Gold smuggling and economic security: separate UAPA and customs proceedings can continue where a prima facie case is disclosed.

Gold smuggling alleged to have been intended to threaten India's economic security was treated as capable of falling within the definition of a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The pendency of proceedings under the Customs Act did not bar a separate FIR under that Act, because the offences were considered distinct and the double jeopardy objection was rejected. On the material collected, including statements and supporting evidence, a prima facie case of involvement as both smuggler and facilitator was found, so the investigation was allowed to continue and the FIR was not quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether smuggling of gold, when alleged to be intended to threaten the economic security of India, can fall within the ambit of a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (ii) Whether the FIR was liable to be quashed on the ground that proceedings under the Customs Act were already pending and the impugned FIR amounted to a second prosecution on similar facts. (iii) Whether the material collected by the investigating agency disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of investigation.

Issue (i): Whether smuggling of gold, when alleged to be intended to threaten the economic security of India, can fall within the ambit of a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Analysis: The statutory definition of terrorist act includes acts intended to threaten the economic security of India, and the provision relating to damage to monetary stability by smuggling of any other material is not confined to a specified category of material. Gold is a valuable material and smuggling of such material, if done with the requisite intent, may fall within the statutory language.

Conclusion: The allegation of gold smuggling was capable of attracting the definition of terrorist act; the contention to the contrary was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIR was liable to be quashed on the ground that proceedings under the Customs Act were already pending and the impugned FIR amounted to a second prosecution on similar facts.

Analysis: The offences under the Customs Act and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were treated as distinct offences. Separate prosecutions were held to be legally maintainable, and the bar of double jeopardy was found inapplicable on the facts disclosed.

Conclusion: The challenge based on pendency of Customs Act proceedings and alleged double prosecution failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the material collected by the investigating agency disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of investigation.

Analysis: The Court relied on the statement recorded under the Customs Act and other supporting material to hold that the petitioner had prima facie been found involved not only as a smuggler but also as a facilitator. At the quashing stage, the Court declined to undertake a meticulous merits examination.

Conclusion: A prima facie case was held to exist and the FIR was not quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in its entirety and the investigation was permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Smuggling of valuable material, including gold, can constitute a terrorist act under the Act if it is alleged to be intended to threaten the economic security of India, and where the FIR discloses a prima facie case, distinct statutory offences may proceed separately without warranting quashing at the threshold.

---