The Rajasthan High Court held that the gold smuggling with intent to threaten the economic security of India is a ‘terrorist act’ under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
The petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR under section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 120-B of IPC.
The petitioner, Mohammed Aslam and other nine persons are facing trial under Customs Act for smuggling of 18.569 kilograms of gold.
Mr. Farooq Ahmed, counsel for the petitioner contended that the customs authorities often launch criminal prosecution for smuggling of gold but no such criminal case has ever been registered by the NIA. The action of NIA is discriminatory to the petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General has vehemently opposed the petition with the submissions that the accused-petitioner has been found to be involved in smuggling of huge quantity of gold with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country which is prima facie a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the Act of 1967.
“In view of his own statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act and other supporting material he has not been found only as a smuggler but as a facilitator who has facilitated other persons in smuggling activities. Therefore, the impugned FIR has been registered against him,” Mr. Rastogi added.
The single-judge bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma noted that as per the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of Customs act and the statements of other co-accused persons and on the basis of other material, the present petitioner has been prima facie found to be a smuggler of gold as well as the facilitator of the alleged smuggling.
“It is true that every act of smuggling may not be covered under the definition of Terrorist act and only such smuggling of any material can be termed as Terrorist act which is done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security and to cause damage to the monetary stability of the country. In this case, the petitioner has been found to be a smuggler of huge quantities of gold as well as a facilitator to other fellow smugglers. Therefore, it cannot be said that this FIR is a discriminatory act towards him,” the High Court while dismissing the petition said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
