Anadharaj vs State Of T.N.

The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) was not sustainable due to lack of evidence proving that the proclaimed offender, Santhan, had committed any terrorist act. The Court emphasized that mere knowledge of Santhan's status as a proclaimed offender was insufficient for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering a refund of any fine paid by the appellant.