New Delhi, November 2
The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) has none of the draconian provisions of the lapsed TADA and has inbuilt safeguards in dealing with the growing menace of terrorism in the country.
In an effort to allay apprehensions and misgivings about POTO, union home secretary Kamal Pande emphasised that the existing laws were not enough to deal with terrorism.
Making a presentation of the salient aspects of POTO here today, he pointed out that laws enacted by Maharashtra to deal with organised crime were far more stringent and appears to have been influenced by TADA. Karnataka had since followed suit and Andhra Pradesh was actively considering such a legislation.
He said separate definition of terrorist acts, special provisions pertaining to financing of terrorism, use of explosives in public places causing death or injury to innocent persons and weapons of mass destruction and the operations of terrorist organisations were not there in existing laws or were ineffective.
Mr Pande said the critical aspect was in dealing with acts aimed at disturbing the country’s unity and integrity. This was particularly so from the threats arising from the use of weapons of mass destruction and substances of
chemical and biological warfare by groups required special provisions in law.
POTO defined “proceeds of terrorism” and made holding of such proceeds illegal. Being a member of a terrorist organisation as also rendering any kind of support and raising funds for terrorist organisations were offences under POTO.
The ordinance provided for constitution of special courts for trial of cases under its purview. It provided for the protection of witnesses like holding of proceedings in special court in-camera and keeping the identity of the witness secret. There was a review committee which shall give its verdict within a month.
No officer lower than the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police could investigate offences under POTO. If arms or explosives were recovered from the possession of an accused or if fingerprints of an accused were found at the site of offence, these might lead to the special court drawing adverse inference against the accused but these shall not ipso facto constitute a presumption of guilt.
