ASIFKHADER Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondent to withdraw the look out notice against the petitioner.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the Zonal Manager of Bank of India, Bangalore Zone had furnished First Information on 24.05.2017 to the Central Bureau of Investigation. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against M/s Cranes Software International Ltd., and three of its Directors and unknown public servants. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2. As per the prosecution case, the Company viz., M/s Cranes Software International Ltd., is engaged in the development and distribution of software and petitioner is one of its Director. The petitioner approached Bank of India seeking working capital limit to the tune of Rs.30 Crores, which was sanctioned on 19.10.2006. The amount of loan was released after completion of the formalities. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Bank for availing short term loan to the tune of Rs.40 Crores, which was also sanctioned and the aforesaid loan amount was disbursed on 31.10.2008. The petitioner as well as the other accused persons thereafter, requested the Bank for Corporate loan to the tune of Rs.100 Crores for acquiring the software company and to repay a sum of Rs.20 Crores to the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Bengaluru. The aforesaid loan was also sanctioned and released in favour of the accused persons. However, the accused did not pay Rs.20 Crores to the Jammu and Kashmir Bank and withdrawn the funds between 31.07.2008 to 09.08.2008. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused has also availed corporate loan from Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of Bank of India. The petitioner on his arrival from Dubai on 27.12.2017 was detained at the Airport and the fact that a look out Circular issued against him is brought to his notice. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been participating in the investigation with the Central Bureau of Investigation and was called for interrogation in the Month of June 2018 and thereafter, the petitioner has not been called for investigation. It is also pleaded in the petition that petitioner made a request to the Central Bureau of Investigation for supply of copy of look out Circular. However, the same was not supplied to him. The petitioner thereafter made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of copy of look out circular. However, even then, the copy of the Circular was not supplied to him. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's company had obtained a loan from ten banks to the tune of Rs.861 Crores, out of which an amount of Rs.614 Crores has been repaid. It is further submitted that the petitioner's company has to pay approximately an amount of Rs.250 Crores to the Bank. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not absconding and has cooperated with the investigation undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, the action of issuance of the look out circular against the petitioner is per se arbitrary and the look out circular has lost its life as the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Agency. It is further submitted that the look out circular cannot be utilized by the respondent to curtail the movement of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had submitted three representations to the Central Bureau of Investigation to withdraw the look out circular. However, the aforesaid representation has failed to evoke any response. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed two judgments 'Vikram Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, 2010 SCC Online Del 2475' and 'Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director and Ors., W.P. (Crl) No. 1315/2008 (Delhi High Court)'.