https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403632 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. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2021 08:39:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403632 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. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403632