TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI for respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a retired employee of National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. After her retirement, a complaint was registered against her at CBI, vide FIR No. RCO352021A0016, dated 06.09.2021 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in the said crime. She was issued with a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2022. On receiving the same, she replied to the notice. Subsequently, the statement of the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommitting alleged offences of irregularities in printing materials at National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj for the period from 2015 to 2019 and causing wrongful loss to a tune of Rs. 1.22 Crores to the Government Exchequer. A notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. dated 07.01.2022 was issued to the petitioner and the Investigating Officer interrogated and recorded the statement of the petitioner on 12.01.2022. The relevant documents which would establish the role of the petitioner were yet to be received from the NIRD and Panchayat Raj, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. After receiving the said documents, the petitioner would be needed to be interrogated again. After examining the other witnesses, re-examination of the petitioner m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaving India and Inform Originator". As per the MHA Guidelines, the legal liability of the action taken by the Immigration Authorities in pursuance of LOC would rest with the originating agency. The Immigration Authorities would strictly go by the communication received from the officers authorized to open the LOCs. The withdrawal of LOC against the petitioner was prerogative of the originator and prayed to dismiss the writ petition against the 3rd respondent. 7. Perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in FIR No. RCO352021A0016, dated 06.09.2021, registered against her at CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Visakhapatnam. She was issued with a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2022. Some directions wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Airport on 09.03.2022 by the 3rd respondent authorities by stating that a Look Out Circular was issued against her. But no reasons were assigned to her as to why she was restrained from travelling. She was forced to cancel her travel. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul v. Union of India & Others 2022 Live Law (PH) 69 wherein in a similar case, the writ petition was filed challenging the Look Out Circular issued by the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The High Court held that: "57. In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for ....