CASE TITLE:
Amzad Ali Vs NIA
DATE OF ORDER:
07TH MAY, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand,
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: Amzad Ali
RESPONDENT: NIA
SUBJECT
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that because the Customs Act is not included in Schedule-II of the UA(P)A, smuggling of gold, even of a quantity bailable under the Customs Act, cannot be considered a terrorist act.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
BRIEF FACTS
- On 03.07.2020, 10 accused were apprehended by Custom Officers at Jaipur Airport while attempting to smuggle gold into India from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a case was registered under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
- Because the gold seized from each of these accused was worth less than Rs. 1 crore and the tax or custom duty on it was less than Rs. 50 lakh, they were all released on bail in the Customs Act case.
- Based on the facts, the National Investigation Agency filed a FIR for an offence under Section 17 of the UA(P)A and Section 120B of the IPC (NIA).
- The accused-appellants filed bail applications under Section 439 CrPC, which were denied by the Special Judge (N.I.A. Cases), Jaipur, and the present appeals were filed in response.
QUESTION RAISED
Whether Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A, which was added in 2012, was intended to include gold smuggling in the category of 'other material' or not?
ADVANCED AGRUMENT BY THE APPELLANT
- The accused appellant’s counsel argued that the proposed amendments to the Act were referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, and that based on the Joint Parliamentary Committee's meeting, it can be concluded that the Legislature never intended to include 'gold' under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) under the term 'other material' as it pertains to other material required for minting counterfeit currency notes, coins, bonds, stamp papers, and so on.
- He also claimed that after being granted bail under the Customs Act, the N.I.A. purposefully arrested the accused appellants without any evidence that they were involved in any terrorist act.
ADVANCED ARGUMENT BY THE RESPONDENT
- The NIA's counsel argued that gold smuggling has a direct impact on the country's economic security and thus falls under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A. He also claimed that the gold was purposefully distributed among the passengers and that the value of the gold was kept under Rs. 1 crore so that the offence would be bailable.
- The Union of India's counsel argued that, while the Kerala High Court's judgement is persuasive, when there is a Rajasthan High Court judgement, it must be followed.He contended that only when the trials have been drawn out and the accused has been detained for an extended period of time has the Apex Court granted the benefit or affirmed the High Court's order granting bail.
- He also claimed that the appellants have only been in custody for one and a half years, and that the sentence under the UA(P)A ranges from a minimum of five years to life imprisonment.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court relied upon Mohammad Shafi v. National Investigation Agency, Kochi, where the Kerala High Court stated that if the Union's argument is accepted, then any smuggling would constitute an offence, threatening the country's economic security. The court added that if the Legislature's intention had been to mention that smuggling of any material is a threat to the country's economic security.
- The Kerala High Court ruled in Mohammad Shafi that Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A does not apply when gold is smuggled into the country. The Kerala High Court ruled that evidence of a conspiracy and gold smuggling does not lend credence to an allegation of a threat to economic security or irreparable harm to the country's economic security, and thus cannot be considered a terrorist act.
- The court stated that Amzad Ali had no material seized, his name did not appear in the statements of the co-accused during the investigation by Custom Officers, and his name appeared for the first time in statements recorded by N.I.A. There appears to be no evidence against Amzad Ali. The other accused, who were labourers who lost their jobs due to COVID, were asked to carry gold in lieu of the tickets, according to the investigation. There is no evidence to suggest that they intended to commit any terrorist act that would jeopardise the country's economic security.
CONCLUSION
The court clarified that anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case while deciding these appeals. Furthermore, the court clarified that the observations made while deciding these appeals are simply the arguments advanced by both parties and will have no bearing on the learned trial judge's independent opinion formed based on witness testimony during the course of trial.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
