9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Money Laundering Act including the act of siphoning off and misappropriation of funds which have been advanced to them by various banks. The scope and ambit of the term economic interests of India has been a subject matter of a number of judgments and most of the Courts, in unison, have held that the magnitude of the offence must be such that it has affected the economic interest of the country and larger public interest is involved. The last summon was issued to the Petitioner in March 2022, i.e. about two years back, and the Petitioner has not been summoned by the authorities since then. An LOC cannot be permitted to continue for such a long period without there being any cogent and valid reason. The Petitioner has not been called for investigation since March 2022 and the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents does not indicate as to how the Petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation. In fact, material on record discloses that the petitioner has complied with the summons and has cooperated with the ongoing investigations against him by the IT Department. Right to travel abroad has been held to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n creating a structure of institutions/trusts in offshore jurisdictions for the benefit of the larger family and his sister, Ms. Jyotsana Suri, and has indulged in diversion of unaccounted assets/income with the purpose of circumventing the jurisdiction of Indian revenue authorities. Statement of the Petitioner under Section 132 of the IT Act was taken on 20.01.2020. On the basis of the search and seizure operations conducted by the Income Tax Department and the evidence collected by the Income Tax Department, the Deputy Director of the Income Tax issued an LOC against the Petitioner on 22.01.2020. Material on record discloses that summons have been issued against the Petitioner on 23.01.2020, 24.08.2020, 21.12.2020, 16.02.2021, 22.02.2021, 07.05.2021 and lastly on 12.03.2022. 3. The Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on 25.03.2021. Vide Order dated 24.05.2021, the Petitioner was given permission to travel to Dubai. It is stated that the Petitioner went to Dubai on 28.08.2021 and returned back to the country on 05.09.2021. Vide Order dated 27.09.2021 the Petitioner was permitted to travel to UK and UAE for a period of three months. Further, vide Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Switzerland is still awaited and the presence of the petitioner will be necessary for further departmental proceedings on receipt of the information. He states that it is for this purpose that the LOC against the petitioner should not be quashed. 7. Heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Initially LOCs were issued against such individuals who were suspected of committing serious crimes and were indulged in anti national activities, terrorist activities, etc. However, after amendment, LOCs are now also opened at the instance of investigating agencies and banks against persons who have committed economic offences which involve offences under the Black Money Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act including the act of siphoning off and misappropriation of funds which have been advanced to them by various banks. 9. In view of the Judgments passed by this Court in Vikram Sharma v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475, and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699, and other decisions, an Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 by the ministry of Home Affairs was issued to regulate issuance of LOC by the concerned authorities wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of the term economic interest of India held as under 36. However, the matter does not end here and the crucial issue which needs to be now determined is as to whether the Clause detrimental to the economic interests of India introduced vide the amendment in 2017, with a specific rider that the same would be used only in exceptional circumstances, could have, in the facts of the present case, been resorted to, for issuing the impugned LOC, as also whether the impugned LOC could be continued for the last almost 3 years without any proceedings under the IPC or any other penal law being initiated against the petitioner. It has to be kept in mind, that the issuance of a LOC necessarily curtails the rights of an individual to travel abroad and therefore, I am of the view, that for invocation of this Clause, which, in any event, is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances, a mandatory pre-condition would be a formation of a reasonable belief by the originating authority that the departure of an individual would be detrimental to the economic interests of India to such an extent that it warrants curtailment of an individual s fundamental right to travel abroad. Turning to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be permitted to be used in such a mechanical manner, as in the present case. 11. Admittedly, the allegations made by the IT Department after conducting a search and seizure operations warranted the issuance of an LOC in 2020 for ensuring compliance of the petitioner with the ongoing investigation. The LOC was further reviewed and extended in 2021 and 2022. However, the investigation has been going on for more than 3 years and the petitioner has complied with multiple summons issued to him. The last summon was issued to the Petitioner in March 2022, i.e. about two years back, and the Petitioner has not been summoned by the authorities since then. An LOC cannot be permitted to continue for such a long period without there being any cogent and valid reason. The Petitioner has not been called for investigation since March 2022 and the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents does not indicate as to how the Petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation. In fact, material on record discloses that the petitioner has complied with the summons and has cooperated with the ongoing investigations against him by the IT Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
