9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited (SIL). The petitioner states that he has no connection whatsoever with the day-to-day affairs, management or administration of SIL nor is he a shareholder of the Company. He was caught unawares by virtue of a restriction placed on his travel when he went to the Chennai Airport with his wife and children on 30.01.2020 to travel abroad for medical treatment of his wife. 3. The reason given was that a LOC had been issued by R1 in connection with Crime No.11 of 2019 that has been registered against the Promoters and Directors of SIL for alleged offences under Sections 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1d ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The petitioner is admittedly not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.11 of 2019. He would also submit that he has no connection to SIL, no investigation has implicated him thus far and his credentials to travel thus cannot be questioned, particularly seeing as he holds a valid passport. 5. He relies on the decision in the case of Karthi P Chidambaram vs Bureau of Immigration, passed by the First Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.21305 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Limited (SPL) and 12 others. 10. They would state that the authorities have prima facie evidence of large scale diversion and siphoning of funds borrowed from Banks and Financial Institutions resulting in substantial loss of public money. Some of the Companies in the Surana Group were listed before the Stock Exchanges and some are under liquidation as per the orders of the National Law Company Tribunal. 11. In the course of the hearing, a preliminary question that arose was in regard to the veracity of the writ petition itself since the LOC was effective only for a period of one year. In response to the specific query of the Court as to how any restriction could be placed on the right to travel beyond the period of one year as contemplated under Lookout Circular dated 07.03.2019, a counter is filed by R1 on 17.02.2022, wherein, at paragraph 9 they submit that 'the Look out Circular continues and it is still in force'. 12. The counter is accompanied by a copy of a Corrigendum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Foreigners Division, dated 10.08.2021 to state that an LOC, once opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to LOC subject or his/her representative or any other unauthorized person other than the originator. 15. No materials have been placed before this Court indicating extension of the LOC beyond 20.01.2022 and had there been any such order based upon the approval/sanction granted by the competent authority in the SFIO, it would/should have been placed on record before me. 16. According to the SFIO, the impact of corrigendum dated 10.08.2021 is to automatically extend the LOC till such time it is deleted by the SFIO itself. In this regard, they also press into service a communication from the BoI wherein the latter makes it clear that the extension of the LOC is at the instance of the originating entity, in this case, the SFIO only, and it is only they that have to take a decision in this regard. 17. The communication as aforesaid, dated 15.02.2022, reads thus: No.F.1/CC/FRRO/CH/2021 (2477)-781 Bureau of Immigration (MHA) Govt of India No.26, Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Annexe Chennai-600006 Dated, the 15 Feb 2022 To Shri Rabu Manohar, SPC, J-74-B, Plot No.1964, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Sir, Sub:-WP No.2477/2020-Rahul Surana Vs. FRRO, Chennai & Othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment in November 2021 and the respondents were asked to produce a copy of the same for the perusal of this Court. However, immediately thereafter, R1 has filed affidavit dated 23.02.2020 confirming the position that no such interim report has been sent to the Government, since none was sought. 23. They however reiterate the gravity of the offences that they allege qua the petitioner and the related concerns. They also state that the investigation is at an advanced level. R1 has submitted a Report in a sealed cover on 21.02.2022 indicating the alleged extent of involvement of the petitioner in the affairs of the Surana Group Companies and its prima facie findings of diversion and embezzlement of public money. 24. Based upon the on-going investigation that they say is at an 'advanced' stage, urging that there is a tangible and real danger of him absconding from the country, if he is allowed to travel. In all, they would submit that their apprehensions in regard to the petitioner absconding must be taken note of and the LOC enforced till such time the investigation is completed and a final report formulated at by them. 25. In the regard, Office Memorandum issued in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by the originating agency to ensure that complete identifying particulars of the person, in respect of whom the LOC is to be opened, are indicated in the Proforma...' It is further provided that 'an LOC is valid for a period of one year. It can, however, be extended further before the expiry of the one year period. In case no request for extension of LOC is received before expiry of one year period, an LOC will automatically be closed by the Immigration Officer concerned after expiry of one year period.' ..... 6. In a related judgement delivered on 11.8.2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1315/2008- Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Asstt. Director &Ors and Crl. Ref.1/2006-Court on its Own Motion Re: State Vs. Gurnek Singh etc., the Court has answered four questions raised by a lower court on the LOC. These questions are as below: a) What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Look-out-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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary in the State Government; or iii. District Magistrate of the District concerned; or iv. Superintendent of Police (SP) of the District concerned; or v. SP in CBI or an officer of equivalent level working in CBI; or vi. Zonal Director in Na rcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or an officer of equivalent level (including Assistant Director (Ops.) in Headquarters of NCB); or vii. Deputy Commissioner or an officer of equivalent level in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or Central Board of Direct Taxes or Central Board of Excise and Customs; or viii. Assistant Director of IB/Bol; or ix. Deputy secretary of R&AW; or x. An officer not below the level of Superintendent of Police in National Investigation Agency, or xi. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate; or xii. Protector of Emigrants in the office of the Protectorate of Emigrants or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the Government of India; or xiii. Designated officer of Interpol Further, LOCs can also be issued as per directions of any Criminal Court in India. 26. The investigation that is referred to in this case is stated to have commenced on 28.10.2019. Even as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The details in column IV in the enclosed proforma or regarding reason for opening LOC's must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained. . . . . 70. The legality and/or validity of a Look Out Circular has to be adjudged having regard to the circumstances prevailing on the date on which the request for issuance of the Look Out Circular had been made. . . . . 73. As observed above, the issuance of Look Out Circulars is governed by executive instructions as contained in the Office Memoranda Nos.25022/13/78-F1 dated 05.09.1979 and 25022/20/98-FIV dated 27.12.2000, as modified by Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010. Such 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. The argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General that a request for Look Out Circular could have been made in view of the inherent power of the investigating authority to secure attendance and cooperation of an accused is contrary to the aforesaid circulars and thus, not sustainable. 32. In the light of the discussion as aforesaid, I am of the conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
