9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 171 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Validity of Look Out Circular - money laundering - predicate offence - scheduled offences - Section 50(2) of the P.M.L.A. - HELD THAT - The Ministry of Home Affairs relying upon certain decisions of the Delhi High Court in SUMER SINGH SALKAN VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR ORS. AND COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VERSUS STATE VS. GURNEK SINGH ETC. 2010 (8) TMI 1083 - DELHI HIGH COURT has issued an Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 in the context of the issue of L.O.C.s. This O.M. provides that recourse to L.O.C. should be taken in cognizable offences under I.P.C. or other penal laws. The details regarding the reason for the opening of L.O.C. invariably be provided in the prescribed format, without which the subject of L.O.C. should not be arrested/detained. In cases where there is no cognizable offence under the I.P.C. or other penal laws, the L.O.C. subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases. The reply on behalf of the Respondent refers to L.O.C. being issued consistent with the M.H.A. guidelines. However, the response does not elaborate upon whether the safeguards provided in the O.M. have indeed been complied with. This was necessary because no prosecution complaint was filed against the Petitioner under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. Further, scheduled offences have not been invoked in the charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch against the Petitioner. The charge sheet is only for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976. For the reasons, including but not restricted to the circumstance that no prosecution complaint is filed against the Petitioner and even the charge sheet which is filed in F.I.R. No.10/2022 is only limited to the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 and not to any of the scheduled crime under the P.M.L.A., the impugned L.O.C. will have to be quashed. Moreover, in this case, there is no allegation of any non-cooperation by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is enlarged on bail. The Court considered and modified the bail conditions for traveling outside the State after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor. Any material does not support the apprehension expressed on behalf of the Respondent. Even the affidavit in reply is quite vague, and details necessary to support such apprehension are not even stated in this affidavit. The impugned L.O.C. dated 04.02.2022 is quashed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Look Out Circular (L.O.C.) issued against the Petitioner. 2. Compliance with Ministry of Home Affairs (M.H.A.) guidelines for issuing L.O.C. 3. Allegations and charges against the Petitioner under various laws. 4. Conditions for the Petitioner's travel abroad. Summary: 1. Validity of the Look Out Circular (L.O.C.) issued against the Petitioner: The Petitioner questioned the L.O.C. issued in Enforcement Case Information Report (E.C.I.R.) No. ECIR/PJZO/03/2022 dated 28.01.2022. Initially, the Petitioner was unaware of the L.O.C.'s issuance but had strong apprehensions, leading to the petition. The Respondent admitted that the L.O.C. was issued on 04.02.2022. The Petitioner was not accused in the prosecution complaint under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L.A.), and no scheduled offences under P.M.L.A. were invoked in the charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch. 2. Compliance with Ministry of Home Affairs (M.H.A.) guidelines for issuing L.O.C.: The Respondent claimed the L.O.C. was in accordance with M.H.A. guidelines. However, the affidavit in reply did not elaborate on whether the safeguards provided in the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 27.10.2010 were complied with, especially since no prosecution complaint was filed against the Petitioner under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. 3. Allegations and charges against the Petitioner under various laws: An F.I.R. No.10/2022 was registered alleging offences under Sections 420, 408, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Petitioner was arrested and later enlarged on bail. The Directorate of Enforcement registered the E.C.I.R. based on this F.I.R. The charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch did not press charges under Sections 420, 120-B, 408 of I.P.C. or Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but only under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976. 4. Conditions for the Petitioner's travel abroad: The Petitioner applied to modify the bail conditions regarding travel outside Goa, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court directed the Petitioner to inform the Respondent of his travel itinerary and details of persons he will visit, file an undertaking to return by a specified date, and appear before investigating agencies upon return. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the impugned L.O.C. dated 04.02.2022, citing lack of material to sustain apprehensions about the Petitioner fleeing from justice or not cooperating with investigations. The Court directed the Petitioner to comply with specific conditions for any future travel abroad. The rule was made absolute with no order for costs.
|
