9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 981 - DSC - Money LaunderingIssuance of Look Out Circular (LOC) - seeking permission to travel to any country without limitation - HELD THAT - In the present case it is pertinent to observe that the applicant is not an accused. The investigation of the case is going on since 2019. So far there is not even a whisper from the complainant that the applicant may be an accused subsequently. It is not denied that the applicant has appeared before the ED authorities as and when required / summoned. The only grievance of the complainant / ED is that though the applicant physically appeared in compliance of the summonses, he is not providing the relevant documents. The investigating agency cannot endlessly go on saying that the required documents are not being supplied by the applicant. It is pertinent to observe that these observations of the Hon ble High Court came in bail application. Here the applicant is not even an accused. It was argued on behalf of the complainant / ED that if the LOC is quashed the applicant may not join the investigation. There is nothing in the previous conduct of the applicant to show that he is misusing the liberty granted to him. In view of the previous conduct of the applicant there is no reasonable apprehension to presume that in the absence of LOC he will not come and appear before ED authorities in compliance of the summons. Further, if the applicant fails to appear in response to summons of the ED, without seeking exemption from the authorities of ED, fresh LOC can always be issued for taking coercive measures to secure the presence of the applicant. It is to be observed that as per the complainant / ED LOC is a measure to ensure that the applicant joins investigation. The present applicant though a citizen of India is a permanent resident of Dubai, UAE. It is the case of the complainant that the entire family and business of applicant in abroad. In such circumstances the applicant does not have much interest in India. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that no blanket protection can be given to the applicant. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the applicant fairly submitted that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by any condition imposed by the court - this court does not see any justifiable reason for the continuation of the LOC issued against the applicant. Accordingly, the LOC issued against the applicant is directed to be recalled. The other primary prayer of the applicant is that he may be allowed to travel to countries other than UAE and Iran. Since the LOC issued against the applicant stands quashed, he is free to travel as per his legal rights. However, for securing interest of the investigating agency the applicant is directed to continuously intimate the investigating agency if he travel outside Dubai, UAE. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the applicant. 2. Modification of previous court orders to allow the applicant to travel to any country without limitation. 3. Ensuring compliance and enforcement of the court's order by the respondent. 4. Interim relief to suspend the LOC and permit travel pending the disposal of the application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC): The applicant sought the quashing of the LOC issued by the respondent, arguing that he has always complied with investigation requirements and court orders. The applicant highlighted that he has appeared before the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) whenever summoned and has provided documents to the best of his ability. The ED, however, contended that the applicant is a flight risk and has not submitted all required documents, thus necessitating the LOC to ensure his presence for the ongoing investigation into money laundering. The court referenced the guidelines and purpose of issuing LOCs, emphasizing that they are intended to secure the presence of individuals in investigations or trials. The court noted the applicant's consistent compliance with summonses and the lack of any substantial evidence from the ED to suggest that the applicant would evade investigation if the LOC were quashed. Therefore, the court found no justifiable reason for the continuation of the LOC and directed it to be recalled. 2. Modification of Previous Court Orders: The applicant requested modifications to the orders dated 14.01.2022 and 05.03.2022 to permit unrestricted travel. The court acknowledged the applicant's compliance with previous travel permissions and the lack of any misuse of the liberty granted. The court balanced the investigation agency's need to conduct a fair investigation and the applicant's right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. The court directed the applicant to furnish security and sureties as per the previous court orders and to appear before the investigating agency as required. Additionally, the applicant was instructed to continuously inform the investigating agency if he traveled outside Dubai, UAE. 3. Ensuring Compliance and Enforcement of the Court's Order: The applicant sought directions for the respondent to ensure compliance with the court's order, including coordination with immigration authorities. The court did not explicitly address this issue in the reasoning but implied compliance by quashing the LOC and setting conditions for the applicant's travel and appearance before the investigating agency. 4. Interim Relief: Pending the disposal of the application, the applicant requested interim relief to suspend the LOC and permit travel. The court's final decision to quash the LOC and allow the applicant to travel under specific conditions rendered the request for interim relief moot. Conclusion: The court quashed the LOC issued against the applicant, allowing him to travel freely while imposing conditions to ensure his cooperation with the ongoing investigation. The applicant was directed to furnish security, submit sureties, and appear before the investigating agency as required. The court struck a balance between the rights of the investigating agency and the applicant's personal liberty. The application was disposed of accordingly.
|
