Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL, J.
S. Martin
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Police & Others
W.P. No. 32317 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on: 21-02-2014
WRIT - MANDAMUS - LOOK OUT CIRCULAR - WITHDRAWAL - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD - PASSPORT HOLDER - CRIMINAL CASE - COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - INVESTIGATION - LOC ISSUED - VALIDITY - EXTENSION - HEARING - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - APPLICABILITY - JURISDICTION OF COURT - CANCELLATION OF LOC - PETITION - CRIMINAL COURT'S JURISDICTION - LOC AS COERCIVE TOOL - COOPERATION WITH INVESTIGATING AGENCY - CHARGE SHEET - FILING - PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF LOC - PERMISSION TO PROCEED ABROAD - PETITION TO TRIAL COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a licensed lottery purchaser, was issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) by the police for his alleged involvement in a case of printing and selling banned lottery tickets. The LOC was issued for a period of one year and was later extended for six months. The petitioner challenged the issuance and extension of the LOC, arguing that it violated his fundamental right to travel abroad and that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before the LOC was issued. The respondents contended that the LOC was issued in accordance with the law and that it was necessary to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country to evade trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the issuance and extension of the LOC were valid and tenable. The court found that the petitioner was involved in a serious criminal case and that there was a likelihood of him leaving the country to evade trial. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the LOC was issued, as the issuance of a LOC is a coercive tool to prevent a person from evading trial or arrest. The court further held that the criminal court's jurisdiction in cancelling or affirming the LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrants.
Issues: 1. Whether the issuance and extension of the LOC were valid and tenable? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the LOC was issued? 3. What is the jurisdiction of the criminal court in cancelling or affirming the LOC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The issuance and extension of the LOC were valid and tenable because: - The petitioner was involved in a serious criminal case. - There was a likelihood of him leaving the country to evade trial. - The issuance of a LOC is a coercive tool to prevent a person from evading trial or arrest. 2. The petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the LOC was issued because: - The issuance of a LOC is a coercive tool to prevent a person from evading trial or arrest. - The petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the issuance of a Non Bailable Warrant. 3. The criminal court's jurisdiction in cancelling or affirming the LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating agency in respect of the criminal case. The court also directed the investigating agency to file a charge sheet before the concerned court as expeditiously as possible. The court further held that it is open to the petitioner to seek permission of the trial court by projecting necessary petition for proceeding abroad setting out necessary details/particulars, like places to which he intends visiting/ travelling, the addresses of the places where he would be staying or residing and the duration, the object of visit/travel etc., if so advised.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the Look Out Circular against him and from preventing him for travelling abroad and detaining and arresting him in any immigration (entry or exit) point in India and interfering with his freedom of movement within or without India.
2. The Writ Facts:
(i) According to the Petitioner, the alleged case of the prosecution is that on prior information, when the house of one Nagarajan in Thillaiganga Nagar, Naganallur, Chennai was searched by the Police at 2.00 a.m. on 12.03.2012, it was found out that he had an amount of Rs.7,20,05,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Twenty Lakhs and Five Thousand Only) as cash. Further, on the next day, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs in cash was recovered from the house of one Moorthy, the 3rd accused in the case.
(ii) Further, the case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner and Moorthy/A3 with the help of A1-Nagarajan printed lottery tickets of Sikkim, Kerala and Maharashtra States in Kolkatta and Faridabad and sold the tickets of those States in Chennai without proper permission and earned profits. Also that, the aforesaid amount seized was a black money kept illegally by the said Nagarajan/A1, who gave a confession statement. As a matter of fact, Nagarajan/A1 retracted his confession statement.
(iii) It is the stand of the Petitioner that the case was falsely foisted due to personal and political enmity. He was harassed by the State Government by foisting of false cases from May 2011 onwards. He was branded as a "Goonda" due to political reasons and was detained under the preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on 29.10.2011. His detention order was set aside by this Court in H.C.P.No.1636 of 2011 on 29.03.2012. Due to other false cases foisted on him, he came out on bail only on 03.05.2012. The case in Crime No.304 of 2012 on the file of the 1st Respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch Egmore, Chennai was registered on 12.03.2012 in respect of alleged offences under Section 294-A, 120(B), 420 I.P.C.
(iv) The plea of the Petitioner is that he never committed the alleged offences, since he was under incarceration. He owns properties and has a permanent residence. He is an Income Tax Assessee. He is one of the highest Income Tax Payers in the country and has good status and reputation in the Society. He is a licensed purchaser of lottery in the State of Sikkim, West Bengal etc. He is doing business lawfully in those States where sale of lottery is permitted. He has not conducted lottery business in an illegal manner in the State of Tamil Nadu. He never does lottery business in any State where it is prohibited. His lottery business is confined to state where the said business is permitted. His wife had advanced an amount of Rs.7.30 crores on 01.03.2012 to G.Moorthy for purchasing his immovable house property in Anna Nagar, Chennai for a sale consideration of Rs.12.30 crores and entered into a Sale Agreement with him agreeing to pay the remaining sale consideration on the date of registration of the Sale Deed. The amount seized by the Police from Nagarajan's house was entrusted to him by the said Moorthy from the advance amount received by him. It is fully accounted cash. His wife is also an Income Tax Assessee and she can account and vouch for the aforesaid payment. The money which was seized/recovered from A1/Nagarajan's house was deposited by the 3rd Respondent/Inspector of Police, S-8 Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai – 88 in the Alandur Judicial Magistrate Court and the same was attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The FIR registered against him does not disclose any of the offences enumerated therein and it is without any merit or substance. In short, the complaint and the FIR are also malafide.
(v) The Moorthy/A3 is also a man of means and an I.T. Assessee. T
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
