TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... strong roots in the society. He completed his LLB. Course in the year 2006 where-after he worked as Manager Legal for 3 years in the Chandigarh office of Reliance Industries. Thereafter, he went to Australia for a period of two years to pursue a degree in commercial laws and master in accountancy. After his return, he worked for sometime with a law office in Delhi. In the year 2014, he got married and shifted to Chandigarh and joined the office of a Senior Advocate. On 12.08.2015, FIR No. 510 was registered against unknown persons under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC as well as Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') at Police Station Manesar, District Gurugram.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd challan having not been presented, there is no question of issuance of summons by the competent Court. The contents of the FIR may also be noticed. The father of the petitioner retired from the Indian Administrative Service. Prior thereto, he served in the Haryana cadre as well as in the Government of India. He remained Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Haryana Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hooda w.e.f. 06.03.2005 to 31.10.2009 when he took retirement. Thereafter, he served as a Member of the Competition Commission of India for a period of 5 years i.e. from 30.11.2009 to 31.12.2014. As mentioned earlier, initially an FIR No. 510 dated 12.08.2015 was registered at Police Station Manesar against unknown public servants of Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enewed annually. If the petitioner escapes, he may utilise the opportunity to launder the proceeds of crime thus hindering the investigation. If the petitioner escapes to a country with which there is no extradition treaty, then there is every possibility that he would escape permanently and evade the process of justice in India. It has, however, not been denied that the petitioner went abroad on six occasions earlier, details of which have been given in the writ petition and that every time he returned within the prescribed time period. These instances have been cited to state that petitioner can easily approach the CBI Court for permission to travel abroad and this does not amount to abrogation or hindrance of his right to travel abroad.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... renewed every year as there is a real apprehension that the petitioner may leave the country to avoid legal proceedings. In case the LOC is withdrawn, it is quite likely that the petitioner may go abroad and settle. This would enable him to avoid the legal proceedings pending against him. There is no dispute between the parties that an LOC has no legal definition. It is a communication received from an authorised government agency regarding a person who is wanted by that agency for fulfilment of a legal requirement i.e. to secure arrest of a person evading arrest or to nab a proclaimed offender so as to facilitate Court proceedings. On receipt of such a request made by an authorised officer, an LOC is opened and sent to all the immigratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ression 'procedure established by law'. The question however is whether any lawful or reasonable grounds exist for adoption of the said procedure in the instant case? A perusal of the Madras High Court judgment in E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy (supra) reveals that the instructions issued for opening of LOC lay down the types of persons in respect of whom an LOC can be opened. Inter alia, these persons are those required by Courts in criminal/civil cases and who are absconding and absconding offenders wanted by various investigating agencies. There are other types of persons also mentioned but those are not relevant for the purposes of this case. The petitioner does not fall in either category. In the case of Sumer Singh Salkan (supra), t....