High Court upholds Look Out Circular against revisionist, denies travel plea amid financial misappropriation probe.

The High Court upheld the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the revisionist, citing concerns of potential evasion in an ongoing investigation regarding financial misappropriation by the revisionist's company. The court dismissed the revisionist's plea to travel abroad, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of flight. Despite the revisionist's arguments based on fundamental rights and precedents, the court found no grounds to overturn the trial court's decision, highlighting the need to ensure cooperation in the investigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the revisionist.
2. Revisionist's request for permission to travel abroad.
3. Alleged financial misappropriation by the revisionist's company.
4. Applicability of precedents cited by the revisionist.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the revisionist:
The revisionist contended that a Look Out Circular (LOC) cannot be issued by the Investigating Agency in cognizable offences unless there are chances of the accused deliberately evading arrest and not appearing before the trial court despite the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW). The revisionist argued that there was no indication or allegation that he would not be available for interrogation during the investigation or trial, as he had always presented himself before the Investigating Agency. The revisionist relied on the judgment in "Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Bureau of Immigration and Others," where it was held that LOCs are coercive measures to make the person surrender to the Investigating Agency or court and should not be issued as a matter of course but only when reasons exist. The court, however, distinguished this case from Karti P. Chidambaram, noting that the LOC in the present case was issued to interrogate the revisionist in an ongoing investigation involving a significant financial scam. The court found that the possibility of the revisionist fleeing abroad could not be ruled out and upheld the issuance of the LOC.

2. Revisionist's request for permission to travel abroad:
The revisionist sought permission to travel to the Philippines for ten days, arguing that there was no possibility of him fleeing the country as he would leave his wife and daughter behind. He contended that his right to travel abroad for business purposes is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The trial court had rejected this application, expressing apprehension that the revisionist could flee to avoid investigation or trial. The High Court concurred with the trial court, noting the ongoing investigation and the significant financial misappropriation involved. The court found no infirmity in the trial court's order and dismissed the revisionist's request to travel abroad.

3. Alleged financial misappropriation by the revisionist's company:
The case involved an FIR lodged against the revisionist and others for misappropriating funds meant for financing sugarcane farmers. The Oriental Bank of Commerce had sanctioned loans to farmers under a tie-up arrangement with the revisionist's company, Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. The company was accused of submitting improper KYC certificates and diverting loan funds to other accounts, leading to a financial scam of approximately Rs. 100 crores. The company's actions led to the accounts being declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA), and a recovery suit was filed by the bank. The revisionist argued that he had left the company in September 2013 and was not involved in the subsequent financial transactions. However, the court found that the revisionist was still an accused in the ongoing investigation and that his involvement in the financial misappropriation could not be ruled out.

4. Applicability of precedents cited by the revisionist:
The revisionist cited the judgment in "Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another," arguing that a clear case must be spelt out for prosecuting a director of a company. He also cited "Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Bureau of Immigration and Others," arguing against the issuance of the LOC. The court distinguished these cases, noting that the LOC in the present case was issued to facilitate the ongoing investigation into a significant financial scam. The court found that the conditions precedent for issuing the LOC were met and that the revisionist's cooperation so far did not guarantee he would not evade arrest in the future.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revisionist's request to travel abroad and upheld the issuance of the LOC, emphasizing the ongoing investigation into the significant financial misappropriation by the revisionist's company. The court found no merit in the revisionist's arguments and upheld the trial court's order, expressing concerns about the possibility of the revisionist fleeing to avoid investigation or trial.

---