ABDUL KADIR NAJMUDIN SATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Writ Petitioner is directed against the order in W.P.No.8214 of 2018, dated 19.03.2019.

(2.) The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the lookout circular issued by the second respondent, the Assistant Director, the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai and for a consequential direction upon the second respondent to return the appellant's Indian Passport bearing No.23278550. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the order dated 19.03.2019, which is impugned before us in this appeal.

(3.) Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.A.Uma Sankar, submitted that the learned Writ Court ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had made himself available for enquiry on more than 17 occasions and all the interrogation done lasted for several hours and he had been cooperating with the investigation and unless there are good and sufficient reasons to apprehend that the accused is likely to leave the country, there may be a need to issue lookout circular and the same cannot be mechanically done. Further, it is submitted that the appellant was not an accused in any offence at the time when the lookout circular (LOC) was issued and even during the pendency of the Writ Petition. There is absolutely no authority of law for the respondent to deprive the appellant of his fundamental right to travel. Referring to various documents which were filed in the typed set of papers, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the appellant is a native of India, born and brought up in Tamil Nadu and he owns properties in Chennai and has several relations in and around Chennai and there is no intention on the part of the appellant to avoid any summons for investigation regardless of the fact that whether the appellant was located abroad or otherwise. Further, it is submitted that the Writ Court ought not to have referred to the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1963 cited in the FIR No.5, dated 18.11.2016, against Dr.Zakir Nair and two others in which the appellant is not named and what is sought to be investigated is apparently an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (in short "PMLA"), in which also the appellant is not an accused. It is further submitted that insofar as Sec. 10 of the said Act is concerned, the same pertains only to a member of any unlawful association and does not apply to the appellant. Thus, it is the submission of the learned Senior counsel that the appellant had clearly disclosed his intention not to evade due process of law in India, and hence, there is no cause for issuance of LOC and by doing so, it amounts to abuse of legal process. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Karti P.Chidambaram vs. Bureau of Immigration,2018 SCCOnline(Mad) 2229.