course of the