TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/P.S. Gahlaut and Dr. U.S. Awasthi seeking directions for closure of a Look Out Circular ("LOC") in RC No. 221/2021/E0009 dated 17.05.2021 and ECIR No. DLZP-I/43/2021 dated 20.05.2021. 2. The Petitioners submit that they are law-abiding citizens of India, having a reputation and with deep roots in society. Petitioner/P.S. Gahlaut is the Managing Director of Indian Potash Limited ("IPL"), which is a private sector in which the Government of India has no equity. Similarly, the Petitioner/Dr. U.S. Awasthi is Managing Director of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd ("IFFCO")-IFFCO, which is a multi-state Cooperative Society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 having no Government equity or aid or grant or loan. 3. In the year 2016, a Complaint containing false and baseless allegations against the Petitioners, was made by Shri Nishi Kant Dubey, Member of Parliament, which was forwarded by Respondent No. 1/Union of India, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer to Respondent No. 2/CBI for investigation. Respondent No. 1 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was required by CBI, the same was also made available by the Petitioner and IPL. 8. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1051/2021 titled Dr. P.S. Gehlot vs. Union of India and Writ Petition No. 1052/2021 titled Dr. U.S. Awasthi vs. Union of India to challenge the approval accorded by the Union of India and consequential registration of RC. The Notice has already been issued and the interim protection has been granted to the Petitioners. 9. The IPL/IFFCO, the employer of the Petitioner, has also challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 17A PC Act and consequential registration of RC, in Writ Petition No. 1049/2021 titled Indian Potash Limited vs. Union of India and Writ Petition No. 1044/2021 titled Indian Farmer and Fertilizer Cooperative Limited vs. Union of India. The Notice has already been issued and stay granted vide Order dated 31.05.2021. 10. RC contained a few scheduled offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA"), and consequently upon registration of RC by Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners came to know that an ECIR No. DLZP-I/43/2021 dated 20.05.2021 has also been registered against the Respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition to Jordan, the Middle East is the main source for the supply of fertilizers and raw materials. In view of this, it is necessary that the Petitioner should immediately visit these two and other countries to maintain the business of fertilizers for IPL and to safeguard the interest of the country, as fertilizers are an absolutely essential input for food and security of the nation. 16. It is further submitted that Canada, Russia, Belarus, Jordan, Morocco, and the Middle East are major global suppliers of fertilizers and raw materials, with most international producers, exporters, traders, and shipping companies based in Dubai. This is why IFFCO established its wholly owned subsidiary, Kisan International Trading FZE, in Dubai. However, due to the LOC issued at the request of Respondents No. 2 and 3, the Petitioner has been unable to attend crucial meetings, including Board Meetings, despite repeated requests from suppliers. The Petitioner's immediate travel is essential to secure fertilizer supplies, engage with suppliers across these countries, and return to India for necessary committee and Board approvals. 17. The Petitioners further submits that all the Bank accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... market and the Petitioner may support the Government in negotiations for smooth availability of fertilizers in the present situation. 24. It is further submitted that if this Court is inclined to allow the Petitions, it may be done subject to necessary clearances from Respondents No. 2 to 4 that he may only visit those countries which are involved in the supply of rock phosphate and DAP and that such visit must be in public interest and not a personal visit and also on returning to India, he must be directed to share the outcome and the achievements of the visits, with the Respondent No. 1. 25. The Respondent No. 2/CBI, in its respective Reply in the two Petitions has submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the Petitioner along with the other named persons, had conspired amongst themselves with an intent to cheat and defraud Indian Farmers Fertilisers Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), India Potash Limited (IPL), general shareholders of these entities and Government of India by fraudulently importing fertilizers and other raw materials for fertilizer productions, after inflating prices of these commodities in a bid to obtain higher subsidy from Government of India. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajiv Saxena and his associates have received huge sum of USD 114.32 million (Rs.685 crores) as illegal commission in the bank accounts of the Group Companies and individual Accounts of co-accused Pankaj Jain, Vivek Gahlot, Amol Awasthi and Amarendra Dhari Singh. The total amount of USD 80.18 million (Rs.481 crores) was channelized through Rare Earth Group of co-accused Pankaj Jain and remaining USD 34.14 million (Rs.204 crores) was received by co-accused Amol Awasthi, Anupam Awasthi and Vivek Gahlot either in their account or in the account of the Firms/Companies owned by them, or in cash. 30. IFFCO and IPL had fraudulently received huge subsidy from Government of India running into several crores on the basis of inflated rate of import of fertilizers thereby causing undue pecuniary loss to Government of India. 31. The case was registered against the Petitioners with the approval of the Government, as mandated under Section 17A PC Act. The searches were conducted which resulted in recovery of various incriminating documents. The investigation and the scrutiny of the documents, is still being in progress. 32. The preliminary objections have been taken that by way of presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timate course. 37. The opening of LOC does not lead to violation of fundamental and statutory rights of the Petitioner in any manner. A person, who has committed grave offence, cannot as a matter of right claim a right to travel adopt. Reliance is placed on Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2017 SC 4161 wherein the Apex Court observed that preservation that prevention and investigation of crime and protection of the revenue are amongst the legitimate aims of the State. 38. The notions of reasonable expectation of personal liberty has elements, both of subjective and objective nature. Liberty is defined by those constitutional values which shape content of the protected zone where the individual ought to be left alone, which is subject to right of others to lead orderly life. There is apprehension that the Petitioner may abscond or evade the process of law. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to leave the country after closure of LOC just because he has provided certain documents to the investigating agency. It is, therefore, submitted that the Petitions may be dismissed. 39. Respondent No.3/Directorate of Enforcement, in its detaile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest". It was further observed, "LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs". 45. Furthermore, it was held that the person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC and explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned. 46. In the present case, none of the aforementioned circumstances are established. As already stated above, both the Petitioners have been willingly cooperating during the investigation in the search and seizure proceedings and have also joined the investigation pursuant to the summons issued an....