Look Out Circular quashed against petitioner in money laundering case due to lack of evidence and cooperation shown

The Bombay HC quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by ED against petitioner in a money laundering case. Petitioner, working in Bahrain since education, appeared before ED seven times from December 2020 after returning to India during COVID-19. Despite ED's investigation since 2019 and petitioner's cooperation, no material evidence was found against him. Court held detention cannot be based solely on non-cooperation, especially when petitioner had been deprived of livelihood since December 2020. Given petitioner's two-decade work history in Middle East and lack of incriminating material, continued detention was inappropriate. Petition allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of a Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) issued by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) against the petitioner. The main issue revolves around the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and the necessity of continuing the LOC.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Quashing of Look Out Circular (LOC)
The petitioner sought the quashing of the LOC issued by the ED. The petitioner, who was not arraigned as an accused in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act case, had been working in Bahrain and Dubai for over two decades. Despite appearing before the ED multiple times, no material was found against him in the PMLA case registered in 2019. The petitioner's livelihood was affected since December 2020 due to the LOC. The court noted that non-cooperation cannot be a sole reason for detention, especially when the petitioner lacks relevant information. As the ED failed to produce any inculpatory material against the petitioner, the court quashed the LOC.

Issue 2: Conditions for the Petitioner
The judgment laid down specific conditions for the petitioner post quashing of the LOC. The petitioner was required to abide by the undertaking given to the court, appear before the ED with a minimum seven days notice when summoned, and provide details of his residence and contact information while abroad. The petitioner was prohibited from contacting the accused in the case and was instructed to inform the ED of any changes in residence or contact numbers. The judgment also stated that the ED could issue a fresh LOC if necessary in the future.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Bombay allowed the petition to quash the LOC against the petitioner and provided detailed terms and conditions for the petitioner to follow post-quashing. The judgment emphasized the lack of incriminating material against the petitioner and highlighted the importance of cooperation in investigations while safeguarding individual rights.

---