|
2022-TIOL-812-HC-DEL-CUS
Vaibhav Sampat More Vs National Investigation Agency
Cus - UAP Act, 1967 - Aggrieved by the impugned order declining to grant bail to the appellants in case registered under Sections 16/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the present appeals have been filed - Allegations of the prosecution against the appellants is that on 28th August, 2020 eight accused except appellant Vaibhav Sampat More were intercepted by the Delhi Zonal Unit of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) while travelling from Assam, Guwahati to Delhi in Train No. 02423 and it is alleged that 504 gold bars weighing 83.621 kilograms, which were smuggled were recovered from them at the New Delhi Railway Station - After the DRI carried out its investigation, the above-noted RC was registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for alleged commission of criminal conspiracy, furthering terrorist activities and also threatening the economic security and damaging the monetary stability of India as provided under Section 15(1) (a) (iii a) of UAP Act being a terrorist act punishable under Section 16 of the UAP Act.
Held : It may be noted that despite the fact that the report [Financial Action Task Force (FATF)] specifically deals with gold, the word 'gold' have not been added while amending Section 15(1)(a)( iiia ) UAP Act - Further possession, use, production, transfer of counterfeit currency or coin is per-se illegal and an offence, however, production, possession, use etc. of 'gold' is not per-se illegal or an offence - Even import of gold is not prohibited but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty - Thus mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act - Main evidence with the prosecution to show that the gold bars recovered were smuggled gold, are the statements of the accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the officers of the Customs - The Supreme Court in K.I. Pavunny ( 2002-TIOL-739-SC-CUS-LB ) held that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act will be admissible in evidence on the complaint laid by the Customs Officers for prosecution under Section 135 or other relevant Statutes - However, the term 'other relevant Statutes' will not include an unconnected Statute which does not even in its schedule include Customs Act as a scheduled offence - Section 16 of the UAP Act provides for punishment for a "terrorist act" - It is evident that in the present case as no death has been caused, Clause 'b' of Section 16 of UAP Act will be applicable which provides for sentence of minimum imprisonment for a period of 5 years which may extend to life imprisonment, thereby providing discretion to the Trial Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment from five years to life based on the facts of the case - It is thus evident that all the appellants except Dileep Laxman Patil and Vaibhav Sampat More are in custody in the above-noted RC since 21st September, 2020 and have spent more than 20 months in custody - The trial is likely to take some time, also for the reason that some of the appellants have filed petitions challenging the order granting sanction claiming that an alleged offence under the Customs Act cannot be brought in the realm of provisions of the UAP Act - Court deems it fit to grant bail to the appellants on the terms and conditions as mentioned - Appeals disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12, 13, 15]
- Appeals disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT |
|
