Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Marri Satish Babu vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 20943 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
04. 17.03.2023 RNT, J
I.A.No. 2 of 2023
In view of the reasons and grounds
mentioned in the affidavit in support of the
application, this application is ordered.
Hearing of the writ petition and I.A.No.1 of
2023 is taken up today from 29.03.2023.
_________
RNT, J
I.A.No. 1 of 2023
This application has been filed by the
petitioner for direction to the 3rd respondent to
permit him to travel to United States of America (in short 'USA') on 18.03.2023 by suspending the Look Out Circular vide RC0362022A0004, dated 28.01.2022 pending disposal of the writ petition.
2. Previously also the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 for a direction to the 3rd respondent to permit him to travel USA on 23.07.2022 or any other date by considering his representation dated 28.05.2022 and 28.06.2022.
3. On the said application I.A.No.1 of 2022, this Court passed the following order on 2 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE 21.07.2022:
"The petitioner had joined as Additional Director in a Company known as M/s. Satya Constructions Private Limited, on 11.03.2019, and resigned as Non-Executive Director of the said Company with effect from 18.06.2020. The Form DIR-12 shows that the petitioner had ceased to be a director of this company from 18.06.2020.
The petitioner, who is presently working, on a contract basis, for a Company based in the United States of America, had sought to go to the United States from 27.07.2022 for three weeks. However, he had come to know that, on account of certain activities of the Managing Director of the above Company, M/s.SBI had filed a criminal complaint which was registered as RC0362022A0004 on 28.01.2022 before ACB Visakhapatnam Police Station. This matter is now being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner contends that a Lookout Circular has also been issued against him due to which he would not be able to leave India.
The petitioner had given two
representations dated 28.05.2022 and
28.06.2022 to recall the Lookout Circular issued against him on the ground that the complaint of M/s.SBI against him does not set out any case against him personally. The contention of the petitioner is that the complaint of SBI is that the promoters of M/s. Satya Constructions Private Limited had obtained a loan in the year 2016 which had become a non-performing asset in 2022, due to which proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been initiated and a criminal complaint has also been filed. He submits that he was not associated with this company in any manner in 2016 when the loan was taken and he had been a Non-Executive Additional Director of the company for the limited period between 11.03.2019 to 18.06.2020 and as such he had no role in obtaining the loan or in doing anything which has resulted in the loan to non-performing asset in the year 2022.
Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only source of income and 3 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE livelihood for the petitioner is his employment in the United States of America and the petitioner is required to visit the United States for three weeks failing which he would lose his employment, which is his only source of livelihood. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao would also submit that a reading of the F.I.R filed by the officials of M/s.SBI does not set out any specific act against the petitioner and there is only a general statement that all the directors are responsible. He submits that the petitioner had already given his undertaking to the authorities that he would return after the period of three weeks and would be available for any questioning that the authorities choose to conduct. He submits that the petitioner cannot be prohibited from travelling unless there are specific and clear allegations against the petitioner.
Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is involved in a crime and the contours of the involvement of the petitioner would be revealed only after a proper investigation is conducted. He would submit that there is every danger of the petitioner not returning to India and the same would result in the petitioner placing himself beyond reach of the investigating agency.
Heard both sides.
The record placed before this Court shows that the petitioner's children are residing in India and are pursuing their education in a school situated in Namburu Village, Guntur District.
While ensuring the presence of an accused, in a criminal investigation is necessary, the right of such a person to pursue his profession or calling cannot be disregarded. This Court has to maintain a balance between these two conflicting requirements.
In the present case, the petitioner is not seeking to leave India for an uncertain period of time. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he would be returning to India after three weeks.
In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to leave India on the 4 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE condition that he comes back to India after three weeks.
Accordingly there shall be an interim direction to the 3rd respondent to suspend the Lookout Circular issued against the petitioner in relation to RC0362022A0004 dated 28.01.2022 for a period of four weeks from today. There shall also be a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to travel to United States of America without reference to the Lookout Circular issued by the 3rd respondent in relation to RC0362022A0004 dated 28.01.2022 for a period of four weeks from today. This order is being passed on the basis of the undertaking being given by the petitioner that he would return to India at the end of three weeks from the date on which he leaves India. An undertaking to that effect shall also be given to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner along with his tour programme and his contact details in the United States of America, before he leaves India.
Post on 24.08.2022."
4. Sri Ghanta Ramarao, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the petitioner went to USA and complying with the order dated 21.07.2022 he returned to India.
5. He further submits that the present I.A.No.1 of 2023 has been filed on the ground that the petitioner was discharging his duties from remote location by working from home with the permission of his employer, but as the department of Homeland Security in USA recently announced that the temporary covid-19 policy is ending and the petitioner is required to visit to USA to discharge his duties and in particular for physical inspection of requisite documents latest 5 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE by 25th March, 2023 and in connection therewith the petitioner has to go to USA on 18.03.2023 with respect to which journey, the details have been mentioned along with the documents. The petitioner requested the 3rd respondent vide e- mail dated 06.03.2023, annexed at page-10 inter alea requesting for one month time to go abroad from March 18th and to come back in one month.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may require few days to comply with the conditions of this order and consequently, he may have to re-plan his tour which may be after 18th March, 2023.
7. He further submits that the considerations on which the order dated 21.07.2022 was passed i.e., the petitioner's family residing in India, the children also residing in India and pursuing their education in the school in District Guntur, are still there and those circumstances are not changed.
8. Though in I.A.No.1 of 2023 the period has not been specified as to on what date the petitioner would come back to India, but Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel, submits that in view of the e-mail the petitioner would come back within one month from the date of leaving India and shall cooperate in the pending cases.
9. Ms. Alekhya Tadasina, learned counsel, 6 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE appearing for respondents No.1 & 2, as also Sri Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel, representing the Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the 3rd respondent, submit that they have no objection to the petitioner's request, subject to the conditions of the petitioner returning to India within the period as requested, cooperation with the pending case(s), and furnishing the undertaking to that effect before the 3rd respondent, as was imposed in the earlier order dated 21.07.2022 in I.A. No.1 of 2022.
10. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that the 3rd respondent shall suspend the Lookout Circular issued against the petitioner in relation to RC0362022A0004, dated 28.01.2022, for a period of 5 (five) weeks from today. There shall also be direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to travel to USA with reference to Lookout Circular issued by the 3rd respondent in relation to RC0362022A0004, dated 28.01.2022, for a period of 5 (five) weeks i.e., upto 24.04.2023.
11. This order is being passed in view of the undertaking given, as in the affidavit in support of the I.A.No.1 of 2023, in the e-mail document annexed to the affidavit as also the submission made to that effect by the learned senior advocate that the petitioner would return to India within a period of one month from the 7 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE date he leaves India, but not exceeding 24.04.2023 and subject to furnishing the undertaking to the same effect to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner along with his tour programme and his contact details in USA before he leaves India. The petitioner shall come back to India within 4 weeks from the date he leaves India but not exceeding the date 24.04.2023.
12. The application I.A.No.1 of 2023 stands disposed of.
13. Post on 26.04.2023.
_________ RNT, J Dsr Note:
Furnish copy today itself B/o Dsr