Smuggling of valuable materials, such as gold, can constitute a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 if done with intent to threaten the economic security of the country.

ORDER :

Satish Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 36/2020/NIA/DLI/22-09-2020 registered at Police Station NIA, New Delhi under section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act of 1967) read with Section 120-B of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. T.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondents and perused the material made available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner and other nine persons are facing trial under Customs Act for smuggling of 18.569 kilograms of gold before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, still the present FIR has been registered by the NIA and the same being the second FIR on similar allegations is not maintainable. He further submits that the customs authorities often launch criminal prosecution for smuggling of gold but no such criminal case has ever been registered by the NIA. Thus, the action of NIA is discriminatory to the present petitioner. The impugned FIR has been registered only on the basis of suspicion whereas such FIR can only be registered for prima facie involvement of any person in terrorist activities as defined under Section 15 of the Act of 1967. The petitioner is being implicated on the allegation that he has smuggled the gold with intent to threaten the economic security of India as per provisions of Section 15(I)(a)(iiia) but in this provision smuggling of gold is not covered in the term "any other material". Thus, the present FIR is a glaring example of abuse of process which deserves to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

A. Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supreme Court);

B. (1996) 2 RLW 578 Raguraj Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another;

C. (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 71 Dadi Jagannadham Vs. Jammulu Ramulu and Others;

D. (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 119 Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur Vs. Ramdev Tobacco Company;

E. Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand;

F. Criminal Application ST. No. 5028 of 2020 Kangana Ranaut & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)

G. Criminal Mis. Writ Petition No. 5019 of 2020 Suryaprakash Singh Verma @ Golu & Others VS. State of U.P. and others;

I. (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54 Prem Chand Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.

H. Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India and Others.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. T.P. Sharma, Advocate 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 a smuggler but a facilitator also who has facilitated other persons in smuggling activities. Therefore, the impugned FIR has been registered against him.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The offence, herein, is very ser