Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 7302 of 2021 & W.M.P. Nos. 7808 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Parties : Ahmed A.R. Buhari Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Another
Date of Judgment : 27-04-2021
PMLA, 2002 - Section 45 and 8 - Crucial documents - Foreign land on account - Seeking extension of suspension - Respondents claimed Provisional Attachment Order was issued attaching certain properties of petitioner and same is pending before Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority - Contemplated under Section 45 of PMLA Act, would be filed - Respondents also claimed though petitioner alleged he was interrogated for long hours and he was co-operative - Petitioner never produced crucial documents required for investigation - Respondents also stated earlier petitioner was granted permission to travel abroad
Finding of the court: Court is of view without expressing any view on the other contentions raised by both parties - Petitioner shall be granted the relief sought for on same terms and conditions - Petitioner shall maintain the FDR of Rs.50 lakhs submitted with second respondent alive until further orders of Court - petitioner shall furnish details of his itinerary to second respondent before departure, and shall intimate him upon arrival - Petitioner shall not try to contact any of witnesses or tamper any of evidence in any manner - Circumstances and petitioner shall avoid seeking extension of suspension for any future period on any reasons - Direction issued
Result: Writ Petition is disposed of
Judgment :-
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, more particularly, second respondent to forthwith lift the Lookout Circular in F.No.ECIR/CEZO/I/01/2018 and allow the petitioner herein to travel to Singapore, Malaysia and United Kingdom from 24.03.2021 till 30.06.2021.)
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to allow him to travel to Singapore, Malaysia and United Kingdom from 24.03.2021 till 30.06.2021, by lifting the Lookout Circular in F.No.ECIR/CEZO/I/01/2018.
2. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Kumaraguru and Mr.N.Ramesh, on behalf of the official respondents and also perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3949 of 2020 seeking similar relief for the period from February, 2020 to 31.05.2020. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 10.03.2020 allowing the petitioner to travel out of country for the specified period with certain conditions, after appreciating the factual position. While passing the said order, this Court also took into account the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Special Court (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi, in RC No.221/2018/E0003/CBI/EOU-VII-EO-III/New Delhi. Now, there is no much difference in the factual position, excepting the claim of the respondents that the investigation is at the crucial stage and his presence is very much essential.
4. The respondents claimed that the Provisional Attachment Order was issued on 28.02.2020 attaching certain properties of the petitioner and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi, in terms of Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 and the prosecution complaint, as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, would be filed. The respondents also claimed that though the petitioner alleged that he was interrogated for long hours and he was co-operative, the petitioner never produced crucial documents required for investigation, which are very crucial for the investigation and he had been giving evasive replies upon confrontation of incriminating documents. The respondents also stated that earlier the petitioner was granted permission to travel abroad only up till 31.05.2020, but he sought for extensions of time periodically till 28.02.2021, which proves his conduct of not co-operating in the investigation.
5. The respondents, in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit opposing the prayer of the petitioner, claimed that the petitioner had not produced crucial documents required for investigation, namely, the bank account statements of the companies, such as CNO LLC/CNO DMCC, invoices raised by actual suppliers of coal on CNO LLC/CNO DMCC, invoices raised by actual supplies of coal on those companies. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that those documents have been furnished to the second respondent and the same have been annexed as Sl.No.2 in Annexure B to the complaint dated 19.03.2020 filed by the second respondent before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish any other documents required by the second respondent.
6. The claim of the respondents that the conduct of the petitioner in overstaying at abroad beyond the originally permitted period proves his non-cooperation for the investigation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner was constrained to continue to stay in the foreign land on account of COVID-19 and the resultant lockdown and non-availability of flights, which is evident from the perusal of the orders passed by this Court granting extension of time to stay abroad.
7. The Special Court (PC Act), CBI-16, Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi, passed the order dated 15.03.2021 permitting the petitioner to travel
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
