IMPORTANT POINT
A Look Out Circular cannot be issued without credible evidence of a risk of flight or non-cooperation, particularly when no scheduled offences are pending against the subject.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr D. Lawande with Mr Ashish Kuncoliencar for the Petitioner and Mr P. Karpe learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner questions the Look Out Circular issued in Enforcement Case Information Report No. ECIR/PJZO/03/2022 dtd. 28/1/2022. When instituting this petition, the Petitioner was unaware whether such a Look Out Circular (L.O.C.) was indeed issued. However, since there were strong apprehensions, this petition was instituted.

4. In the reply filed on behalf of the Respondent, it is now admitted that L.O.C. is indeed issued concerning the Petitioner on 4/2/2022 in Enforcement Case Information Report (E.C.I.R.) referred to above. Mr Karpe, however, submitted that the L.O.C. is in accord with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and therefore, no ground is made to interfere with the same.

5. The material placed on record, in this case, shows that an F.I.R. No.10/2022 was registered by the Porvorim Police Station, Goa, on 22/1/2022 alleging therein that the Petitioner and two others are involved in offences punishable under Ss. 420, 408, 120-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Ss. 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 and Sec. 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Regarding this F.I.R., the Petitioner and two others were arrested, and the investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch, Ribandar.

6. On 28/1/2022, based upon the above F.I.R. No.10/2022, the Directorate of Enforcement registered the above E.C.I.R. against the Petitioner and two others referred to in F.I.R. No.10/2022. Mr Lawande, learned counsel for the Petitioner, pointed out that from the perusal of F.I.R. and E.C.I.R., it is evident that only Ss. 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L.A.). The remaining crimes referred to in the F.I.R. and E.C.I.R. are not scheduled offences under the P.M.L.A.

7. On 2/2/2022, the J.M.F.C. at Mapusa enlarged the Petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions like not leaving the State of Goa without prior permission of the J.M.F.C. and reporting to the Crime Branch Police Station for 20 days from the date of the Petitioner enlargement on bail. There is no allegation about the Petitioner breaching any of the terms and conditions subject to which he was enlarged on bail.

8. On 3/2/2022 and 4/2/2022, the Respondent recorded the Petitioner's statement under Sec. 50(2) of the P.M.L.A. To our pointed query as to whether there was any instance of the Petitioner not cooperating with the Respondent in the investigations in the E.C.I.R., Mr Karpe learned Special Public Prosecutor responded by stating that there were no such instances. Mr Karpe, however, submitted that if the Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad, then the Respondent is apprehensive that the Petitioner would make himself scarce and not be available to face prosecution if and when launched by the Respondent. However, Mr Karpe could not point out any material upon which such apprehension was based.

9. The record shows that on 6/4/2022, the Respondent even searched the Petitioner's premises. But, again, there was no allegation about the Petitioner not cooperating with the Respondent during such a search. Moreover, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent also does not allege any non-cooperation on the Petitioner's part.

10. On 27/6/2022, the Petitioner applied to modify the bail conditions regarding restraint on travel outside the State of Goa. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dtd. 12/7/2022, allowed this application after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor. The Petitioner was granted permission to leave the State of Goa with a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required and before the trial Court if any charge sheets were