9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1407 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking withdrawal of Look Out Circular - fundamental right to travel abroad - HELD THAT - It cannot be lost sight of that the settled law is that 'Right to Travel Overseas' is a 'Fundamental Right' guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which was held so, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney V. D. Ramarathnam, 1967 (4) TMI 196 - SUPREME COURT and also the same was reiterated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT . It cannot be gainsaid that the law of one's right to travel abroad is governed by the tenor and spirit of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967). Indeed, Section 3 of the Act under the caption 'Passport or travel document for departure from India' specifies that 'No person shall depart from, or attempt to depart from India, unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document' - Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 speaks of 'Refusal of Passports, travel documents', etc. In fact, sub-clause (1) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 enumerates the grounds on which an endorsement on a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country shall be refused. Likewise, sub-clause (2) also mentions the grounds on which the passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country shall be refused. It is to be borne in mind that neither Charge Sheet nor Final Report is defined under the Criminal Procedure Code. In whatever term it is mentioned viz., Charge Sheet or Final Report it only means a 'Report' under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which has to be filed by the concerned Police Officer on completion of his investigation. It cannot be gainsaid that the Charge Sheet/Final Report is filed so as to enable the concerned Court of Law to apply its mind whether cognizable offence thereupon ought to be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed in prescribed format. The Charge Sheet is nothing but a Final Report of Police Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said report is an intimation to the Magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offences, the Investigating Officer was able to procure sufficient evidence for a Court to enquire into the offence. No wonder, the Magistrate must give notice and opportunity of hearing to the Informant before accepting the final report or closing the same - one cannot ignore an important fact that if the Investigating Officer finds sufficient evidence even against an absconding accused, the law does not require the filing of charge sheet must await the arrest of the said accused. The Look Out Circular which was originally issued by the 1st Respondent on 06.10.2012 and opened for a year against the Petitioner, was further extended for six months period till 26.05.2014 by the Bureau of Immigration, (MHA) Government of India, Chennai 6 as per letter dated 27.01.2014, in terms of the request received from the 1st Respondent dated 16.12.2013. Admittedly, as against the Petitioner/A2 the investigation is pending in respect of the Crime No. 304 of 2012 originally on the file of the 3rd Respondent and later on transferred to the file of 2nd Respondent. It is the stand of the Respondents that only because of the attitude of the Petitioner/A2, they are unable to proceed further in regard to the investigation of the case - the LOC can be withdrawn by the authorities concerned, who issued the same. Indeed, the Criminal Court's jurisdiction in cancelling LOC or affirming the same is quite in tune with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements for issuing LOC. 4. Impact of pending investigation and bail conditions on the issuance of LOC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) Issued Against the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the LOC issued on 06.10.2012 and extended till 26.05.2014 was unlawful and violated the Passports Act, 1967, and his Fundamental Rights. The court examined the procedural guidelines for issuing LOCs, emphasizing that LOCs are valid for one year unless renewed. The LOC against the petitioner was extended based on a request from the Central Crime Branch (CCB), which the court deemed valid. The court highlighted that the LOC serves as a coercive measure to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and is legally tenable. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution: The petitioner claimed that the LOC infringed on his right to travel abroad, a Fundamental Right under Article 21. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* and *Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam*, affirming that the right to travel abroad is a Fundamental Right. However, the court noted that this right could be restricted for valid legal reasons, such as ongoing investigations. The court concluded that the LOC did not arbitrarily violate the petitioner's rights, as it was issued to prevent him from evading trial. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Issuing LOC: The petitioner argued that he should have been heard before the LOC was issued. The court clarified that in cases involving serious charges, such as those against the petitioner, the authorities are not required to provide a hearing before issuing an LOC. The court cited guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which allow LOCs to be issued without complete parameters in exceptional cases involving serious offenses. The court found that the procedural requirements were met, and the LOC was lawfully issued. 4. Impact of Pending Investigation and Bail Conditions on the Issuance of LOC: The petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including not leaving the jurisdiction without police permission. The court noted that the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, leading to the cancellation of his bail. The court emphasized that the LOC was necessary to ensure the petitioner's presence for the ongoing investigation. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer. The court also stated that the LOC could be reviewed or canceled by the issuing authority or the trial court once the investigation is complete. Conclusion and Directions: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the LOC. It directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and allowed him to seek the cancellation of the LOC from the relevant authorities or the trial court after the investigation is complete. The court reiterated that the LOC is a legitimate tool to ensure the petitioner's compliance with legal proceedings and does not indefinitely infringe on his Fundamental Rights.
|
