Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (1) TMI 1177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No.224/2017/A-001. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above noted RC was registered against four named accused namely Moin Akhtar Qureshi, Aditya Sharma, Pradeep Koneru and A.P. Singh and other unknown persons/public servants. The petitioner was not named in the RC however, was summoned as witness number of times, which the petitioner joined. Petitioner was a witness in this case is evident from the fact that his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Till date, the investigation of the respondent is not complete and the petitioner has not been sent as an accused for trial. It is submitted that the LOC qua the two named accused in the FIR, i.e. Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru have been quashed by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Learned Spl.P.P. for CBI refuting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though no charge-sheet has been filed however, the petitioner is required for investigation. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the LOC, as the petitioner has travelled abroad after seeking necessary permission from the competent Court. It is further stated that the LOC of the two named accused Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru was quashed subject to stringent conditions. 5. As per the reply filed by the CBI, the above-noted FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 31st August, 2016 received from the Assistant Director, Delhi Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement duly forwarded by the Directo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n seek recourse to LOC, under what circumstance, the procedure to be followed before opening the LOC, the remedy available to the person and the role of the concerned Court answered the issues as under: " The questions raised in the reference are as under: A. What 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 Look out-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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....htar Qureshi who is admittedly the main accused in the above-noted RC who had sought quashing of the LOC and vide order dated 8th August, 2018 the learned Special Judge recalled the directions of issuing LOC against him, applying the law laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra). The said order directed Moin Akhtar Qureshi to file an application seeking permission to visit abroad as and when required so that considering the basis of the status of investigation liberty could be granted. Thereafter, Moin Akhtar Qureshi sought permission to travel abroad before the learned Special Judge, and while permitting to travel abroad, imposed condition of furnishing an additional security in the form of a bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores was i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ited with the Court. Even if the petitioner is chargesheeted in the above-noted FIR, the trial in the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate and the charge-sheet filed pursuant to the abovenoted FIR would have to be conducted together in terms of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the petitioner would be bound to seek permission before travelling abroad. 10. The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which ....