Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (12) TMI 127 - HC - Money Laundering


Issues Involved:
1. Permission to travel abroad.
2. Validity of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs).
3. Investigation status and petitioner's involvement.
4. Fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Summary:

Permission to Travel Abroad:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 08.07.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which denied him permission to travel to Dubai for 30 days to manage his business. The petitioner argued that he had voluntarily returned to India to join the investigation, was granted anticipatory bail, and the LOC against him was canceled. He contended that the denial of travel permission violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the ASJ dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner had not provided sufficient details about his permanent address or business in Dubai, and the investigation was ongoing.

Validity of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs):
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Income Tax Department had issued LOCs against the petitioner, which were still active. The ED argued that the petitioner was a flight risk and involved in international hawala operations, aiding the main accused in transferring Rs. 24 crore to Dubai. The ASJ's order emphasized that the petitioner had not substantiated his claims about his business or residence in Dubai, and thus, permission to travel was rightly denied.

Investigation Status and Petitioner's Involvement:
The investigation revealed that the petitioner was involved in hawala transactions and had facilitated the transfer of Rs. 24 crore to Dubai through 18 shell companies. The petitioner was implicated in aiding the main accused, Sukash Chandrashekhar, in a significant extortion and money laundering scheme. The ASJ noted that the investigation was still ongoing, and the petitioner had not provided any compelling reason to travel abroad.

Fundamental Right to Travel under Article 21:
While acknowledging the fundamental right to travel under Article 21, the court held that this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions. The ASJ had imposed a condition in the bail order that the petitioner could not leave the country without court permission. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any urgent need to travel and could manage his business remotely or through his son, who was already involved in the business.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court upheld the ASJ's order, dismissing the petitions and finding no reason to interfere with the decision. The court emphasized that the petitioner's right to travel was subject to reasonable restrictions due to the ongoing investigation and lack of sufficient justification for the travel request. The judgment was to be uploaded on the website forthwith.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates