NEW DELHI, November 7: The Supreme Court has sharply criticised the reasoning of the designated trial court in holding former Union minister Kalpnath Rai guilty of harbouring terrorists alleged to have been involved in the 1992 JJ Hospital shoot-out case.In its 47-page judgement acquitting the former Union minister and five others, including his private secretary SP Rai and the East West Travel and Trade Links Ltd, under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act (TADA), the judges held that there was no ``shred of evidence that Kalpnath Rai knew that the said person was a terrorist''.Further, ``apart from the absence of any connecting nexus between Vijendra Rai (said to be the former minister's nephew) in the JJ shoot-out case and one BN Rai, who stayed in a NTPC guest house in 1992, there is also no legal evidence whatsoever to prove that Vijendra Rai himself was a terrorist''.Coming to the conviction of the airline firm by the designated trial court judge MC Dhingra, the apex court judges said there was no scope whatsoever to prosecute a company for the offence of harbouring terrorists. There was also no provision in the TADA which makes a company liable for the acts of its officers - in this case one Sabu V Chacko, the regional manager of the travel company - the judges observed. The judges were critical of the designated judge's procedure in convicting the travel company's regional manager Sabu Chacko on the strength of a finding that he had harboured one Ahmed Mansoor in a hotel. The judges said there was no evidence to show that a Suhel Ahmed staying in the hotel was the same Ahmed Mansoor.The court held that the designated judge appears to have reasoned that ``mental knowledge'' that the harboured person was involved in a terrorist act was not necessary to be proved for an offence under the TADA. ``If Section 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'', the judges said. ``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 incarceration for a long period,'' they added.
