TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-B of IPC. 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. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers VS. State of U.P. and 3 others; I. (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54 Prem Chand Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. H. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 994 Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India and Others. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... UOI Decided on 18.01.2019, Rajasthan High Court; 2. Punit Vs. State 2017 SCC Online 4061; 3. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Ahdullah Jilani (2017) 2 SCC 779; 4. Naresh J. Sukhwani Vs. UOI (1995) Supp 4 663; 5. State of Jharkand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (2017) 8 SCC 6. Monica Bedi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 1 SCC 284; 7. Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. UOI (2003) 6 SCC 161; 8. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin (2018) 5 SCC 718; 9. UOI Vs. P.P. Sharma (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 222; 10. Mannu Bhai Najbhai Dhandhal Vs. Commissioner of Police SCA No. 9651/2019; 11. State Vs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187; 12. State Vs. Bimal Krishna Kandu (1997) 8 SCC 104; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or] (iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or (b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or (c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in this provision. The gold is certainly a valuable material, smuggling of which can be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not tenable. The present FIR has been registered on sufficient material came to the notice of the NIA under the prosecution of the present petitioner and others under the Customs act and otherwise. As per statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of Customs act and the statements of other co-accused persons and on the basis of other material, the present petitioner has been prima facie found to be smuggler of gold as well as the facilitator of the alleged smuggling. Therefore, it cannot ....