9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1263 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Look Out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration - nature of the proceedings - whether in the nature of criminal proceedings and the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge is a criminal jurisdiction or not - HELD THAT - It is evident from the facts of this case that there are criminal cases pending against the appellant, including one registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the appellant C.Sivasankaran is named as accused at Serial No.13 in FIR No.9 of 2018, dated 13.4.2018 of Bengaluru - It is in this background that the Look Out Circular appears to have been issued, and as per the amendment referred to by the learned Single Judge, such a circular can be issued in larger public interest. The genesis of the Look Out Circular, therefore, is the pendency of criminal cases against the appellant and it is in this context that the Look Out Circular came to be challenged by the appellant. The writ petition, therefore, was clearly intended to seek an order to enable the appellant to move out of the country by getting the bar of Look Out Circular lifted, the obvious consequence and likelihood whereof is avoiding of criminal proceedings that have been initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance can be placed in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and others 2017 (3) TMI 1780 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The irresistible conclusion is that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable before the Division Bench and, consequently, the order passed therein is wholly unsustainable and, accordingly, it is set aside. The Look Out Circular that came to be the subject matter of challenge before the learned Singe Judge did arise out of the various criminal proceedings that were pending against the appellant. The prayer, therefore, in the writ petition was clearly for a declaration that the Look Out Circular in the purported exercise of powers under Section 10B of the Passport Act, 1967 is arbitrary and an abuse of authority, vitiated by mala fides, and hence, should be declared to be without jurisdiction - The sequence of facts, and the consequence towards which the writ petition is aimed at, clearly relate to criminal proceedings that have led to the issuance of the circular. This may involve the guarantee of liberty to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, but the genesis of the action is connected with the criminal prosecutions pending against the appellant, the umbilical cord whereof has not yet snapped. The contention that it only involves civil rights of the appellant is, therefore, not correct because the relief revolves around consequences arising or likely to arise as a result of criminal prosecution. The issuance of a Look Out Circular is an exercise of authority under the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 and such a circular can be issued in larger public interest, as already held by the learned Single Judge after taking into account the amendment in the said memorandum. The appellant's claim of immunity under the foreign passport, therefore, may not arise - The letter and intent, as well as the crux of the background in which the writ petition was filed clearly relates to the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant and, therefore, the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge would be a writ in the criminal jurisdiction, hence a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court would not be maintainable. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and jurisdiction of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 2. Immunity claimed by the appellant due to diplomatic passport. 3. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Look Out Circular (LOC) The appellant challenged the LOC issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration, asserting it was invalid and without jurisdiction. The LOC was issued in connection with criminal cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and other allegations involving the appellant and his son, who had obtained a significant loan from IDBI Bank that was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The learned Single Judge, upon reviewing the guidelines and amendments to the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, concluded that the LOC could be issued in larger public interest. The judgment emphasized that the LOC was justified due to the appellant's involvement in criminal cases and the need for his participation in ongoing investigations. 2. Immunity Claimed by the Appellant Due to Diplomatic Passport The appellant, a Seychelles national holding a diplomatic passport, claimed immunity from prosecution under the Vienna Convention. However, the court found that the appellant's movement within India was under surveillance due to his involvement in criminal cases. The court concluded that the claim of immunity did not hold, as the LOC was issued in accordance with the guidelines and in larger public interest, considering the appellant's antecedents in criminal matters. 3. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent The core issue was whether the writ petition, and consequently the appeal, fell under the criminal jurisdiction of the court, thus affecting the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The court referred to various judgments, including the Apex Court's decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, which clarified that proceedings under Article 226 concerning criminal matters are considered criminal jurisdiction. The court noted that the LOC was directly related to pending criminal proceedings against the appellant, and the writ petition sought to lift the LOC to potentially avoid these proceedings. Therefore, the nature of the proceedings was criminal, and the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge was criminal jurisdiction. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 was deemed not maintainable. Conclusion The court upheld the validity of the LOC issued against the appellant, rejected the claim of diplomatic immunity, and ruled that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable as the writ petition arose from criminal jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
|
