2022 (6) TMI 982 - HC - Money Laundering

Issuance of Look Out Circular/Directions - restraint from travelling abroad - Allegation of collection funds by crowdfunding for COVID relief work - proper accounting not done - case of petitioner is that the Circular has been issued without due compliance of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the guidelines issued by the Courts regarding the same - HELD THAT - In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner s right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC. The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression - the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of Look Out Circular/Directions restricting travel abroad.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a journalist, sought to quash the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her, preventing her from traveling abroad for professional commitments. She argued that the LOC was issued hastily to obstruct her from attending global events, despite her cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and compliance with summons.

2. The petitioner's counsel emphasized her client's global reputation and highlighted her cooperation with the ED, including responding to all summons and offering to appear for further investigation. The counsel contended that the LOC lacked valid reasons and violated the petitioner's right to travel abroad, urging the Court to quash it.

3. On the contrary, the Additional Solicitor General representing the ED alleged that the petitioner misappropriated funds meant for COVID relief, submitting fake bills and hindering the investigation by withholding crucial documents. The ED believed that allowing her to leave the country would impede the probe.

4. The Court noted that the LOC was issued hastily without sufficient grounds, impinging on the petitioner's liberty and movement rights. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the ED previously, there was no justification for presuming she would evade the investigation, leading to the quashing of the LOC.

5. The Court balanced the petitioner's right to travel and free speech with the ED's investigative needs, setting conditions for the petitioner's travel. These conditions included informing the Investigation Agency of travel details, depositing a financial deposit, refraining from tampering with evidence, and committing to return to India by a specified date.

6. The judgment allowed the petition, setting aside the LOC, but clarified that this decision would not affect ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights with investigative requirements in such cases.