Fugitive Economic Offenders Act compliance requires recorded reasons, material support, and prescribed particulars before notice issues.

Under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, an authorised officer must record reasons to believe, based on material in possession, before moving the Special Court, and the statutory thresholds for a warrant-linked scheduled offence and value of proceeds must be satisfied. The Delhi HC noted that the application disclosed the pending complaint, non-bailable warrant, the alleged proceeds of crime exceeding the threshold, the petitioner's absence from India, and the properties said to be proceeds of crime, and held that the statutory preconditions were met. It also held that an application filed in the prescribed form and manner required notice to be issued, so the challenge to the filing and notice stage failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 was supported by recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession and satisfied the statutory requirements for treating the petitioner as a fugitive economic offender; (ii) whether the Special Court erred in issuing notice on the premise that the application was not duly filed.

Issue (i): whether the application under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 was supported by recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession and satisfied the statutory requirements for treating the petitioner as a fugitive economic offender.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires an authorised officer to record reasons in writing, based on material in possession, before moving the Special Court. The expression "fugitive economic offender" is linked to the existence of a warrant of arrest in relation to a scheduled offence and the statutory threshold of the value involved in the scheduled offence. On the facts pleaded in the application, the complaint set out the reasons for belief, the pending prosecution complaint under the Black Money Act, the non-bailable warrant, the value of the proceeds of crime exceeding the threshold, the petitioner's absence from India, and the properties believed to be proceeds of crime. The Court held that the material placed satisfied the statutory preconditions and that the challenge based on absence of independent satisfaction could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The statutory preconditions under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 were held to be met, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the Special Court erred in issuing notice on the premise that the application was not duly filed.

Analysis: The Court held that once an application is filed in accordance with the prescribed forms and manner under the Rules, the Special Court is obliged to issue notice under the Act. The concept of "duly filed" was read in the light of the statutory Rules, and the application was found to contain the requisite statement of reasons, whereabouts, list of properties and other particulars. The objection that the notice was issued mechanically was rejected. The Court also noted the petitioner's non-disclosure of his foreign address and held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The Special Court was held to have correctly issued notice and the challenge to the filing and summoning stage failed, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: No ground was found to interfere with the proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, and the petition seeking quashing was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory application under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 discloses recorded reasons to believe, supporting material, the warrant-based jurisdictional predicates, and the prescribed particulars under the Rules, the Special Court must issue notice and the proceedings need not be quashed at the threshold in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

---