Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act
Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 deals with punishment for raising funds for terrorist act. 1, [17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.--Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds, whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or collects funds The Act came into force on 30 Dec 1967.
1, 2[17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.--Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds, whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or collects funds for any person or persons, knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding whether such funds were actually used or not for commission of such act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section,
(a) participating, organising or directing in any of the acts stated therein shall constitute an offence;
(b) raising funds shall include raising or collecting or providing funds through production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian currency; and
(c) raising or collecting or providing funds, in any manner for the benefit of, or, to an individual terrorist, terrorist gang or terrorist organisation for the purpose not specifically covered under section 15 shall also be construed as an offence.]
Section 17, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-21.pdf 2023-07-28 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.A. 639/2023 with 640/2023 (Arun Ferreira). Aniruddha Bose J. REPORTABLE. Bhima-Koregaon UAPA bail. Charged IPC 121/121A/124A/153A/505/117/120B/34 + UAPA 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40. Isolate: letters/membership/finances do not make out a prima facie terrorist act under s.15, so Chapter IV accusations including s.17 (raising funds for a terrorist act — AF alleged to manage CPI(Maoist) finances) and s.20 (membership of a terrorist gang/organisation involved in a terrorist act) are not prima facie true; bail granted under the 43D(5) sieve. Distinctive from Arup Bhuyan s.10 and Thwaha 38/39. Skip 16 (punishment follows 15 — same pad as Tanha). Do not pad 15/18 (Tanha), 13/38/39 (Thwaha), 43D (Najeeb), NIA 6/8 (Pradeep Ram). Do not pad IPC 121-series.
On this section: UAPA s.17 raising funds for a terrorist act is not prima facie true on letters alleging that an accused managed a banned organisation's finances without materials showing funds for a terrorist act (Vernon).
-
Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on pertinent and relevant material capable of objective scrutiny. Statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, standing alone and without corroborating material, are insufficient to form the basis for a detention order as they are not substantive evidence but can only be used to contradict the maker at trial. When grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant, or not supported by material evidence, or when there is unexplained delay in forwarding representation to the Central Government, the detention order becomes vulnerable to being quashed on judicial review. The difficulty of the prosecution in securing evidence for conviction through normal trial cannot justify resorting to preventive detention.
On this section: Criminal charges against detenu in FIR No. 183(9)09
-
L. Deben Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cognizance order taken by a court against a public servant for an offence allegedly committed during discharge of official duty without prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is void ab initio and non-existent in the eye of law from its very inception. Consequently, when such void cognizance is set aside and the case is remanded for de novo committal process after obtaining the mandatory prosecution sanction, the subsequent cognizance taken by the competent court after proper committal does not constitute double cognizance but is the first and only valid cognizance. The principle that cognizance can be taken only once applies within the framework of valid legal proceedings, and a void cognizance order is not counted as a valid cognizance for this purpose.
On this section: Offences under UAPA; charges in original FIR
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 17
What have the courts held on Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?
Vernon v. State of Maharashtra (28 Jul 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: UAPA s.17 raising funds for a terrorist act is not prima facie true on letters alleging that an accused managed a banned organisation's finances without materials showing funds for a terrorist act (Vernon). Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Uapa 17, section 17 Uapa, section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vernon v. State of Maharashtra (28 Jul 2023).
What should I read with Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 15 (Terrorist act), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act come into force?
Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, cited as Uapa 17, came into force on 30 Dec 1967, having been enacted on 30 Dec 1967. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions888 words
- 43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code585 words
- 8. Power to notify places used for the purpose of an unlawful association570 words
- 7. Power to prohibit the use of funds of an unlawful association541 words
- 25. Powers of investigating officer and Designated Authority and appeal against order of Designated Authority498 words
- 15. Terrorist act423 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.