9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2000 - HC - Indian LawsLegality and/or validity of a Look Out Circular - circumstances prevailing on the date on which the request for issuance of the Look Out Circular had been made. HELD THAT - The issuance of Look Out Circulars is governed by executive instructions as contained in the Office Memoranda Nos.25022/13/78-F1 dated 05.09.1979 and 25022/20/98-FIV dated 27.12.2000 as modified by Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010. Such LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course but when reasons exist where an accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court. The argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General that a request for Look Out Circular could have been made in view of the inherent power of the investigating authority to secure attendance and cooperation of an accused is contrary to the aforesaid circulars and thus not sustainable. In view of the finding of this Court that the conditions precedent for issuance of the impugned LOC were absent and the impugned LOC is liable to set aside on that ground we need not go into the questions of whether an LOC could have been issued without statutory sanction or whether the respondents concerned had jurisdiction to issue the impugned LOC. However in our view the Look Out Circular was issued in hot haste when the conditions precedent for issuance of such Circular did not exist. The impugned Look Out Circular is thus liable to be set aside. The impugned LOC is set aside and quashed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and maintainability of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petitions. 3. Conditions precedent for the issuance of an LOC. 4. Judicial review of executive decisions, specifically the issuance of an LOC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Maintainability of the Look Out Circular (LOC): The writ petitions challenge the LOC issued against the petitioner by the Bureau of Immigration under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The LOC was issued on 16.6.2017, following an FIR filed by the CBI against the petitioner and others for alleged offences under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC and Sections 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was accused of rendering his good offices to INX Group through CMS to influence FIPB officials using his relationship with the then Finance Minister, his father. The petitioner was not accused of misappropriation or financial illegalities directly. The Court noted that the LOC was issued prematurely and in haste, as the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation and had appeared before the CBI as directed. The LOC was deemed a coercive measure and was set aside due to the absence of conditions precedent for its issuance. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court: The respondents contended that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the FIR was registered in New Delhi, and the alleged offences occurred in multiple locations, including Delhi and Mumbai. However, the Court noted that the petitioner’s address in Chennai was within its jurisdiction, and the LOC would affect his fundamental rights within this jurisdiction. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited, which held that even a small fraction of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court would confer jurisdiction. The Court concluded that it had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. 3. Conditions Precedent for the Issuance of an LOC: The Court examined the guidelines for issuing an LOC, as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 and the Delhi High Court judgment in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director. The guidelines stipulate that an LOC should be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures. The Court found that the LOC was issued without disclosing reasons and in the absence of conditions precedent, such as an attempt to evade arrest. The petitioner had been issued a notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC, which is a step anterior to arrest, indicating that arrest was not deemed necessary at that stage. 4. Judicial Review of Executive Decisions: The respondents argued that the issuance of an LOC is an executive decision not subject to judicial review. However, the Court held that any decision with adverse civil consequences is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The LOC, being a coercive measure interfering with personal liberty and free movement, has adverse civil consequences. The Court emphasized that the LOC was issued in hot haste without the necessary conditions precedent and thus was liable to be set aside. Conclusion: The High Court set aside and quashed the impugned LOC, emphasizing that the order would not impact the ongoing criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR or any other proceedings against the petitioner. The writ petitions were disposed of, and the accompanying miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
