TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner, learned Additional Solicitor General Sri.M.B.Naragund for Sri.Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned Senior Central Government Counsel for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is working in Netherlands for the last 8 years came to India on 12.08.2021 to see his ailing father who was suffering from hypertension as well as Parkinson's disease. The petitioner is holder of Dutch residence permit which is a condition precedent for his employment at Netherlands. It is submitted that in the interregnum, on 26.11.2021, petitioner received summons issued under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [for short, PML Act] from respondent No.3, directing him to appear before the third respondent-authority on 29.11.2021. Accordingly, it is stated that petitioner appeared before the third respondent on 29.12.2021, 30.12.2021 and 01.01.2022. The above stated summons to the petitioner was in relation to a criminal case registered against one Mr.Sri Krishna, the brother of petitioner under the provisions of PML Act and also for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 384, 419, 420 and 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the stranger and/or economic interests of India or potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, circumstances do not justify issuance of look out circular against the petitioner. Right to travel is a fundamental right and it can be curtailed or restricted only as per procedure established by law. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that no cognizable offences alleged are registered against the petitioner and all allegations and registration of case is against his brother and in that circumstances, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not justified in issuing look out circular against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the respondents have not made out either in their statement of objections or in the course of their investigation whether there were exceptional circumstances which necessitated the respondents to issue look out circular. The petitioner has co-operated with the respondents in their investigations and the petitioner has made available all the information w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....outside the country. It is alleged that said Mr.Sri Krishna has converted certain crypto currencies into other crypto currencies and traded in international platforms and thereafter converted for his own illegal gains. 9. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that for the purpose of ascertaining the role of petitioner in the crime, the petitioner was issued with summons under Section 50 of the PML Act to appear before the third respondent. In pursuance of the summons, even though the petitioner appeared before the third respondent on 29.12.2021, 30.12.2021 and 01.01.2022, he has failed to co-operate with the investigation. It is further stated that the petitioner failed to furnish the temporary e-mail password and also key to certain correspondences. It is submitted that the petitioner received 50,000 pounds out of the crime proceeds from his brother Mr.Sri Krishna and had transferred the same to one Mr.Hanish Patel residing in UK owning an entity by name, GCP UK Ltd., in May 2021. Further, referring to paragraph 9 of the statement of objections, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that look out circular was issued by following the procedure prescribe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds and further transfer of the same to one Mr.Hanish Patel and furnishes the password of the temporary e-mails and certain keys, his presence for investigation with regard to money laundering case registered against his brother would be absolutely necessary. It is his submission that the economic interest of the country is involved. It is also submitted that conversation between the petitioner and his father revealed that certain Great Britain Pounds (GBP) were transferred to a Swiss Account, details of which are yet to be known. Since the respondents are yet to ascertain the role of petitioner in the offence of money laundering and thereby ascertaining all the transactions leading to proceeds of crime, the presence of petitioner is absolutely necessary. Hence, issuance of LOC is justified. 12. It is an admitted fact that no crime nor FIR is registered for any office against the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that one Mr. Sri Krishna is the brother of the petitioner and it is a matter of record that two FIRs in Crime No.9/2019 and Crime No.153/2020 are registered against Mr. Sri Krishna, brother of petitioner. Crime No.153/2020 is registered against Mr.Sri Krishna and O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following the procedure prescribed under Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. The said Office Memorandum lays down guidelines for issuance of LOC under the circumstances stated therein. Look out notice against the petitioner is issued under Clause 6[L] which reads as follows: "In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases as may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (B) above. If it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the stranger and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time." A reading of the above Clause makes it clear that LOC could be issued wherein the departure of a person from India, if it appears to such authority based on inputs rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on a Indian citizen from leaving the territory of India. As such neither the Single Judge was required to examine the said issue nor we are inclined to delve upon this aspect. 22. It is the specific act emerging from the said OMs, which the petitioner seeks to assail in the writ petition and when examined in this background, it would emerge from the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of MANEKA GANDHI's wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court (per Hon'ble Mr. Justices Bhagawati, Untwalia and Fazal Ali) have observed that procedure established by law under Article 21 must meet the requirement of Article 14 and it has been further held the right to travel abroad cannot be regarded as forming part of Articles 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g), since such right is not guaranteed and such right cannot be inferred as a peripheral or concomitant right under Article 19(1)........ 23. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice-Mr.Beg and per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailasam) that a passport may be impounded without giving prior opportunity and subsequently hearing must be provided. Hence, petitioner cannot be heard to contend tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court cannot lose sight of the fact that cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the Courts........" 16. In Dr.Bavaguthuraghuram Shetty (supra), there was no FIR or crime registered against him and a look out notice was issued at the request of respondent Nos.3 and 4/Banks therein, against the petitioner in that case as he was due in a sum of Rs.2,800 Crores to those two Banks. In that case, the Division Bench has held that passport may be impounded without giving prior opportunity and subsequently hearing must be provided. Hence, it held that question of violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India would not arise. It is further held that pendency of a criminal case need not be a ground to issue LOC but in the larger public interest and the economic interest of the Country, LOC could be issued in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Ultimately, the Division Bench has held that national interest is paramount and all other interests including individual interests will have to yield or kneel before the national interest. The Court will have to weigh the individual interests with that of the Country. Thus, I am of the view that action o....