Validity of Look Out Circular upheld, diplomatic immunity rejected, Letters Patent Appeal dismissed

The court upheld the validity of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the appellant, rejected the claim of diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention, and ruled that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable due to the criminal nature of the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and jurisdiction of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
2. Immunity claimed by the appellant due to diplomatic passport.
3. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Look Out Circular (LOC)
The appellant challenged the LOC issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration, asserting it was invalid and without jurisdiction. The LOC was issued in connection with criminal cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and other allegations involving the appellant and his son, who had obtained a significant loan from IDBI Bank that was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The learned Single Judge, upon reviewing the guidelines and amendments to the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, concluded that the LOC could be issued in larger public interest. The judgment emphasized that the LOC was justified due to the appellant's involvement in criminal cases and the need for his participation in ongoing investigations.

2. Immunity Claimed by the Appellant Due to Diplomatic Passport
The appellant, a Seychelles national holding a diplomatic passport, claimed immunity from prosecution under the Vienna Convention. However, the court found that the appellant's movement within India was under surveillance due to his involvement in criminal cases. The court concluded that the claim of immunity did not hold, as the LOC was issued in accordance with the guidelines and in larger public interest, considering the appellant's antecedents in criminal matters.

3. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent
The core issue was whether the writ petition, and consequently the appeal, fell under the criminal jurisdiction of the court, thus affecting the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The court referred to various judgments, including the Apex Court's decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, which clarified that proceedings under Article 226 concerning criminal matters are considered criminal jurisdiction. The court noted that the LOC was directly related to pending criminal proceedings against the appellant, and the writ petition sought to lift the LOC to potentially avoid these proceedings. Therefore, the nature of the proceedings was criminal, and the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge was criminal jurisdiction. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 was deemed not maintainable.

Conclusion
The court upheld the validity of the LOC issued against the appellant, rejected the claim of diplomatic immunity, and ruled that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable as the writ petition arose from criminal jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

---