TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrested in the ECIR recorded by the Enforcement Directorate wherein while granting bail to the petitioner, passport of the petitioner has already been deposited with the Court. Even if the petitioner is chargesheeted in the above-noted FIR, the trial in the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate and the charge-sheet filed pursuant to the abovenoted FIR would have to be conducted together in terms of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the petitioner would be bound to seek permission before travelling abroad. The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in SUMER SINGH SALKAN VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR ORS. AND COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VERSUS STATE VS. GURNEK SINGH ETC. [ 2010 (8) TMI 108 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner joined. Petitioner was a witness in this case is evident from the fact that his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Till date, the investigation of the respondent is not complete and the petitioner has not been sent as an accused for trial. It is submitted that the LOC qua the two named accused in the FIR, i.e. Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru have been quashed by the learned Special Court and this Court respectively however, it subsists qua the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has always cooperated in the investigation and in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as ILR 2010 VI Delhi 706 Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director Ors. and other decisions no ground for ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he competent Court. It is further stated that the LOC of the two named accused Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru was quashed subject to stringent conditions. 5. As per the reply filed by the CBI, the above noted FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 31st August, 2016 received from the Assistant Director, Delhi Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement duly forwarded by the Director of Enforcement alleging that Moin Akhtar Qureshi had been liaisoning and obtaining illegal money from various persons for getting their work done through public servants. Analysis of the records and BBM chat data for the year 2011 to 2013 revels that Moin Akhtar Qureshi had taken huge amount of money from different persons for obtaining undu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seek recourse of Lookout-Circular and under what circumstances? B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Look out-circular? C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened? D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene? The questions are answered as under: A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed Moin Akhtar Qureshi to file an application seeking permission to visit abroad as and when required so that considering the basis of the status of investigation liberty could be granted. Thereafter, Moin Akhtar Qureshi sought permission to travel abroad before the learned Special Judge, and while permitting to travel abroad, imposed condition of furnishing an additional security in the form of a bank guarantee of ₹2 crores was imposed. The said decision dated 1st February, 2019 was challenged before this Court when this Court in Crl.M.C. No.760/2019 enhanced the condition of FDR/bank guarantee to ₹6 crores however, by the order dated 1st April, 2019 the Hon ble Supreme Court reduced the condition to ₹2 crores. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the petitioner would be bound to seek permission before travelling abroad. 10. The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which concession he did not misuse and therefore there is no justification in continuing with the LOC opened against the petitioner. Hence the respondent is directed to recall its request for opening the LOC against the petitioner. It is further directed that that the petitioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
