Mere Gold Smuggling Without Threatening Economic Security of India Not Terrorist Act Under UAPA

CaseTitle:
Vaibhav Sampat More Vs National Investigation Agency

Date:
June 3rd, 2022

Bench:
Justice Mukta Gupta
Justice Mini Pushkarna

Parties:
Appellant – Vaibhav Sampat More
Respondent – National Investigation Agency

Subject

An appeal was filed by the accused aggrieved by the denial of bail and statement that mere smuggling of gold was a ‘terrorist act’ since it disrupted the economic stability of the country.

Important Provisions

1. Section 15(1) (a) (iiia) of UAPA – Terrorist act —Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or ­sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or any foreign country.
2. Section 16 of UAPA – Punishment for a terrorist act.
3. Section 108 of Customs Act – Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.

Overview

• On 28th August 2020, eight accused were caught with 504 gold bars weighing 83.621 kilograms.
• The above activity was registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for alleged criminal conspiracy and terrorist activities damaging the monetary stability of India as provided under Section 15(1) (a) (iiia) of UAPApunishable under Section 16 of the UAPA.
• The accused were charged under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the UAP Act, 1967.
• The accused were denied bail.
• Thereby this current appeal was filed by the accused aggrieved by the impugned order which denied bail.

Issues raised

1. Whether mere smuggling of drugs without threatening the economic security of the country amounts to a ‘terrorist act’?
2. Whether the appellants can be granted bail?

Advancements made by the Appellants

• The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondent had no evidence against the appellants except the statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
• The statements made were recorded by the customs officer which was inadmissible in a trial under the UAPA.
• There was no material evidence to prove that the gold bars possessed by the appellants were brought from outside the country.
• The smuggling of gold will not be taken as a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 (1) (a) (iiia) of the UAPA.
• The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon two cases that is Muhammed Shafi vs. National Investigation Agency (2021 SCC OnLine Ker 902) and Rashid Qureshi vs. National Investigation Agency (Criminal Appeal No.22/2021) which stated that the smuggling of gold will not be included in the term ‘other material’ as used in Section 15 (1) (a) (iiia) of the UAPA while granting bail to the accused.

Advancements made by the Respondent

• The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence.
• The learned counsel relied upon the case of K.I Pavunny Vs. Assistant Collector (1997 (3) SCC 721) which stated that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be used for trial in other statutes as well.
• The amendment to Section 15 made the trade of gold a ‘terrorist act’.
• All eight accused acted in conspiracy and were traveling together under dummy names which demonstrated their culpable mensrea.
• Since gold is a universally accepted currency the appellants wanted to commit a terrorist act by disturbing the economic stability of the country.
• Therefore, due to these reasons, the bail must not be granted to the appellants.

Judgment Analysis

• The Court observed that even though the said amendment was made pursuant to the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the word ‘gold’ was not added while amending Section 15 (1) (a) (iiia) UAP Act.
• Possession, use, and production of gold is not an illegal offense. The import of gold is not prohibited but rather restricted to a limited quantity.
• Therefore, the mere smuggling of gold without any connection to the economic stability of India cannot be termed a terrorist act.
• Statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act will be admissible in evidence for prosecution under Section 135 or other relevant statutes.

Conclusion

The Court concluded by allowing the appeal and granting bail to the appellants and stated that mere smuggling of gold in India without any actual reason to prove that it will disturb the economic stability of the country cannot be termed a “terrorist act”.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement