Gold Smuggling With Intent To Threaten Economic Security Of Country A ‘Terrorist Act’ Under UAPA : Rajasthan High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesGold Smuggling With Intent To Threaten Economic Security Of Country A ‘Terrorist Act’ Under UAPA : Rajasthan High Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK3 Feb 2021 9:47 PMShare This – xThe Rajasthan High Court has observed that the offence of gold smuggling with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country covered under the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967(UAPA).The Court said that such an activity will come under Section 15(I)(iiia) of the Act.Section 15(I)(iiia) of UAPA…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Rajasthan High Court has observed that the offence of gold smuggling with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country covered under the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967(UAPA).The Court said that such an activity will come under Section 15(I)(iiia) of the Act.Section 15(I)(iiia) of UAPA mentions activities with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country causing “damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material”.A single bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma made this observation while refusing to quash an FIR under UAPA in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.”Under Section 15(I)(a)(iiia) of the Act of 1967, the smuggling of gold with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country is very much covered under the smuggling of “any other material” Thus, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not tenable”, the bench observed in the case Mohammed Aslam vs Union of India and another.The bench also observed that the FIR under UAPA cannot amount to ‘double jeopardy’ just because there was a pending prosecution under the Customs Act in respect of the alleged gold smuggling activity.”The offence under the Customs Act for smuggling of gold and the offence under Section 16 of Act of 1967 are distinct offences,hence, separate prosecutions are maintainable under the law.Therefore, merely on the basis of prosecution under Customs Act,the impugned FIR cannot be said to be violative of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of Cr.P.C”, the bench observed.Recently, a Special NIA Court at Kochi had held that mere act of smuggling of gold from abroad will not amount to “terrorist act” as per Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, unless there are materials to show that the act was done with the intent or likely to threaten the economic security of India.In 2018, the Kerala High Court held by 2:1 majority that the offence of fake currency circulation was not a ‘terrorist activity’ under UAPA before the 2013 amendment.Click here to read/download the judgmentNext Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *