9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vel documents', etc. In fact, sub-clause (1) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 enumerates the grounds on which an endorsement on a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country shall be refused. Likewise, sub-clause (2) also mentions the grounds on which the passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country shall be refused. It is to be borne in mind that neither Charge Sheet nor Final Report is defined under the Criminal Procedure Code. In whatever term it is mentioned viz., Charge Sheet or Final Report it only means a 'Report' under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which has to be filed by the concerned Police Officer on completion of his investigation. It cannot be gainsaid that the Charge Sheet/Final Report is filed so as to enable the concerned Court of Law to apply its mind whether cognizable offence thereupon ought to be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed in prescribed format. The Charge Sheet is nothing but a Final Report of Police Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said report is an intimation to the Magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offences, the Investigating Officer was able to procure sufficient ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had an amount of ₹ 7,20,05,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Twenty Lakhs and Five Thousand Only) as cash. Further, on the next day, an amount of ₹ 50 lakhs in cash was recovered from the house of one Moorthy, the 3rd accused in the case. (ii) Further, the case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner and Moorthy/A3 with the help of A1-Nagarajan printed lottery tickets of Sikkim, Kerala and Maharashtra States in Kolkatta and Faridabad and sold the tickets of those States in Chennai without proper permission and earned profits. Also that, the aforesaid amount seized was a black money kept illegally by the said Nagarajan/A1, who gave a confession statement. As a matter of fact, Nagarajan/A1 retracted his confession statement. (iii) It is the stand of the Petitioner that the case was falsely foisted due to personal and political enmity. He was harassed by the State Government by foisting of false cases from May 2011 onwards. He was branded as a Goonda due to political reasons and was detained under the preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on 29.10.2011. His detention order was set aside by this Court in H.C.P. No. 1636 of 2011 on 29.03.2012. Due to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance sale consideration of ₹ 5 crores was paid by way of demand draft. (vi) In the meanwhile, the investigation in the said case was transferred to the 2nd Respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Copyright Wing, CCB (Central Crime Branch), Egmore, Chennai and G. Moorthy/A3 in the case was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 06.09.2012 in Crl.O.P. No. 18910 of 2012. Even the conditions imposed on him were relaxed by this Court. (vii) The Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P. No. 22283 of 2012 before this Court and the same was filed in the first week of September, 2012 and was listed for hearing from 13.09.2012 onwards with notice to and the knowledge of the Respondents 1 to 3. He was granted anticipatory bail (with conditions being imposed) as per order dated 15.11.2012 in Crl.O.P. N. 22283 of 2012. The Respondents 1 and 2 with full knowledge that the Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before this Court and obtained the same had made arrangements for issuance of a 'Look Out Circular' against him by falsely creating a story that he was absconding and attempting to flee from India. The 2nd Respondent issued a request to the 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banned in Tamil Nadu. However, they were printing and selling such lottery tickets to innocent purchasers and cheating the public and keeping the seized money as unaccounted and obtained unlawful gain. (ii) The Writ Petitioner, in the First Information Report in Crime No. 304 of 2012, was arrayed as second accused/A2 by the Inspector of Police, S8, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai 8 along with A1/Nagarajan and the accused Moorthy was arrayed as A3. A1 was granted bail by the trial Court and A2 and A3 were at large and filed anticipatory bail applications which were all dismissed. Subsequently, A3 granted anticipatory bail. But the prime accused (Writ Petitioner) filed anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P. No. 22283 of 2012 and an elaborate and detailed order dated 15.11.2012 was passed by this Court and granted anticipatory bail by imposing certain conditions. In the aforesaid anticipatory bail order in Crl.O.P. No. 22283 of 2012 dated 15.11.2012, the Writ Petitioner/A2 was imposed with a specific condition that he was not leave the jurisdiction without the permission of the Respondent Police. Further, the case in Crime No. 304 of 2012 was transferred from the 3rd Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moved an application for relaxation of bail condition and the same was allowed on 18.10.2013. (vi) In the aforesaid circumstances, a Look Out Circular was issued on 05.10.2012 on the ground that the enquiry revealed that the Petitioner/A2 often travelled by air to Kolkatta. Therefore, under the prescribed format 'Look Out Circular' was issued to the Writ Petitioner/A2 and the said circular was forwarded to the Chief Immigration Officer, Chennai 18. The said Look Out Circular was requested to be renewed subsequently through letter dated 16.12.2013. Since the Writ Petitioner/A2 often to leave the jurisdiction without permission from the Investigating Officer, there is a reasonable apprehension that he may attempt to tamper the material witnesses in Crime No. 304 of 2012, when the case is under investigation stage. As such, the said Circular is not against law. Also that, he may be directed to intimate the Respondent Police and seek permission for his visit to abroad. The Petitioner's Contentions: 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Look Out Circular issued in respect of the Petitioner on 06.10.2012 (for the period from 06.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the validity of the Look Out Circular issued on 06.10.2012 (for the period from 06.10.2012 to 05.10.2013) as a 12 months validity and in this regard, places reliance on the Office Memorandum bearing No. 25016/31/2010-Imm., Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division) dated 27.10.2010 [on the subject relating to issuance of Look Out Circular (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners], whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 1 to 3 it is mentioned as follows: Under the existing practice, the issuance of LOCs is governed by this Ministry's letter number 25022/13/78-F.I. dated 5.9.1979 and OM number 25022/2-/98-F.IV dated 27.12.2000. 2. It has, inter-alia, been stated in the letter dated 5.9.1979 of MHA that 'apart from the Govern India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, circulars are issued by various authorities for keeping a watch on arrival/departure of Indian and foreigners. These authorities include the Ministry of External Affairs, the Customs and Income Tax Departments, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, Interpol, Regional Passport Officers, Police Authorities in various States, etc.' It has furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar which got lapsed on 05.10.2013 and only on 16.12.2013, viz., after a period of one year, a request was made by the 1st Respondent/CCB, the LOC was further extended for a period of six months till 26.05.2014 by the Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, Chennai 6 and with effect from 01.01.2011 all LOC's within more than one year validity shall be deemed to have lapsed as per para 8(i) Guidelines of Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Government of India, (Ministry of Home Affairs) and therefore, the extension of Look Out Circular, for six months till 26.05.2014 issued by the Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, Chennai 6 in Ref. No. F-13/FRRO/COP/CH/2014 538, made as per the request received from the 1st Respondent dated 16.12.2013 is an invalid and illegal one, in the eye of law. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no provision under the Passports Act, 1967 for issuance of a 'Look Out Circular' and further that the Petitioner is in lottery business and that the sale of lottery is regulated by the Central Government. Also, it is submitted on behalf of the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a person of 'personal liberty' and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Art. 21 has to stand the test of on or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Art. 19 which may be applicable in a given situation, ex-hypothesis it must be liable to be tested with reference to Art. 14. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Art. 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Art. 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Art. 14. It must be 'right and just and fair' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it should be no procedure at all and the requirement of Art. 21 would not be satisfied. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the order of this Court dated 06.08.2012 in W.P. No. 19777 of 2012 (between M. Natarajan V. The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai and another), whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 15 and 16, it is observed and held as follows: 15. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is correct insofar that he was not heard. But at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by witnesses on different occasions. Since the matter pertaining to these offences is sub-judice, it will not be appropriate to comment on this aspect but suffice it to say that the action against the petitioner of issuing RCN was uncalled for in view of the fact that neither offence, for which the petitioner is facing trial in India, is an extraditable offence, nor any request for extradition of the petitioner has been made for the last 7 years despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for quashing the RCN issued against the petitioner at the behest of Delhi Police. The RCN, is therefore hereby quashed. 11. Look-out-Circular has also been issued against the petitioner as the petitioner is an accused before the Court of M.M. and he has not appeared before the Court of M.M. If the petitioner gives an undertaking before the court for his appearance on a particular date, through his counsel, the Look-out-Circular issued against the petitioner shall be withdrawn within 24 hours of giving undertaking by the petitioner. The questions raised in the reference are as under: A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f keeping the look out notice alive, which was issued to ensure presence during the course of investigation. 7. In the result, the look out notice dated 10.11.2012 is set aside. The second petitioner is permitted to visit abroad in connection with her employment. The petitioners should appear before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, whenever the Court directs them to appear. It is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to appear before the Court inspite of summons issued by the learned Magistrate, contempt proceedings will be initiated by this Court. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Respondents' Submissions: 17. The Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner/A2 in Crime No. 304 of 2012 on the file of the 3rd Respondent is the prime accused along with other accused Nagarajan/A1 and Moorthy/A3 and that the Petitioner on 15.11.2012 was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail with conditions in Crl.O.P. No. 22283 of 2012. 18. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents that one of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. 22. Moreover, it is the plea of the Respondents that this Court, while dismissing the Crl.O.P. No. 12345 of 2013 (second Anticipatory Bail Application) filed by the Petitioner/A2, on 14.08.2013, in paragraph 7 of the order, had clearly opined that '... the present petition filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail is not maintainable', but gave liberty to him to surrender before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai and to apply for regular bail etc. Further that, the Petitioner/A2 filed application before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, who granted bail on the same day with a condition that he is to appear before the Respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one month and subsequently, the petition for relaxation of bail condition filed by him was also allowed on 18.10.2013. 23. The Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner/A2 is often to leave the jurisdiction without permission from the Investigating Officer and when the investigation of the case in Crime No. 304 of 2012 is pending, there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the Petitioner that he may tamper the material witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the fact that the Petitioner was arrayed as A2 in Crime No. 304 of 2012 based on the confession of A1 to the effect that 'the Petitioner/A2 was dealing with lottery tickets of Sikkim and Nagaland which were banned in Tamil Nadu and they were printing and selling such lottery tickets to innocent purchasers and thereby cheating the public and keeping the above said amount as unaccounted one and obtained as unlawful gain' etc., the said act of the Petitioner/A2 along with other two accused (Nagarajan-A1 and Moorthy-A3) comes within the ambit of an exceptional case and as such, notwithstanding the fact that original LOC dated 06.10.2012 opened against the Petitioner for a period of one year was extended for six months till 26.05.2014 in terms of the letter of the DC/CCB dated 16.12.2013 beyond a period of one year, as an legally tenable one and therefore, the contra plea taken by the Petitioner cannot stand a moment scrutiny in the eye of law. 26. While winding up his argument, the Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Bureau of Immigration, (MHA), Government of India, Chennai 6 in Ref. No. F-13/FRRO/COP/CH/2014 538 dated 27.01.2014 has extended the LOC for furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kodumudi PS., Cr. No. 82/2012 420, 120(b) ,5 r/w. 7(3) of TNIR Act A2 Under Investigation 5 B-11, Saibaba Colony P.S., Cr. No. 130/12 406 amp; 420 IPC A2 Under Investigation Hence, the present Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2012 has been filed by the State to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent (A2). 30. Also, in the aforesaid order in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 in Crl.O.P. No. 22283 of 2012 dated 08.03.2013 in paragraph 12, it is observed as follows: 12. Further more, according to the respondent/A2, he is in Kolkatta even at the time of passing the order granting anticipatory bail. Had it been so, he would have instructed his counsel to represent before this Court with regard to his inability to stay within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer. But after passing the order by this Court directing the respondent/A2 not to leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer and directing him to appearing before the Police twice daily, the petitions for modification and extension of time w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received from the Police Officials of the State Govt. that since a criminal case is pending against the person he should not be allowed to proceed abroad, the action would be without any basis in law. It is the Passport Authority alone who could prevent a person from going abroad. Even assuming that the State Government had vital information which, if placed before the concerned Passport Officer, might even entail either impounding or revocation of the passport, it was open to the State Government to pass on that information to the concerned officer who may take action. But that has nothing to do with the oral interdiction. 34. It cannot be gainsaid that the law of one's right to travel abroad is governed by the tenor and spirit of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967). Indeed, Section 3 of the Act under the caption 'Passport or travel document for departure from India' specifies that 'No person shall depart from, or attempt to depart from India, unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document'. 35. Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 speaks of 'Refusal of Passports, travel documents', etc. In fact, sub-clause (1) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. 37. Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with 'Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents'. Section 10(a) of the Act speaks of 'Suspension of passports or travel documents in certain cases. Section 10(b) of the Act speaks of 'Validation of Intimations'. 38. This Court worth recalls and recollects the decision in Rajinder Kaur and another V. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 P and H 347, wherein it is held as follows: A person can be denied the right to travel abroad if the authorities are sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. No wonder, the Magistrate must give notice and opportunity of hearing to the Informant before accepting the final report or closing the same. In short, the Final Report envisaged by Section 173 Cr.P.C. ought to contain the information required by the said provision. Also, one cannot ignore an important fact that if the Investigating Officer finds sufficient evidence even against an absconding accused, the law does not require the filing of charge sheet must await the arrest of the said accused. Conclusion and Directions: 41. As far as the present case is concerned, the Look Out Circular which was originally issued by the 1st Respondent on 06.10.2012 and opened for a year against the Petitioner, was further extended for six months period till 26.05.2014 by the Bureau of Immigration, (MHA) Government of India, Chennai 6 as per letter dated 27.01.2014, in terms of the request received from the 1st Respondent dated 16.12.2013. Ordinarily, when Look Out Circular is issued against an individual ought to join the investigation by making his appearance before the Investigating Officer or to surrender before the concerned Court or should satisfy that the LOC was wrongfully issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the file of the 3rd Respondent and later on transferred to the file of 2nd Respondent. It is the stand of the Respondents that only because of the attitude of the Petitioner/A2, they are unable to proceed further in regard to the investigation of the case. Considering the gravity of charges levelled against the Petitioner/A2 in Crime No. 304 of 2012 by the Respondents and in view of the Guideline No. 8(j) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 (relating to the issuance of LOC in respect of Indian citizen and foreigners) by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division) based on the existing practice, even though the LOC dated 06.10.2012 opened for a year against the Petitioner for a period from 06.10.2012 to 05.10.2013 was extended for six months till 26.05.2014 by the Bureau of Immigration, (MHA), Government of India, Chennai 6 through communication dated 27.01.2014 (which is beyond the period of one year from the date of issue), yet, the extension of LOC dated 27.01.2014 for a further period of six months till 26.05.2014 and the earlier LOC issued on 06.10.2012 for a period of one year (in respect of the Petitioner) are valid and tenable ones, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
