2019 (8) TMI 1777 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Look-out-notice - offence under Section 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC and u/s 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - The look-out-notice could not have been issued after the period of six years from the date of registration of subject crime especially in absence of any material to support respondents apprehension. The look-out-notice therefore cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. At the same time it is deemed appropriate to put the petitioner to terms to cooperate with the investigating agency in the investigation of the subject crime. It is deemed appropriate to defer the quashment of look-out-notice by a reasonable period to facilitate effective investigation in the intervening period. At the same time to address the immediate concern of the petitioner to travel abroad urgently we find it appropriate to direct the suspension of operation of look-out-notice for a period of 10 days - The subject look-out-notice issued at the instance of respondent no.1 on 22nd June 2018 shall remain suspended for the period of 10 days i.e. from 2nd September 2019 till 11th September 2019. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Issuance of Look-out Notice
- Cooperation with Investigating Agency
- Validity of Look-out Notice
- Travel Restrictions

Issuance of Look-out Notice:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking details and quashing of a Look-out Notice issued against him by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 for alleged offenses under Section 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC and u/s 13(2); 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner claimed that he cooperated with the investigation agency by providing necessary documents and appearing multiple times for questioning. The respondent no.1 argued that the Look-out Notice was issued to prevent the petitioner from absconding due to pending legal action against him.

Cooperation with Investigating Agency:
The petitioner demonstrated cooperation by appearing before the investigating agency on multiple occasions and providing required documents promptly. The petitioner's travel history and business engagements indicated his ties to India, making it unlikely for him to abscond. The court acknowledged the petitioner's cooperation and availability for investigation, emphasizing the importance of effective communication between the petitioner and the investigating agency.

Validity of Look-out Notice:
The court referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case to analyze the validity of the Look-out Notice. It was established that a Look-out Notice can be issued in cases where the accused is evading arrest or trial, and there is a risk of the accused fleeing the country. However, in the absence of concrete evidence supporting the apprehension of absconding, the court deemed the Look-out Notice unsustainable after six years from the registration of the crime. The court ordered the suspension of the Look-out Notice for a limited period to facilitate the petitioner's urgent travel plans and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating agency upon return.

Travel Restrictions:
The court suspended the operation of the Look-out Notice for ten days to allow the petitioner to travel to UAE and Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage. Upon return, the petitioner was required to cooperate with the investigating agency for one month. The Look-out Notice was to remain in force for an additional month before being quashed and set aside, providing a timeline for the petitioner's travel restrictions and investigative obligations.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with specific directives regarding the operation and eventual quashing of the Look-out Notice, emphasizing the petitioner's cooperation with the investigating agency and temporary travel permissions granted by the court.