Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

% 28.02.2019 It is the petitioner's case that de hors the constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, issued by the Government of India, apropos issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC), the document itself refers to the circumstances in which the LOC could be opened. Para 7 of the said Office Memorandum reads as under:-

"7. The High Court has answered these questions in its judgement dated 11.8.2010 which are reproduced below for guidance of all concerned agencies:
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 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 LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.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 subordinate courts jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs."

Mr. Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the opening of the LOC falls foul of the aforesaid clauses 7(a) and 7(d). Furthermore, the petitioner had already joined investigations at least nine times prior to the opening of LOC and there is no place of whisper, let alone a suggestion that the petitioner has evaded the process of law. He submits that oddly enough, the petitioner who is aggrieved of being compelled to part with monies for bribes, is a witness in proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; whereas in this case, the CBI has made him an accused. It is in the context of this dichotonomous and conflicting position of two prosecuting agencies, that a writ petition had been filed and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 05.02.2019, directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. He further submits that pursuant to the opening of the LOC, the petitioner has been permitted by this Court, to travel outside the country and that the petitioner has never misused the liberty; he has also deposited in this Court, an FDR in the sum of Rs. 6 crores; the monies are lying blocked much to his detriment. On 18.12.2018 pursuant to an affidavit dated 17.12.2018 he had handed over to the CBI a list of immovable properties owned by him. The value of the said properties is stated to be over about Rs.8 crores. The CBI is in the process of verifying the same.