Kalpnath Rai, Appellants v. State (through CBI), Respondent

M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987), Section 3(4) - Offence regarding harbouring terrorist - Word "harbours" used in Act - Must be understood in its ordinary meaning as for penal provisions - Mens rea is essential ingredient for offence under Section 3 (4).

The word "harbours" used in TADA must be understood in its ordinary meaning as for penal provisions. It is reasonable to attribute a mental element (such as knowledge that the harboured person was involved in a terrorist act) as indispensable to make it a penal act. That apart, there is nothing in the Act, either expressly or even by implication, to indicate that mens rea has been excluded from the offence under Sec 3(4) of TADA. If Sec 3(4) is understood as imposing harsh punishment on a person who gives shelter to a terrorist without knowing that he was a terrorist such an understanding would lead to calamitous consequences. Many an innocent person, habituated to offer hospitality to friends and relatives or disposed to zeal of charity, giving accommodation and shelter to others without knowing that their guests were involved in terrorist acts, would then be exposed to incarnation for a long period. Therefore the mens rea is an essential ingredient for the offence envisaged in Sec 3(4) of TADA.                                                                                                      (Source: AIR 1998 Suprenie Court 201)