Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. Sahi, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JJ.
C. Sivasankaran – Appellant
Versus
Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. SR 49793 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel, S. Vijayan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the relief sought in a writ petition, particularly in the context of criminal proceedings, determines the jurisdiction exercised by the court and the maintainability of an appeal.
Headnote:
Look Out Circular - Criminal Jurisdiction - Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 1988, Indian Penal Code (IPC), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The judgment discusses the issuance of Look Out Circular against the appellant in the context of criminal cases pending against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court examines the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge and concludes that the writ petition giving rise to the appeal falls within the criminal jurisdiction, making the Letters Patent Appeal not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Seychelles national holding a diplomatic passport, challenged the Look Out Circular issued against him in the context of criminal cases initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and other laws. The appellant sought to lift the bar of the Look Out Circular to avoid criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge was in the criminal jurisdiction, as the relief sought in the writ petition related to the consequences of criminal prosecutions pending against the appellant. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal was deemed not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition and the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge fell within the criminal jurisdiction, barring the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought in the writ petition, which aimed to challenge the Look Out Circular in the context of pending criminal proceedings, fell within the criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected as being not maintainable due to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge in the criminal matter.
JUDGMENT :
A.P. Sahi, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.11.2019 made in W.P.No.19743 of 2019.)
1. The appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 6.11.2019, whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a declaration against a Look Out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration, as invalid and without jurisdiction, has been dismissed. The question is, can the writ petition giving rise to this appeal and the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge be said to be an exercise of the criminal jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to bar the maintainability of an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent?
2. The appellant is not an Indian citizen and is a Seychelles national. He is a holder of a diplomatic passport issued by the Republic of Seychelles. When he entered India on 6.8.2018, he was informed about the Look Out Circular, against which he sent a representation, and the said Look Out Circular was withdrawn. However, in the criminal cases that were initiated against him, he was called upon to appear on certain dates before the Enquiry Officer. The cases registered against him were by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
3. The second time he was informed of a Look Out Circular having been issued against him, against which the appellant made a representation, but this time the Look Out Circular was not withdrawn and, therefore, he preferred the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.
4. The learned Single Judge recorded that the appellant is one of the Promoters-Directors of Siva Group of Companies and his son, S.Saravanan, had obtained a loan of Rs.322.40 Crores from IDBI Bank, which was declared to be a Non Performing Asset (NPA). S.Saravanan was in the capacity of a Director in M/s.Win Wind Oy (WWO), Finland. There were other allegations that have been detailed in the order of the learned Single Judge, and when the prosecution proceeded against the appellant, the CBI registered a case and in paragraph (10) of the impugned judgment, the following is recorded:
“10. On the aforesaid allegation, the C.B.I., Bangalore, registered a case in Cr. No. RC-09 (E)/2018 against Axcel Sunshine Ltd. and 38 other accused, including public servants and the petitioner under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the direction issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, vide Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 for causing wrongful loss of more than Rs.600 crores to IDBI Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.”
5. A third case was also lodged against the appellant in Mumbai.
6. In this background, the writ petition that was placed before the learned Judge having roster of Criminal Jurisdiction on writs, was pressed into service on the ground that the appellant is immune from prosecution, as he holds a diplomatic passport, in the light of the Vienna Convention. The Look Out Circular is not in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Government of India. A copy of the Memorandum is available on record.
7. The learned Single Judge noticed the said guidelines, as also the amendments issued vide the Office Memorandum on 5.12.2017, and came to the conclusion that the Office Memorandum, as amended, enables the issuance of a Look Out Circular, if the same is necessary in larger public interest. Thus, the learned Single Judge, after having considered the judgments on the subject that have been detailed in the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that it will not be appropriate to judicially review such action and consequently permit the appellant to leave India in the background of the case. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by the impugned judgment.
8. When the matte
