TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, which should be disclosed in the request for issuance of LOC. The High Court, after referring to Sections 41,41A and 41B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 further held that the legality and/or validity of LOC has to be adjudged having regard to the circumstances prevailing on the date on which the request for issuance of LOC had been made. It was further held that the LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but when reasons exist, where an accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the Trial Court. In the present case, there is no doubt that the allegations made against the petitioner are of a grave nature. The petitioner has submitted that the same are false and unsubstantiated, however, this Court need not detain itself on the examination of such allegations. For the purposes of the Impugned LOC, what is relevant to be noted is that the FIR was registered on 08.10.2018. Based thereon, the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR on 02.07.2019. In undue haste, on 25.07.2019, the Impugned LOC was issued against the petitioner - The only allegation made is that the conduct of the petitioner is evasive and non-cooperative. This cannot be a ground for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed that thereafter the petitioner has joined the investigation on 04.01.2020, 06.01.2020, 17.01.2020, 31.01.2020 and 06.02.2020. 4. On the other hand, the respondent, Directorate of Enforcement filed a counter affidavit and thereafter a sur-rejoinder inter-alia contending that the FIR No.203/2018 dated 08.10.2018 was registered by the EOW, New Delhi under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against said Dalip Jindal, Mr.Shaloo Jindal and Ms.Disha Jindal, who were directors/proprietors and co-directors in M/s Jindal Agro International Limited, M/s Faqir Chand Dalip Kumar and M/s Dalip Jindal Agro Packaging Pvt. Ltd. The said persons/entities are engaged in the business of import of pulses in India and were having regular banking relationship with the HDFC Bank Ltd, Naya Bazar, New Delhi and other Banks. The said persons and entities availed various credit facilities such as Cash Credit, Letter of Credit, Bank Guarantees, Buyers Credit etc. from time to time since 2017 from HDFC Bank. During 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, Mr.Dalip Jindal has transferred huge funds to the various companies of the petitioner. It is further alleged that during investigation, it was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of the offences committed by the petitioner alongwith the other accused. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Impugned LOC has been issued not only in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by the respondents pursuant to the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) 10180/2009, titled Vikram Sharma v. Union of India Ors., it, even otherwise, is not sustainable inasmuch as the same does not contain any valid reason for its issuance. He submits that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor with respect to the loan taken by Mr.Dalip Jindal. The entire family of the petitioner is based in Delhi and the petitioner has all his business in India. The petitioner also has properties in India which are worth more than ₹ 50 crores. He submits that the details of such properties have been provided to the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner, therefore, is neither a flight risk nor is there any reason to suspect him to be evading investigation. He further submits that the petitioner had joined investigation as and when summoned. Even after the LOC, the petitioner joined the investigation and was last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned. D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer on 29.6.2017. On the very next day i.e., 16.6.2017, the impugned Look Out Circular was issued. As on the date of issuance of the Look Out Circular, there could have been no reason to suppose that the petitioner would not appear before the Station House Officer/Investigation Officer. 72. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioner did not appear on 29.6.2017 as directed, but only appeared pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. However, as argued by Mr. Subramanium, the very fact that after issuance of the first notice dated 16.06.2017, which was returnable on 29.06.2017, a further notice was issued on 04.07.2017 granting the petitioner time till 21.07.2017, shows that there was no immediate apprehension of his evading investigation, at least on 04.07.2017. There was, thus, no justification for issuance of the impugned LOC on 16.06.2017, the validity whereof has expired, in any case, after one year. 14. In the present case, there is no doubt that the allegations made against the petitioner are of a grave nature. The petitioner has submitted that the same are false and unsubstantiated, however, this Court need not detain itself o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
