CRL A/749/2003 of P.NEDUMARAN Vs STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT on 18 December 2003

:COMMON JUDGMENT

(Delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.)

This judgment shall dispose of the following criminal appeals,viz. Crl.A. Nos.749 to 752 and 764 TO 765 of 2003.

2. Criminal Appeal Nos.749 to 752 and 764 of 2003 have been filed by Pala Nedumaran, Pavanan, Subha Veerapandian, Thayappan and ShahulHameed respectively. Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2003 has been filed by K.Paranthaman. All these accused persons are facing prosecution for theoffences under Sec.21(1)(a), 21(2) and 21(3) of Prevention of Terrorism Act,2002 (in short 'POTA'), which offences are punishable under Sec.21(4) POTA andSec.10 of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sec.124(A),153(A)1(A) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gravamen of the charge is that allthese accused persons are sympathisers/followers of an organisaition calledLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which organisation is a bannedorganisation under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and is also ascheduled organisation under Sec.18 of POTA. There is no dispute regardingthe fact that LTTE is thus a banned organisation and exhorting support forwhich is an offence under Sec.21 of POTA.

3. It seems that a charge-sheet came to be filed in this matter on 20-1-2003 from which it is seen that the accused persons or most ofthem have been arrested on the basis of a complaint made by the Inspector ofPolice, Central Crime Branch, Chennai City on 14-4-2002 wherein it wascomplained that on 13-4-2002 evening, there was a indoor meeting organised bya Tamil Publication called "Tamil Muzakkam', having its office at No.29 Dr.Gurusamy Road, Chetpet, Chennai. It was alleged therein that the said indoormeeting took place insite the Anand Theatre, 689 Anna Salai, Chennai between6.00 pm and 9.25 pm on the topic 'An interview with the renowned LiberationTigers Chief - an evaluation'. It was alleged in the complaint that the saidmeeting was organised to discuss about the press meet held in Sri Lanka by theLTTE leaders namely Thiru Prabhakaran and Thiru Anton Balasingham and that itwas conducted under the presidentship of Pala Nedumaran (A-1) and the rest ofthe accused, viz. Pavanan (A-2), Subha Veerapandian (A-3) and Thayappan (A-4)and others also participated in the said indoor meeting and addressed thegathering encouraging the support for the LTTE. It was alleged that all theseaccused persons belonged to a registered political party called 'TamilarDesiya Iyakkam'. It was suggested in the charge-sheet further that ShahulHameed (A-5), appellant in Criminal Appeal No.764 of 2003, is the proprietorof a Tamil publication called 'Tamil Muzakkam' and that the other accusedpersons are the active volunteers and sympathisers of said Tamilar DesiyaIyakkam.

4. It is then the prosecution case in this charge-sheet that

4. It is then the prosecution case in this charge-sheet that LTTE was included as an organisation covered under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and that the Tribunal formed under that Act hadconfirmed the notification dated 14-5-1992 issued by the Government of India,declaring LTTE as an unlawful association under the said Act. A reference wasmade to the observations of the Tribunal in that order to 'Tamilar DesiyaIyakkam' being a radical chauvinist organisation indulging in terrorizing anddangerous activities with the object fo cession and disrupting the sovereigntyand territorial integrity of India. It is then contended that on 14-5-1994,the said organisation LTTE was declared as an unlawful association. It wasalso alleged that A-1 Pala Nedumaran has authored a biographical account ofLTTE leader Kittu under the title 'Kaviyanayakan Kittu' (Epic Hero Kuttu) andthat 298 copies of the books were seized when they were about to be sent overseas and for that purpose a crime was registered against A-1 PalaNedumaran. It is suggested that the pro-LTTE activities of A-1 Pala Nedumaranare to be found in the judgments of the Tribunal dated 13-11-1996 and13-11-1998 also. Then there is a reference made again to the LTTE beingdeclared as an unlawful association. It is then pointed out that there was areference in the Tribunal's order dated 13-11-1998 that A-2 Suba.Veerapandiayn had delivered a speech while inagurating the branch of 'TamilarDesiya Iyakkam' at Tambaram, Chennai and had asserted that his party wouldsupport the cause of LTTE and that in a further meeting held on 28-9-1996, hecondemned the killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka and once again asserted thatTamil Eelam would prosper soon and appealed to the people to support LTTE andthat in a public meeting held on 22-7-1999, he accused the Designated Judgefor threatening those who speak in support of Tamil Eelam would be awardedwith a capital punishment and further he had said that even if hanging rope isshown, the support to Tamil Eelam would continue.

5. The charge-sheet further mentions that the declaration of LTTE as an unlawful association was extended from time to time by theGovernment of India on the ground that LTTE was an unlawful association as itwas having sympathisers and supporters in the State of Tamil Nadu like theaccused persons herein. Again a reference is made to the judgments of theTribunal during the years 1992, 1994, 1998 and 20 00 whereby LTTE was declaredas an unlawful association for two years and it was ultimately asserted thatthe above materials established the inclination and guilty intention of A-1Pala Nedumaran, A-2 Suba. Veerapandiyan as well as the members andsympathisers like A-3 Pavanan @ Pudukottai R. Pavanan, A-4 Thayappan and A-5Shahul Hameed of ' Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam'. Then a reference is made that theLTTE has been declared as a terrorist organisation under entry 21 of theschedule appended to POTA.

6. It is then that a reference is made to a meeting held on

6. It is then that a reference is made to a meeting held on 13-4-2002, to which we have already made a reference. The charge-sheetfurther goes on to state that A-1 Pala Nedumaran delivered an objectionablespeech and the excerpts of the speech is given in Tamil, the Englishtranslation of which is as under:""We have been continuously raising our voice in Tamil Nadu against theSinhala racist attack on our brothers and sisters and supporting theLiberation Tigers. We need not fear for anyone. Without understanding whatis happening in the country, if anyone thinks that by giving small, smallpinpricks the movement can be suppressed, respected gentlemen, you do not knowwhat is the movement. I warn you today, if the right to speech and expressioncan be stopped, it can only lead to a disastrous path. It is all right if youdo not help the Srilankan Tamils, please do not give them trouble.Prabhakaran is only 47 years old but as a seasoned statesman he is tellingthat the friendship with India should be again renewed. Today those who aredescribing Prabhakaran as a terrorist are the ones who will push us back andfirst garland him when he becomes the leader of Tamil Eelam and visits Tamilsoil. If an independent Tamil Eelam is formed, it will only be a friendlycountry to India. Whether the American forces come or their forefathersforces come, the liberation Tigers can tackle them. We should rally behindand stand beside Prabhakaran. This is our duty. Today Prabhakaran appears as a great leader who comes once in thousand years. The struggle to liberateEelam soil under his leadership is not a mere struggle, don't forget it willbe struggle for bringing dawn in the lives of Tamils living all over theworld. It is our life time duty to support the struggle despite facing allkinds of oppression and thus I conclude my speech. "It is suggested from this that the speech attracts the offences underSec.21(1)(a) and Sec.21(3) POTA, punishable under Sec.21(4). It is thenpointed out that prior to the said indoor meeting, in the first week of April2002, accused 1 to 4 have gone to the office of Shahul Hameed (A-5) and haddiscussed with him about the making arrangements for conducting a indoormeeting and accordingly A-1 Pala Nedumaran gave Rs.2,000/- as advance amounttowards the expenses for arranging the said meeting and further accused 1 to 4had explained to A-5 Shahul Hameed about the style and pattern of thepamphlets and wallposters to be printed. It is therefore contended that A-1Pala Nedumaran had assisted in arranging the said indoor meeting which knewwas to support the terrorist organisation LTTE and hence had committed theoffence under Sec.21(2) POTA, punishable under Sec.21(4) of the said Act.

7. It is then further suggested in the charge-sheet that A-1

Pala Neduamaran had participated in a public meeting held on 24-8-2001 atOttanchatiram in Dindigul District, on 26-11-2001 at Pudukottai, on 1 0-2-2002at Tiruchy, on 31-3-2002 at MTT Hindu College Higher Secondary School Campusat Tirunelveli, on 1-5-2002 at New Washermenpet in Chennai, on 19-5-2002 atThanjavur Town, on 13-6-2002 in a marriage function at Swamimalai in ThanjavurDistrict and on 15-6-2002 at Tambaram and in all these meetings A-1 PalaNedumaran addressed encouraging support for LTTE and that this established theguilty intention of A-1 Pala Nedumaran.

8. It is then suggested that the searches and investigations were conducted on 8-8-2002 at the office of 'Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam' as alsoat the residence of A-1 Pala Neduraman in Chennai city and during the courseof search many pro-LTTE literature, photographs of A-1 Pala Neduraman takenwhile in the company of LTTE leaders Prabhakaran and Mathaiya were seized andalso the books written by him encouraging the activities of LTTE.

9. Similarly in the same charge-sheet, the excerpts of the speech delivered by A-2 Suba. Veerapandiyan is given. The Englishtranslation thereof is as under:

"You are threatening that POTA will pounce on us, if we talk about Tigers(LTTE). Can you threaten the persons associated with Tigers. It is certainthat Tamil Eelam will blossom, whatever the obstacles in its' way. The wholeworld welcomes the press report of Prabhakaram. It is a life-time disgrace tous that a resolution has been passed in the State Legislature condemning thepress report of Prabhakaram. Tigers have nothing to lose. They have nothingto lose except the cyanide capsules. With this, I take leave."

10. Paragraph 14 of the charge-sheet is nothing but the allegations against A-5 Shahul Hameed in more particularly and the four otheraccused persons for arranging the meeting. Paragraph 15 speaks about theactivities of A-2 Suba.Veerapandian that he was a supporter and believed inthe philosophy of LTTE or eulogised the deeds of LTTE leader Prabhakaran. Itis, therefore, suggested that he had also committed the offence under Sec.2(F)(1) read with Section 13(1) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967. Paragraph 16 gives the extracted portion of the objectionablespeech given by A-3 Pavanan in the meeting held on 13-4-2002, the Englishtranslation of which reads as follows:

"Madam Jayalalithaa, you keep on speaking like this. You are going to see onthe Television the blossoming of Tamil Eelam. You keep on talking like this.Television will see the second Tamil Nadu. When the press-meet of Prabhakaranwas telecasted, people in Pudukottai had seen it. Crackers were burst at tenplaces. I too enjoyed the press-meet. Prabhakaran spoke wholly in Tamil.Journalist from Hindu newspaper alone asked about Rajiv Gandhi assassination."

11. Similarly, paragraph 18 speaks about A-3 Pavanan and the meeting which he had attended. In paragraph 19, it is stated that A-3 Pavananis facing three prosecutions vide Crime Nos.161/96, 27/2002 and 327/2002, allin Pudukottai and Virudhunagar Districts under the provisions of UnlawfulActivities (Prevention) Act, Arms Act and Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

12. The excerpts of the objectionable speech given by A-4

Thayappan is given in paragraph 20 of the charge-sheet. In paragraph 21,there is nothing but the repetition of the earlier charges. Same is the casewith paragraphs 23 and 24 which suggests that A-5 Shahul Hameed was facing theprosecution for the offences under Sections 124 (A) and 153(B) IPC and Sec.10of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

13. Then the charge-sheet has given the draft charges also, being charge Nos.1, 2 and 3. They are as under:"Charge No.1:

Whereas A1- Pazha.Nedumaran, A2- Suba.Veerapandiyan, A3- Pavanan aliasPudukottai R.Pavanan, A4 - Thayappan and A5 - Shahul Hameed associatedthemselves with guilty intention as narrated above and have knowingly arrangedor assisted in arranging the indoor meeting held on 13.4.2002 between 6 pm and9.25 pm at Anand theatre situated at No.689, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights,Chennai 600 006, for the purpose of supporting the terrorist organisationnamely, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Thereby A1 - Pazha Nedumaran,A2- Suba. Veerapandiyan, A3 - Pavanan alias Pudukottai R.Pavanan, A4-Thayappan and A5- Shahul Hammed, appear to have committed offence undersection 21(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 thereby renderingthemselves liable to be punished under section 21(4) of the Prevention ofTerrorism Act, 2002.Charge No.2:Whereas during the course of the same transaction A1 - Pazha Nedumaran, A2-Suba. Veerapandiyan, A3- Pavanan alias Pudukottai R. Pavanan and A4-Thayappan addressed in the said indoor meeting held on 13.4.2 002 between 6 pmand 9.25 pm at Anand theatre situated at No.689, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights,Chennai 600 006, encouraging support for LTTE which is a terroristorganisation. Thereby, A1 - Pazha Nedumaran, A2- Suba. Veerapandiyan, A3-Pavanan alias Pudukottai R. Pavanan, A4 - Thayappan appear to have committedoffence under section 21(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 , therebyrendering themselves liable to be punished under section 21(4) of thePrevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.Charge No.3:

Whereas during the course of the same transaction, A1- Pazha Nedumaranaddressed in the said indoor meeting held on 13.4.2002 between 6 pm and 9.25pm at Anand theatre situated at No.689, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai600 006, inviting the support for LTTE, which is a terrorist organisation.Thereby, A1- Pazha. Nedumaran, appears to have committed an offence undersection 21(1)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, thereby renderinghimself liable to be punished under section 21(4) of the Prevention ofTerrorism Act, 2002. "

14. It is pointed out that A-1 Pala Nedumaran was arrested on 1-8-2002 and the other accused persons, viz. accused 2, 3 and 4 shortlythereafter on 16-8-2002, 6-9-2002 and 3-10-2002 respectively while A-5 ShahulHameed was absconding accused. It is now reported that A-5 Shahul Hameed wasarrested on 11-3-2003 as he had surrendered himself before the Magistrate.

15. It is on this basis that the charge-sheet is filed. We are now told that the charges have also been framed before the trial court andthe trial is on and about four witnesses have been examined, whosecross-examination has been deferred.

16. Incidentally, this is not the first bail application that

the accused persons have made. It will be seen from the dates, which we havegiven above, that barring A-5 Shahul Hameed, who surrendered somewhere in themonth of March, 2003, all the other accused persons have been inside the jailfor the last one year and seven months. In their first bail application,which was made before the trial court, the Special Judge took the view,interpreting the provisions of Sec.4 9(6) and (7) of POTA, that there was noright even to move the court for the bail till the accused persons completeone year of detention. In the appeals which were filed, the Division Bench ofthis Court, to which one of us (Sirpurkar, J.) was a party, took the view thatit was not as if the application itself could not be made at all within oneyear of detention but the application, if made, would be decided on the basisof the specific language of Sec.49(7) of POTA where it would be essential forthe accused persons to convince the court that they are not prima facie guiltyof the offences involved in the matter. The Division Bench held, relying onthe proviso to the section, that the section did not in any manner prevent abail application being entertained. It was further pointed out by theDivision Bench that where the accused remains in detention for the offence formore than one year then the rigourous conditions under Sec.49(7) of POTA wouldnot apply while considering the plea of the bail but it would be the ordinaryprovisions of bail under Sec.49(6) of POTA read with the relevant provisionsof the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly Sections 437 and 439.Taking this view, the Division Bench remitted back the matter to the trialcourt where the matter was again argued on merits and the trial court againtook the view that the accused persons could not show to the court that theywere prima facie not guilty of the offences alleged against them. Obviously,the learned Judge relied on the express language of Sec.49(7) of POTA. It isthis order passed by the trial court, which is in challenge in these appeals.

17. Learned senior counsel, M/s. N. Natarajan and K.

Chandru appearing on behalf of the appellants have taken us through the

provisions of the Act as also through the charge-sheet. They contended thatin the first place, if the whole charge is taken into consideration, theresult would be that it is only the meeting dated 13-4-2002 held in AnandTheatre complex, which would be the subject matter of the prosecution.Learned counsel then pointed out that the real import of Sec.21(1)(2) and (3)was that the said speeches should be made with a specific intention to supportthe terrorist organisation so as to bring about the acts of terrorism or, asthe case may be, so as to invite the people to join and support the activitiesof the terrorist organisation. Learned counsel pointed out that even if allthe speeches and more particularly those which have been delivered on13-4-2002 are taken to be proved, there was nothing in those speeches whichspelt out such an intention on the part of the speakers. Learned counselfurther urged that the speeches only expressed the unity with theTamil-speaking brethren in Sri Lanka and there was nothing to suggest that thespeakers propagated cession from Union of India so as to bring about threat tothe sovereignty of India. Their main plank of the argument was that none ofthe speeches made in the meeting dated 13-4 -2002 could spell out any of theoffences under Sec.21 of POTA. In fact, this was the line of argument evenbefore the trial court.

18. Learned senior counsel, more particularly Shri K.

Chandru, also argued the matter threadbare on the basis of the charge-sheet tosuggest that barring the books, which probably propagated Tamil unity, noobjectionable material has been seized in the nature of explosives, arms, etc.from any of the accused persons. From this, learned counsel urge that atleast on the basis of the charge as framed against the accused persons, twoinferences emerge. First being that the accused persons were being booked fortheir speeches made in the meeting dated 13-4-2002 only and the second being,that even if the facts and material are taken into consideration in respect ofthe some other meetings in respect of which there was no charge, there wasnothing to suggest even in those speeches that those lectures were given withan intention to commit an offence under Sec.21 of POTA and with an objectiveto create terror or to support the acts of terrorism. Shri Chandru urged thatin this case, during the pendency of the bail applications, one year periodhad already elapsed wherein, the accused 1 to 4 were in detention in respectof the offences under POTA. He, therefore, urged that the Court shoulddispose of in the light of the provisions of bail under the Code of CriminalProcedure read with Sec.4 9(6) and not under Sec.49(7) of POTA.

19. As against this, Shri I. Subramanian, learned Public Prosecutor argued that any over appeal in a meeting expressing support to aterrorist organisation would attract the provisions of Sec.21 of POTA.According to the learned Public Prosecutor voicing a support of sympathy forany terrorist organisation that too publicly would naturally be covered underthe wide spectrum of the language of Sec.2 1 POTA. Learned Public Prosecutorfurther argued that atleast from the language of the section, there was nonecessity of the mens rea or guilty intention necessary for commission ofthese offences. Learned Public Prosecutor very painstakingly translated allthe speeches, as one of us (Sirpurkar, J.) is not conversant with Tamillanguage. Learned Public Prosecutor then brought to the notice the voluminousmaterial available against the accused persons individually as well as

jointly. He points out that the speeches clearly expressed the support to theLTTE which is a banned organisation under the schedule appended to POTA. Hefurther pointed out that though the charge is not specifically in respect ofother meetings, the facts relating to those meetings were sought to be provedand were made a part of the charge-sheet with the idea to display as to howthe mind of the speakers worked. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that thespeeches delivered in the meeting dated 13-4-2002 were nothing but anend-result of the guilty intention on the part of the accused persons andwould have to be read not independently but in the light of the fact that suchinflammatory speeches were being made or were actually made even prior to themeeting dated 13-4-2002. It is suggested that the accused more particularlyA-1 Pala Nedumaran and A-2 Suba Veerapandian have addressed a number of suchmeetings.

20. While the arguments were on in these appeals, the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIESAND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA was pronounced on 16-12-2003 and the excerptscopy has been made available to us by the learned Public Prosecutor as also bythe learned defence counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, fairlyagrees that it will not now be necessary for us to apply Sec.49(7) of POTA andthe rigour therein for examining the question as to whether bail should begranted or not and the bail will have to be granted on the basis of thegeneral considerations for grant of bail which are even displayed in thejudgment of the Apex Court. Learned Public Prosecutor says that even if thosegeneral considerations are to be relied on yet, it is not possible to grantbail more particularly to the accused 1 to 4, who have completed their oneyear of detention for the offences under POTA. He points out that there arenumber of cases pending against A-1 Pala Nedumaran as also few cases arepending against the other accused persons and he further expresses anapprehension that if released on bail, these accused persons, who are weddedto a particular philosophy would not desist from committing further offencesand thereby jeopardising the security of India. It is on this backdrop thatwe have to consider the matter.

21. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the ApexCourt in People's Union for Civil Liberties case, cited supra, in respect ofthe interpretation of the provisions of Sec.49(6), Sec.49(7) and Sec.21 ofPOTA, it will not be necessary for us to examine the nature of the offences inthe light of the submissions made before us. In so far as the provisions ofSec.21 of POTA is concerned, the Supreme Court holds:"But the petitioners apprehension regarding the absence of mens rea in thesesections and the possibility of consequent misuse needs our elucidation. Itis the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that mens rea element isnecessary to constitute a crime. It is the general rule that a penal statutepresupposes mens rea element. It will be excluded only if the legislatureexpressly postulate otherwise."Referring to the KARTAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (1994 (3) SCC 569) , theSupreme Court then further goes on to hold:

"Mens rea by necessary implication could be excluded from a statue only whereit is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the Statuewould otherwise be defeated. Here we need to find out whether there aresufficient grounds for inferring that Parliament intended to exclude the The Supreme Court then referred to the decisions in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v.M.H. GEORGE (AIR 1965 SC 722); NATHULAL v. STATE OF M.P. (AIR 1966 SC 43)and INDER SAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB (1973 (2) SCC 3 72) and further observed:"Offence under section 3(1) of POTA will be constituted only if it is donewith an - 'intent'. If Parliament stipulates that the ' terrorist act' itself has to be committed with the criminal intention, can it be said that a personwho 'profess' (as under section 20) or ' invites support' or 'arranges,manages, or assist in arranging or managing a meeting' or 'addresses ameeting' (as under section 21) has committed the offence if he does not havean intention or design to further the activities of any terrorist organisationor the commission of terrorist acts? We are clear that it is not. Therefore,it is obvious that the offence under Section 20 or 21 or 22 needs positiveinference that a person has acted with intent of furthering or encouragingterrorist activity or facilitating its commission. In other words, theseSections are limited only to those activities that have the intent of encouraging or furthering or promoting or facilitating the commission ofterrorist activities. If these Sections are understood in this way, therecannot be any misuse. With this clarification we uphold the constitutionalvalidity of Sections 20, 21 and 22. "

As regards Sec.49(6) and (7), while deciding its' constitutionality, theSupreme Court first referred to the contention by the Attorney General andobserved as follows:

"Learned Attorney General submitted that the provisions regarding bail are notonerous nor do they impose any excessive burden or restriction on the right ofthe accused"

The Supreme Court then referred to the similar provisions in Sec.37 of theN.D.P.S. Act and Sec.10 of the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act and observed:"that on a true construction of Section 49(6) and (7) it is not correct toconclude that the accused cannot apply for bail at all for a period of oneyear; that the right of the accused to apply for bail during the period of oneyear is not completely taken away; that the stringent provision of bail underSection 49(7) would apply only for the first one year of detention and afterits expiry the normal bail provisions under Cr.P.C. would apply; that thereis no dispute that the principle laid down by this Court in D.K.Basu V. Stateof West Bengal, 1997(1)SCC 416, will apply; that in the light of effectivesafeguards provided in the Act and effective remedies against adverse ordersthere is no frailty in Section 49."

In the next paragraph, the Apex Court compared the provisions of Sec.49 ofPOTA and Sec.20 of TADA and also referred to Kartar Singh's case, cited supra,and declared that in spite of the necessity of an extended period ofdetention, bail could still be obtained for an accused booked under POTA ifthe Court is satisfied that there are grounds for believing that he is notguilty of committing such offence after hearing the Public Prosecutor. Thenthe Supreme Court observed:

"It is the general law that before granting the bail the conduct of accusedseeking bail has to be taken into account and evaluated in the background ofnature of crime said to have committed by him. That evaluation shall be basedon the possibility of his likelihood of either tampering with the evidence orcommitting the offence again or creating threat to the society. Since the satisfaction of the Court under Section 49(7) has to be arrived based on theparticular facts and after considering the abovementioned aspects, we do notthink the unreasonableness attributed to Section 49(7) is fair."The Supreme Court further declared:

"Sections 49(6) and 49(7) of POTA have to be read together and the combinedreading of these two sections is to the effect that Public Prosecutor has tobe given an opportunity of being heard before releasing the accused on bailand if he opposes the application, the court will have to be satisfied thatthere are grounds for believing that he is not guilty of having committed suchoffence. It is by way of exception to Section 49(7) that proviso is addedwhich means that after the expiry of one year after the detention of theaccused for offences under POTA, the accused can be released on bail afterhearing the Public Prosecutor under ordinary law without applying the rigourof Section 49(7) of POTA. It also means that the accused can approach thecourt for bail subject to conditions of Sections 49(7) of POTA within a periodof one year after the detention for offences under POTA. "

22. With the authoritative pronouncement of law regarding thebail, it would not be necessary for us now to consider the earlier argumentsof the learned senior counsel regarding the nature of the offences as we havealready made clear. We have only now to see as to whether the accused personscould be released on bail in view of the pendency of the serious chargesagainst them under Sec.21 of POTA.

23. As has already been pointed out, the following table will give the respective charges framed against each of the accused persons.

No. Case No. Name of the Crime No. Offence under Sec. Date ofappellant arrest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. C.A.749/03 Pala Nedumaran 298/02 DSP 21(1)(a), 21(2) and 1-8-02Q Branch 21(3) POTA; S.10CID Chennai Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act'67

2. C.A.750/03 Pavanan 298/02 DSP 21(3) of POTA and 3-7-02Q Branch Sec.124(A), 153(A)CID Chennai 1(A) of IPC

3. C.A.751/03 Subha Veera- 298/02 DSP 21(2) and 21(3) 16-8-02pandian Q Branch of POTACID Chennai

4. C.A.752/03 Thayappan 298/02 DSP 21(2) and 21(3) 3-1

0-02

Q Branch of POTA

CID Chennai

5. C.A.764/03 Shahul 298/02DSP 21(2) of POTA SurrenderedHameed Q Branch on 11-3-03CID Chennai

It is, therefore, clear that in so far as A-1 Pala Nedumaran is concerned, heis said to have invited the support for a terrorist organisation. He has alsoarranged for a meeting knowing that such meeting is for the purpose ofinviting support for the banned terrorist organisation and to further theactivities of the said terrorist organisation and lastly he has addressed themeeting for the purpose of encouraging support for a terrorist organisation orto further its activities. This is of course along with Sec.10 of theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In so far as A-2 Pavanan isconcerned, he is facing only the charge for the offences under Sec.21(3) ofPOTA and Sec.124(A), 153(A)1(A) of IPC as he only spoke in that meeting. Inso far as A-3 Subha Veerapandian is concerned, he is also facing the chargeunder Sec.21(2) and 21(3) of POTA identically with A-4 Thayappan, while A-5Shahul Hameed is facing the charge only under Sec.21(2) of POTA becauseadmittedly he did not speak in the meeting dated 13-4-2002. A-2 Pavanan isalso involved in another case (Crime No.201 of 2002, Kavanthapadi PoliceStation) and facing prosecution under Sec.21(3) POTA and 124(A), 153(A)(1)(a)of IPC for a speech which he had made in a meeting held on 24-6-2002 withinKavanthapadi Police limits but, we are not concerned with that matter in theseappeals and restricting ourselves only to the five appeals.

24. A glance at the charges, which have been framed by the learned Special Judge, would suggest that the said charges are predominantlyonly for the meeting dated 13-4-2002 of which the necessary particulars havebeen given in the charge. The charges are rather peculiarly worded. We shallonly take the charges framed against A-1 Pala Nedumaran, which are as follows:"The first charge against accused number 1, Mr. Pala Nedumaran, S/oPalaniappan You are the President of Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam.

Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam is an orghanisation which supports, encourages andstands by the actions of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and its leaderPrabhakaran.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is a Terrorist Organisation as per Entry 21of the Schedule read with Section18(1)(A) of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002.Knowing that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been declared as aterrorist organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 200 2 and thatrendering support and encouragement to that organisation is against law, youhave been continuously supporting and encouraging the activities of LiberationTigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, through your open acts -talks -- individually and through the activities of your Tamilar DesiyaIyakkam.

Knowing that rendering support and encouragement to Liberation Tigers of TamilEelam and its leader Prabhakaran is against law,Together with the general secretary of Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam Subha

Veerapandian and the ardent supporters of that organisations and selfmotivated workers, Paavanan @ Pudukottai R. Paavaanan, Thayappan, ShahulHameed, to give support and encouragement to the Terrorist Organisation namedLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to arrange a meeting under the title 'Worldrenowned Interview of the Tiger's Leader Prabhakaran - an appraisal'.In the first week of April 2002, in the office of Tamil Muzakkam publicationssituated at No.29 Dr. Gurusamy Road, Chetpet, you entrusted Shahul Hameedwith the responsibility of organizing the meeting, informed the detailsregarding that, held discussions and personally rendered financial assistanceand gave advice and opinion as to printing of notices and posters for theindoor meeting and continuously went to Tamil Muzakkam office for organisingthe meeting and related work and thus you have worked along with him forarranging and managing the meeting.

On 13-4-2002 from 6:00 PM to 9.45 PM, in the premises of Anand Theatre, withinthe limits of Chennai, Thousand Lights Police Station, you along with SubhaVeerapandian, Paavaanan @ Pudukottai Paavaanan, Thayappan, under the title'World renowned Interview of the Tiger's Leader Prabhakaran - an appraisal',on behalf of Tamil Muzakkam, each of you have organised, conducted and spokenexcluding Shahul Hameed in encouragement and support of Liberation Tigers ofTamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, before gathered public, despiteknowing that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been declared as aTerrorist organisation under law, and thus each one of you has committedoffence.

Thus you have committed offence under Section 21(2)(a) of the Prevention ofTerrorism Act 2002, by organising, helping and conducting that meeting inencouraging the activities of a Terrorist Organisation by name LiberationTigers of Tamil Eelam. Thus for that offence you are liable to be tried inthis court for an offence punishable under section 21(4).

The second charge against accused number 1, Mr. Pala Nedumaran, S.oPalaniappan You are the President of Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam.

Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam is an orghanisation which supports, encourages andstands by the actions of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and its leaderPrabhakaran.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is a Terrorist Organisation as per Entry 21of the Schedule read with Section18(1)(A) of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002.Knowing that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been declared as aterrorist organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 200 2 and thatrendering support and encouragement to that organisation is against law, youhave been continuously supporting and encouraging the activities of LiberationTigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, through your open acts -talks -- individually and through the activities of your Tamilar DesiyaIyakkam.

You have spoken in support and encouragement of Liberation Tigers of TamilEelam and its leader Prabhakaran even before the second week of April 2002, inpublic meetings conducted at Swami Malai, Dindugal Ottanchatiram, Pudukottai,Tiruchy, Thirunelveli, New Washermenpet and Tambaram.

Further, rendering your support and encouragement for the activities of

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, in an indoormeeting under the title 'World Renowned Interview of the Tiger's LeaderPrabhakaran - an appraisal', on behalf of Tamil Muzhakkam, held in the premises of Anand Theatre, on 13-4-2002 from 6.00 PM to 9.45 PM, within thelimits of Chennai, Thousand Lights Police Station, before gathered public -Unmindful that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been declared as aterrorist organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 20 02, andincontinuance of support and encouragement to the activities of LiberationTigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, you have spoken thefollowing:

"We are supporting Liberation Tigers. We are continuously raising our voicein Tamil Nadu against the Sinhala racial atrocities committed against ourbrothers and sisters. We need not be scared of anybody. Withoutunderstanding what is happening in the country, if anybody thinks that theycan suppress the movement through giving such small, small troubles, respectedpeople, you do not know what is movement. Don't you know the outcome ofsuppressing the right to talk, the right to write, the right to express? Itwill lead to a bad way. Though you don't help the Srilankan Tamils, don'tcause trouble to them. Prabhakaran is only 47 years old. But, as a seasonedstatesman, he says that it is necessary to renew the friendship with India.We know that, tomorrow, those who now portray Prabhakaran as a terrorist, wellset us all aside and run forward to garland him first, when Tamil Eelamblooms, and Prabhakaran as Leader, lands on this Tamil Nadu soil. Ifindependent Tamil Eelam forms in Eelam, it will be a friendly nation to India.Liberation Tigers can face the American army or even its' father's army. Weshould stand together, in support of Prabhakaran. It is our duty.Prabhakaran stands as a leader who emerges only once in thousand years. Don'tforget, that under his leadership, the fight is not only for the freedom ofEelam Tamils, but also to bring brightness in the life of the Tamils all overthe world. It is our lifetime duty to stand in support of this fight, overcoming any oppression. With that I end my speech."

You further spoke justifying the activities of the Terrorist Organisationnamed Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, before thepublic and thus committed an offence punishable under section 21(3) ofPrevention of Terrorism Act 2002.

Hence for the offence under section 21(3) of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002you are liable to be tried in this Court and punished under Section 21(4).The third charge against accused number 1, Mr. Pala Nedumaran, S/oPalaniappan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is a Terrorist Organisation as per Entry 21of the Schedule read with Section18(1)(A) of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002.Knowing that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been declared as aterrorist organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 200 2 and thatrendering support and encouragement to that organisation is against law, youhave been continuously supporting and encouraging the activities of LiberationTigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran, through your open acts -talks -- individually and through the activities of your Tamilar DesiyaIyakkam.

On continuously rendering your support and encouragement for the activities ofLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and its leader Prabhakaran.In an indoor meeting under the title 'World Renowned Interview of the Tiger'sLeader Prabhakaran - an appraisal' on behalf of Tamil Muzakkam, held in thepremises of Anand Theatre, on 13-4-2002 from 6:00 PM to 9.45 PM, within thelimits of Chennai, Thousand Lights Police Station, before gathered public-

In your speech, you have spoken justifying the activities of the TerroristOrganisation named Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and its leaderPrabhakaran, before public, and in that speech you have asked the public tosupport the Terrorist Organisation named Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam -and thus have spoken inviting support for that Terrorist organisation.Thus, for the offence under Section 21(1)(a) of Prevention of Terrorism Act2002, you have committed an offence to be tried in this court underSec.21(4)."

Similar is the situation in respect of the other accused persons excepting A-5Shahul Hameed who only faces the charge of arranging the meeting underSec.21(2) POTA.

25. We have scanned the whole charge-sheet with the help of the learned counsel and we have deliberately quoted the police case. Needlessto mention that along with the charge-sheet a list of about 115 witnesses hasbeen given as also the documents relied on by the prosecution. When we seethe memo of evidence, it suggests that the first 31 witnesses are speakingonly about the meeting held on 13-4-2002, witness Nos.32 to 50 speak about thesearch and seizure in which the books and other materials were seized from theresidence or, as the case may be, from the office of 'Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam'.Again, witness Nos.54, 56, 57 and 62 are to speak about the meeting dated 13-4-20 02. There are few other witnesses like witness Nos.58, 59, 60, 61, 6

3, 64, 65, 66 who are to speak about the arrangement made for the meeting likeadvertisement, issue of pamphlets, etc. Even the witnesses like P.Ws 73 and74 are also to speak about the meeting dated 13-4-2 002 . There areundoubtedly few other witnesses like P.Ws 70, 71, 72

who are to speak about covering the meeting addressed by A-1 Pala Nedumaranbecause they are the short-hand writers. Therefore, there is material onrecord to suggest that the prosecution relies on the speeches made even in theother meetings though the charge specifically speaks about the offence havingbeen committed in the meeting held on 13-4-2002.

26. It is very seriously argued, therefore, that A-1 PalaNedumaran is a leader, having formed an association, which has already beenbanned and the accused persons are his staunch supporters. Learned counselfor the appellant points out that barring the speeches, there is no overt actcommitted by the accused persons. He points out that the whole prosecutionrevolves around the speeches, which are made in the public meetings. For thesake of convenience, it will be better to take into consideration the dates onwhich these public meetings were held. We have already extracted that therewere six such public meetings in which accused 1 to 4 have participated anddelivered speeches.

27. It will be seen that in so far as A-1 Pala Nedumaran isconcerned, the dates of those meetings are 24-8-2001, 26-11-2001, 10-2-2002,31-3-2002, 1-5-2002, 19-5-2002, 13-6-2002 (at a marriage function) and15-6-2002. So also similar charges are made regarding in all about fivemeetings having been made by A-3 Pavanan. We have scanned the whole

charge-sheet very carefully only to find that the complaint is only againstthe speeches made by the accused persons. There is no other overt actattributed to any of the accused. This is, of course, apart from theso-called banned materials books, pamphlets, etc. seized from the office ofthe Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam. It is an admitted case that none of those isproscribed in the State of Tamil Nadu or anywhere. Learned Public Prosecutorvery fairly admits this position. Therefore, the whole conspectus of thecriminal activity on the part of the accused is, atleast in respect of accused1 to 4, would be restricted to the speeches made by them. Learned PublicProsecutor had to suggest that there has been material on record to suggestthat at least some of the accused persons have had nexus with the LTTE. Thereis nothing in the charge, however, on account of that nexus. Even if it isgranted that there is some nexus, unless that nexus has resulted or isintended to result in a terrorist activity, it would be difficult to refusebail to the accused persons. If the whole alleged criminal activity centresaround only the speeches made in public meetings then, it will be for us toexamine as to whether those speeches or any one of them is so inflammatory orso potent so as to result into a terrorist activity. We will not go into themerits of the matter at this stage for the simple reason that we are aware ofour own limitations that the trial is still to take place and the case is inprogress. We do not also wish to express anything as to whether thosespeeches per se could be spelt out any offence under Sec.21 of POTA. However,in the absence of any terrorist activity attributed to any of the accusedpersons, except delivering some speeches, it will be difficult to order theaccused persons to remain behind the bars for more than seventeen months. Itis an admitted position that the accused are incarcerated for the lastseventeen months. This is, of course, with an exception to accused No.5Shahul Hameed, whose case we shall separately deal with. Again what strikesus is that in spite of the long span of more than one year before 13-4-2002,during which the accused persons have been delivering these speeches, therehas not been any action against them except for the cases which we havepointed out above. However, when we see the chart of the pending casesagainst the accused persons, what strikes us is rather disturbing. A-1 PalaNedumaran is shown to be facing seven cases, including the present case. Outof the six cases, one is registered in the year 1992 vide CrimeNo.481 of 1992under Secs.143, 506 IPC read with 41 of the City Police Act and Sec.7(1)(a) ofthe Criminal Law ( Amendment) Act. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in aposition to state as to what has happened to this case, which is pending forthe last ten years. The second prosecution is vide P.S. Crime No.1988 of1993 under Sec.10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act on account ofthe seizure of 298 copies of 'Kaviayanayagan Kittu', a book on the LTTE leaderby name Kittu, allegedly written by Pala Nedumaran himself. Learned PublicProsecutor is not in a position to state whether the accused was arrested inthis case. He points out that it was only in the year 2003, when the accusedperson was in the custody, he was produced before the Magistrate under aPrisoner on Transfer warrant. Therefore, right from the year 1993 till 2003,the said accused never came to be arrested. Third case is vide Crime No.5 of1997 for delivering an objectionable speech at a public meeting on 28-12-1997. The learned Public Prosecutor is candid enough to admit that he was neverarrested in this case and the matter is not even presented to the court.Fourth case is vide P.S. Crime No.629 of 1999 under Sec.10 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act for his address in a public meeting on 16-7-1999.Again, for which he was never arrested even till today. The fifth case isagain for delivering an objectionable at Madurai on 2-10-2000 for which also,he has not been arrested. Last case is vide Crime No.296 of 2000 again forthe similar offences on account of seizure of Tamil publications entitled 'Tamil Eelam Sivakkirathu' compiled by him. Again, in this case also, theappellant has not even been arrested. All these cases are shown to be pendingunder investigation. If this is the state of affairs in respect of the mainaccused, A-1 Pala Nedumaran, then, it is less said the better in respect ofthe other accused persons also. One case, which has been shown against A-2Subha Veerapandian, has resulted in acquittal. In so far as A-3 Pavanan isconcerned, he also faces three other cases, which are registered in the years1996 and 200. In one of them, he has never been arrested while out of the twoother cases, one is for smuggling medicines for LTTE and the second is forburning the copies of the resolution passed by the State Government. Theso-called smuggling case has not seen the light of the day though it ispending for more than seven years. This is by far the whole record againstthe accused persons. From these also, it is difficult to suggest that theaccused persons have in the past engaged themselves in the terroristactivities so as to be refused the advantage of bail as has been held by theSupreme Court in PUCL case, cited supra. Again, the whole activity appears tobe centring around giving the speeches. However, not a single accused uptillnow has been found in possession of any explosives or it cannot even be saidthat there is any other terrorist activity conducted by the bannedorganisation in which these accused persons or any one of them are evendistantly related. Therefore, in so far as their previous behaviour is concerned, it cannot be said that atleast the four accused persons, i.e.accused 1 to 4 have committed any such activity, which would disentitle themto claim bail before us.

28. In so far as the character is concerned, it is an admitted position that A-1 Pala Nedumaran has been espousing the cause ofTamil unity. He is a much travelled man and apart from these activities, hasnot been either engaged or convicted for any other nefarious criminaloffences. He has also authored a number of books in Tamil and has theeducational qualification of M.A., M.Phil. He was also an elected member ofthe Tamil State Legislature and was also General Secretary of Tamil NaduCongress Committee. In so far as A-2 Pavanan is concerned, he is also M.A.,M.Phil. and a retired Professor in Tamil. He has not been actively involvedin any nefarious criminal activity in strict sense of the term. A-3 Pavananis also a degree-holder and is a professional public-speaker. A-4 Thayappanis a practising Dentist in the city of Chennai. Therefore, it cannot be saidthat even these four accused persons come from any criminal background. Theyhave not been engaged in any of the criminal activities. They, undoubtedly,appear to be wedded to a particular philosophy but, it cannot be said thatthey have a shadowy past so as to be deprived of the bail.

29. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, expressed that if these accused persons are let out on bail, they are likely to repeat theoffences on account of their ideology and philosophy. That by itself cannot be pressed into service as the accused persons could be bound by someconditions. Therefore, even the possibility of their committing the offencecannot by itself come in the way of their getting bail.

30. It cannot be forgotten that the offence under Sec.21 POTA

is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or withfine or with both. Therefore, this is not an offence where a jail sentence isa must. On the otherhand, we have taken into consideration, the factor thatall the accused persons, i.e. A-1 to A-4, have been in detention for the lastseventeen months. Lastly, almost by way of a desperate argument, learnedPublic Prosecutor argued that we should not consider these applications butremit the matter to the trial court for being considered. We would haveordinarily taken that course but for the fact that the accused persons areincarcerated for more than seventeen months now. It is for this reason that,with the help of the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the appellants, we went through the chargesheetsourselves and examined the contentions raised by the prosecution therein. Itis during the pendency of the appeals that the period of one year expired. Itis for this reason that we have considered the appeals as the advantage of theelapse of one year would always be available to the accused since this happensto be continuation of the proceedings, that is being an appeal. We are,therefore, of the opinion that accused 1 to 4 deserve to be enlarged on bail.We shall, however, pass the operative part of the order at the end of thejudgment.

31. This takes us to the case of A-5 Shahul Hameed. In the first place, he is running a publication called 'Tamil Muzakkam'. He is theone who arranged for the meeting dated 13-4-2002. It is the case of theprosecution that he was absconding and was arrested on 11-3-20 03 whereas thedefence asserts that he himself came and surrendered himself. Nothing woulddepend upon whether he himself surrendered or he was arrested becauseadmittedly he has not completed one year of detention uptill now. Therefore,it would be for him to show that he did not arrange a meeting or he did notassist in any manner for convening the said meeting. However, learned seniorcounsel does not wish to proceed with the appeal and seeks to withdraw thesame. Hence, the appeal filed by A-5 Shahul Hameed, i.e. Crl.A. No.764 of2003, is dismissed as withdrawn.

32. In so far as the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.749 to752

of 2003 are concerned, they are enlarged on bail on the following conditions:1. They shall be released on bail on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each, with two sureties eachfor the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

2. They shall not address any public meeting during the pendency ofthe trial.

3. If they hold passport, they shall deposit the same with the trial court;

4. They shall also be available for interrogation and shall not abscond. For that purpose, they shall also desist from tampering with thewitnesses or, at any rate, influence the witnesses.5. They shall not in any manner keep any connection with the bannedorganisations like LTTE during the pendency of the trial.

6. They shall also attend all the hearings before the trial court regularly without impeding the progress of the trial.

7. A-1 Pala Neduraman, A-3 Subha Veerapandian and A-4 Thayappan shallgenerally limit their residence to the City of Chennai while A-2 Pavanan shalllimit his residence to the limits of Pudukottai except on the dates when he isrequired to attend the proceedings before the trial court. Before leaving thejurisdictional limits, within which they are expected to stay, they shallinform the Investigating Officer.

8. Lastly, they shall desist from giving any interview to any media -audio and video - or by issuing any press statement, etc.

33. In short, with the above conditions, we allow Crl.AppealNos.74

9, 750, 751 and 752 filed by A-1 Pala Nedumaran, A-2 Pavanan, A-3 SubhaVeerapandian and A-4 Thayappan respectively and dismiss the appeal, Crl.A.No.764 of 2003 filed by A-5 Shahul Hameed.

Criminal Appeal No.766 of 2003:

The charge against the appellant in this appeal is for the offences under Sec.21(2) and (3) of POTA and Secs.124A and 153A IPC for thealleged objectionable speech made by the appellant in a public meeting held on24-6-2002 at about 8.15 PM at Nanjappa Chettiar Thirumana Mandapam,Kavandapadi, Erode District. In this case also, the situation is no differentand it is only for the speech that the appellant has given that he is beingtried for the offences under POTA.

2. We have already given our reasons in the connectedappeals. Those reasons would apply for grant of bail to the appellant in thiscase also. With this, we grant him bail on the same conditions as to theaccused/appellants 1 to 4 in Appeal Nos.749 to 752 of 2003. In that view,this appeal is allowed.

Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2003

This appeal has been filed by one Paranthaman, who is beingtried for the offences under Sec.21(1)(a) and Sec.21(3) of POTA read withSec.13(1)(b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as also Sec.4(b)(1)and Sec.5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act 1908 and Sec.17 (1) of theCriminal Law Amendment Act 1908.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal, does not press the appeal and seeks to withdraw the appeal. Learned Public Prosecutorhas no objection to this withdrawal. The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn.

34. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.749 to 752 and 766 of 2003 are allowed. Criminal Appeal No.764 and 765 of 2003 are dismissed aswithdrawn.

Jai