TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner shall file an undertaking in this Court, which would be supported with an undertaking by his wife, that the Petitioner would be present before the authorities upon being issued 15 days notice. The Petitioner s wife shall not leave India without seeking leave from the Court - application disposed off. - W.P.(C) 3374/2021 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2021 - JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Petitioner Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Bhatli, Mr. Abhishek Choudhary and Mr. Abhiyant Singh, Advocates (M: 9899423924 8860346700) Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Raghav Nagar, Swasti Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondents/SFIO (M: 9711588506) Mr. Nitin Srivastav, Investigating Officer (M: 9599569957) Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing. CM APPL. 10253/2021 (for interim stay) 2. The Petitioner in the present petition has challenged the Look Out Circular (hereinafter, LOC ) issued against him by Respondent Nos 3 and 4 i.e., the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter, MCA ) and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter, SFIO ) and prays for the same to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , one of the daughters is married. The younger daughter is unmarried and lives with the Petitioner and his wife. The Petitioner also has several immovable properties in Delhi/NCR. Details of the bank accounts and bank statements of the Petitioner and his two daughters have already been submitted to the SFIO. 7. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was only a Non-Executive Independent Director in M/s Techpro Systems Limited from 2007 to 2015 and has no role to play in the day to day management of the company. None of the allegations against the company or its promoters can be saddled upon the Petitioner. 8. On behalf of the Respondents, a note has been handed over in a sealed cover on the status of the investigation. This Court has perused the said note. The overall allegations being confidential in nature, it is merely recorded that the investigation is currently on going. The Petitioner has also appeared before the SFIO on various dates and made detailed statements on oath, which have also been placed on record. 9. The submission of Mr. Rakesh Kumar, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondents, is that the Petitioner is guilty of conniving and conspi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion prior to the issuance of the two Office Memoranda was that recourse to the LOC can only be taken when there is a cognizable offence under the IPC/other penal law. The reason for opening the LOC also had to be provided in the said LOC. 13. A perusal of the LOC, which had been placed on record in a sealed cover, shows that in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, no reason has been specifically mentioned in the LOC. 14. Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 2010 is extremely clear that a reason has to be given for opening the LOC. The fact that there is no reason provided in the present case is quite telling. Moreover, at this point of time, there is also no FIR lodged against the Petitioner and even the role of the Petitioner is under investigation. Under such circumstances, the question is whether the Petitioner s everyday life can be put on a standstill. An LOC has the effect of seriously jeopardising the right to travel of an individual. The settled legal position, as per the judgment in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) is that unless and until there is an FIR which is lodged or a criminal case which is pending, an LOC cannot be issued. 15. In Nitin Sandesara (supra), Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about to board a flight. 16. Recently, in Deept Sarup Aggarwal (supra), the amendment dated 5th December, 2017 to the Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 2010, which contains the amended clause, was also considered by the Court. The Court held that an LOC cannot be issued in every case by claiming that the same would affect the economic interest of India. 17. The relevant clauses of the Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 2010, as well as the amended Office Memorandum dated 5th December, 2017 by which clause j was amended, are set out herein below: Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 2010 g) Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in column IV in the enclosed proforma regarding 'reason for opening LOC' must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained. h) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC or other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival / departure of the subject in such cases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
