9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1488 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Lookout Circular - large scale diversion and siphoning of funds borrowed from Banks and Financial Institutions resulting in substantial loss of public money - HELD THAT - A report has been filed by R1 on 17.0.2022 under the heading Role of Rahul Dinesh Surana in the case under investigation, setting out the details of various economic irregularities under investigation. The report concludes stating at para 39 that the investigation is in a crucial stage and that it is reasonably apprehended that the applicant would not return to the country and might attempt to evade the process of law, more so as investigation prima facie finds siphoning of large extent of funds to foreign entities. The investigation, even after the elapse of three years, is stated to reveal only prima facie materials and no concrete evidences are stated to have been found been found to implicate the petitioner or frame charges. Admittedly, however there are no proceedings against the petitioner so as to implicate him before the Criminal Court or in any other fora to justify the restrictions under which he has been placed - Admittedly, there have been no instances when the petitioner has evaded summons/notices calling for his attendance/appearance. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has confirmed that there are no investigations that are ongoing in the case of the petitioner, though reserving their right to initiate appropriate action at an appropriate juncture in future. No material is placed before the Court in support of the bald assertion that the petitioner is a flight risk and as a consequence there is no tangible material available, admittedly, to deny the petitioner of his Fundamental Right. The petitioner s challenge to the LOC dated 09.12.2020 is liable to be accepted. Even assuming that the same has been extended for which no materials are placed before the Court, the respondents has not been in a position to establish that the settled parametres justifying the issue of an LOC are satisfied in this case. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and justification for the issuance of the Lookout Circular (LOC) against the petitioner. 2. Extension and continuation of the LOC beyond its original validity period. 3. Fundamental rights of the petitioner concerning travel restrictions imposed by the LOC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Justification for the Issuance of the LOC: The petitioner challenges the LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration on 09.12.2020. He asserts that he has no connection with the day-to-day affairs of Surana Industries Limited (SIL) and is not implicated in Crime No.11 of 2019, which involves alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner cites several precedents, including Karthi P Chidambaram vs Bureau of Immigration, which emphasize that there must be a sufficient basis for issuing an LOC. The petitioner argues that there is no justification for curtailing his fundamental right to travel, especially since the CBI confirmed that he is not an accused in any ongoing investigations. The court notes that the LOC must be a coercive measure intended to make a person surrender to the Investigating Agency or a Court of Law, and in this case, the petitioner has not been shown to be evading any investigation or trial. 2. Extension and Continuation of the LOC Beyond its Original Validity Period: The LOC in question was initially valid for one year and was extended till 20.01.2022. The petitioner contends that no further extension has been officially sanctioned. The court examines a Corrigendum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 10.08.2021, which states that an LOC remains in force until a deletion request is received from the originator. However, the court finds no evidence of any communication or approval from the SFIO to extend the LOC beyond 20.01.2022. The court concludes that the LOC dated 07.03.2019 stands extended only till 20.01.2022, and no valid extension exists beyond this period. 3. Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner Concerning Travel Restrictions Imposed by the LOC: The court emphasizes that the issuance of an LOC must be justified based on concrete evidence and reasons. In this case, the SFIO's investigation, which began on 28.10.2019, has not produced substantial evidence implicating the petitioner. The court notes that the petitioner has not evaded any summons or notices and that the CBI has confirmed no ongoing investigations against him. The court references the guidelines and precedents governing the issuance of LOCs, including the need for a valid reason and the requirement for the accused to be evading arrest or trial. The court finds that the respondents have not established the necessary parameters to justify the issuance of the LOC against the petitioner. Conclusion: The court concludes that the petitioner's challenge to the LOC dated 09.12.2020 is valid. The respondents have failed to provide sufficient justification for the issuance and extension of the LOC. The court issues a mandamus quashing the LOC and allows the writ petition. The MPs are closed with no order as to costs.
|
