Recently, in the case of Mohammed Aslam v. Union of India, the High Court of Rajasthan stated that under section 15(l)(a) (iiia) of the Act of 1967, the smuggling of gold with the intention to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country is very much covered under the smuggling of \u201cany other material\u201d and is thus included under the Terrorist Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since smuggling of any valuable material can cause damage to the monetary stability of the nation which may have an impact to threaten or likely to threaten economic security, therefore, the legislature in its own wisdom appears to have not specified particular material in this provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not tenable. The Court stated it while refusing to quash the FIR under UAPA in a petition which was filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court further stated that the FIR filed under the UAPA Act cannot amount to double jeopardy if there was a pending prosecution under the Customs Act in respect of the alleged gold smuggling activity. The offences under the Customs Act and the Act of 1967 are distinct offences prosecution of which can run separately and it would not be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Recently, in the case of Mohammed Aslam v. Union of India, the High Court of Rajasthan stated that under section 15(l)(a) (iiia) of the Act of 1967, the smuggling of gold with the intention to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country is very much covered under the smuggling of \u201cany […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":177,"featured_media":8464,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28,1399],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n