Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Shri Sathish Babu Sana - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 249 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Stuti Gujral, Mr. Sahil Ghai, Ms.Rudrali Patil and Mr. Sheikh Bakhtiyar, Advocates., for the Appellant; Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Spl. P.P. for CBI with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Advocate with Inspector Sushil Dewan. for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance and recall of lookout circulars (LOC) should be based on the cooperation of the individual in the investigation, the absence of deliberate evasion of arrest or failure to appear before the Trial Court, and the legal principles laid down in ILR 2010 VI Delhi 706 Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors.

Headnote:
LOC - Quashing of Lookout Circular - Section 164 Cr.P.C. - ILR 2010 VI Delhi 706 Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors. - [IPC, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002] - The court discussed the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse to Lookout-Circular, the procedure to be followed before opening the LOC, the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened, and the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it. The court emphasized that 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. The court also highlighted the procedure required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Lookout-Circular and the remedy available to the person against whom LOC is issued. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions and principles laid down in ILR 2010 VI Delhi 706 Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors., and the provisions of IPC and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of the lookout circular (LOC) issued by the respondent in relation to a criminal case. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the case but was summoned as a witness, and had cooperated in the investigation. The respondent argued that the petitioner was required for investigation and no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner due to the LOC.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation and had not deliberately evaded arrest or failed to appear before the Trial Court. The court directed the respondent to recall the LOC against the petitioner and imposed conditions for the petitioner to join the investigation and seek permission before traveling abroad.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner, the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, and the interpretation of the legal provisions regarding the issuance and recall of LOC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, the absence of deliberate evasion of arrest or failure to appear before the Trial Court, and the legal principles laid down in ILR 2010 VI Delhi 706 Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors. regarding the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse to Lookout-Circular, the procedure to be followed before opening the LOC, and the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to recall the LOC against the petitioner and imposed conditions for the petitioner to join the investigation and seek permission before traveling abroad.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - LOC can be issued for cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in court despite NBWs and other coercive measures, and there is a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest (!) . - The investigating officer must make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs circular, giving details and reasons, and the competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC (!) . - The person against whom LOC is issued must join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer or surrender before the court or satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued, and may approach the officer who issued the LOC for explanation (!) .

When can an investigating agency issue a Lookout Circular (LOC)?

What is the procedure to be followed before opening an LOC?

What is the remedy available to a person against whom an LOC has been issued?

ORDER

Mukta Gupta, J. - W.P.(CRL) 249/2019

CRL.M.A. 1700/2019 (stay)

1. By this petition, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the lookout circular (in short 'LOC') issued by respondent against the petitioner in relation to RC No.224/2017/A-001.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above noted RC was registered against four named accused namely Moin Akhtar Qureshi, Aditya Sharma, Pradeep Koneru and A.P. Singh and other unknown persons/public servants. The petitioner was not named in the RC however, was summoned as witness number of times, which the petitioner 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 opening of the LOC or the continuation thereof is made out. According to the petitioner he is a businessman and has huge investment in India and for the purpose of his business, he has to often travel overseas. Between October, 2017 to October, 2018 the petitioner joined the investigation with the respondent approximately 9-10 times however, when he was at the immigration at Hyderabad Airport on 25th September, 2019 he was stopped when he came to know that a LOC had been opened against him.

3. It is contended that the petitioner being a victim is a complainant in another FIR lodged by the CBI being RC No.13(A)/2018/CBI/AC-III despite the fact that the petitioner is a victim and till date neither arrested nor charge-sheeted and has joined the investigation, the LOC was opened in a most casual manner without following the principles of law laid down by this Court. Even if the petitioner is required for investigation, the same does not permit the investigating agency to destroy the personal freedom of a citizen as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2013 (6) SCC 740 Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C. Palanisamy.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. for CBI refuting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though no charge-sheet has been filed however, the petitioner is required for investigation. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the LOC, as the petitioner has travelled abroad after seeking necessary permission from the 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 undue favours from the public servants. The chats and messages have revealed that Aditya Sharma received the money on behalf of Moin Qureshi. During the course of investigation, role of the petitioner also came up as an accomplice/accused for which an arrest proposal was mooted by the investigating agency and LOC was also opened on 16th May, 2018 as there was reasonable apprehension that he may abscond from India and may not ret

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis