TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng helped Mr.Dalip Jindal to siphon off the money. The petitioner further claims that he was summoned to join investigation by the Economic Offences Wing and had so joined on 26.12.2018 and 07.01.2019, wherein his statement was recorded and he had provided the details of all business dealing between himself/his companies and Mr.Dalip Jindal/his companies. On 04.01.2020 when the petitioner was intending to travel to Singapore, he was detained at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and was informed that an LOC has been issued against him. It is the said LOC that the petitioner has challenged in the present petition. 3. The petitioner has claimed that thereafter the petitioner has joined the investigation on 04.01.2020, 06.01.2020, 17.01.2020, 31.01.2020 and 06.02.2020. 4. On the other hand, the respondent, Directorate of Enforcement filed a counter affidavit and thereafter a sur-rejoinder inter-alia contending that the FIR No.203/2018 dated 08.10.2018 was registered by the EOW, New Delhi under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against said Dalip Jindal, Mr.Shaloo Jindal and Ms.Disha Jindal, who were directors/proprietors and co-directors in M/s Jindal A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time to furnish the remaining documents. The petitioner was again given time and directed to appear on 20.01.2020, but failed to appear on this date. On 22.01.2020, the petitioner sent a letter conveying that his uncle had expired on 19.01.2020 and sought further time for furnishing the remaining documents as promised. On 31.01.2020, the petitioner was served summons and directed to appear on 06.02.2020, but he again failed to appear or submit any documents as promised earlier by him. The Respondent submits that thus, the conduct of the petitioner was highly evasive and non-cooperative and investigation in the present case was pending in respect of the offences committed by the petitioner alongwith the other accused. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Impugned LOC has been issued not only in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by the respondents pursuant to the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) 10180/2009, titled Vikram Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., it, even otherwise, is not sustainable inasmuch as the same does not contain any valid reason for its issuance. He submits that the petitioner is neither a borrow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Lookout Circular and under what circumstances? B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Lookout circular? C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened? D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene? The questions are answered as under: A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as on 15.06.2017 when notice under Section 41-A was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating officer on 29.6.2017. A notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code is issued directing the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer, when arrest of a person is not required, as observed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, supra. xxx 71. As observed above, the FIR against the petitioner was lodged on 15.05.2017. Notice was issued on 15.6.2017 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer/Investigation Officer on 29.6.2017. On the very next day i.e., 16.6.2017, the impugned Look Out Circular was issued. As on the date of issuance of the Look Out Circular, there could have been no reason to suppose that the petitioner would not appear before the Station House Officer/Investigation Officer. 72. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioner did not appear on 29.6.2017 as directed, but only appeared pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. However, as argued by Mr. Subramanium, the very fact that after issuance of the first notice dated 16.06.2017, which was returnable on 29.06.2017, a f....