P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Mohammed Aslam Vs. Union Of India - (High Court of Rajasthan) (01 Feb 2021)

Separate prosecution for offence under Customs Act for smuggling of gold and offence under Section 16 of UAPA maintainable

MANU/RH/0009/2021

Criminal

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 483 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR filed under Section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) r/w Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner have placed on record that along with the petitioners, nine (9) other people are facing trial under the Customs Act for smuggling 18.569 kgs of gold before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences) and the second FIR on similar allegation is not maintainable. He further adds that the action taken by the NIA is discriminatory to the present petitioners. The petitioner is implicated on the suspicion that he had smuggled gold with intent to threaten the economic stability of the country u/s 15 (I)(a)(iiia) of Act, however, smuggling of gold is not covered in the term ‘any other material’. Therefore, the FIR is a glaring example of abuse of power.

The Court observed that offences under both the acts are very different and hence, separate prosecution is maintainable under the law. Therefore, prosecution based merely on the provisions of Customs Act is not violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the crime being of serious nature, bail cannot be granted. No case is made out and hence petition dismissed.

Tags : BAIL APPLICATION   NATURE OF OFFENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved