9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH For Petitioner: Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For Respondents: Mr.S.Babu, Government Advocate Mr.B.Rabu Manohar SCGSC ORDER This petition is filed to direct the first respondent to withdraw lookout notice issued against the petitioner by the second respondent for the case in Crime No.2/2016 on the file of third respondent to enable the petitioner to join duty at Germany. 2. When the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2016 was pending on the file of the third respondent herein, Look Out Circulars (LOC) came to be issued against the petitioner on 19.07.2016. Pursuant to the LOC, the petitioner was apprehended at the Chennai International Airport on 05.11.2017 by the second respondent herein based on the LOC an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detained on the strength of the LOC and handed over to the Investigating Officer. The purpose of the LOC is for securing the accused who has absconded for the purpose of investigation. In the present case the purpose for which the LOC was issued has been met. In view of the fact that the petitioner was detained and handed over to the Investigating officer and when the purpose is achieved it can be said that the LOC has abated. 6. The above position is akin to situations where bailable or non-bailable warrants are issued. Once when the accused is secured on the strength of such warrants and produced before the Court, the warrant lapses, since the purpose for which it was issued had been served. Similar is the situation, in case of LOCs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok Out Circular issued by the second respondent need not be enforced against the petitioner. However, the petitioner is directed to furnish the details such as address where she stays abroad, contact address for communication, mobile number, e-mail id, period of stay, her probable date of return etc., to the third and fourth respondents before leaving India. Consequently, connected WMP No.6877 of 2016 is closed. 7. The above observation is self explanatory. Even assuming that the LOC has been renewed and still pending, in view of the fact that the petitioner was secured and produced before the Investigating Officer, the LOC thereafter becomes non-est in the eye of law. 8. Since the LOC against the petitioner has lapsed, no further ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
