SC to examine whether gold smuggling would come within the scope of “terrorist act” under UAPA

The Apex Court decided to examine whether the act of gold smuggling, committed with an intent to earn profit, would be covered within the definition of “terrorist act” mentioned under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

The court would examine whether the said act falls within the scope of terrorist economic activity provided under Section 15(1)(iiia) of the UAPA.

The petitioner approached the court upon Rajasthan High Court’s order which refused to quash the FIR lodged against him under the UAPA for the offence of gold smuggling. The apex court has issued a notice to examine the scope of Section 15(1)(iiia) under the said plea.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with 9 other individuals, was arrested by the Custom Department officials at the Jaipur International Airport and more than 18kgs of gold had been seized by the officials.

The petitioner stated that he committed the crime during the pandemic and was released on bail. An FIR was registered against him at New Delhi under the provisions of UAPA on the ground that smuggling was committed in order to threaten the economic stability of India.

In furtherance of a plea filed before Rajasthan HC, the bench held petitioner’s act to be against the nation’s economic security and thus denied to quash the FIR. The bench was also of the opinion that FIR under UAPA would not cause “double jeopardy.”

The petitioner, through his plea before Supreme Court, contended that an act which is committed with an intention to cause damage to economic security of country would be attracted under the said definition.

The petitioner also contended that even though gold smuggling had been committed in large quantity, it should be dealt under Customs Act only and not UAPA. The petitioner also highlighted the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 15 and stated that it did not intend to incorporate smuggling of gold within its jurisdiction

The petitioner also submitted that no prima facie case is being formed against him under the UAPA and thus said FIR should be quashed.