907-WP263-19.

DOC
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2019
IN
RC (A)/2012 Mum

Afzal Jaffer Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
The Officer , CBI ACB Office & ors. …Respondents

Dr. Sujay Kantawala, I/b Jayant Gohil, for the Petitioner. 
Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar, for Respondent no.1/CBI. 
Mr. M. S. Sawant, for Respondent no.2/UOI.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State/Respondent no.3.

CORAM: RANJIT MORE  &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATED: 29th AUGUST, 2019
PC:­

1. Heard   Dr.   Kantawala,   the   learned   Counsel   for   the

petitioner,   Mr.   Venegaonkar,   the   learned   Counsel   for

respondent   no.1/CBI,   Mr.   Sawant,   the   learned   Counsel   for

respondent no.2/UOI and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the

State/respondent no.3. 

2. The petition is filed for the following reliefs.

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct and call
upon   the  Respondent   No.1  and  2  to   furnish   the  details   of
Look­out­Notice   issued   by   them   the   present   petitioner,   for
the alleged offence under Section 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC and
u/s   13(2);   13(1)(d)   of   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988,
vide No. RC 12(A)/2012 Mum.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ, or
direction   or   any   order   in   the   nature   of   Writ   of   Certiorari
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and be pleased

1/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 907-WP263-19.DOC

to   quash   and   set   aside   the   Look   Out   Notice   issued   by

Respondent No.1 and RC 12(A)/2012 Mum. for the alleged
offence under Section 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC and u/s 13(2);
12(1)(d)   of   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   against
petitioner.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 3 rd  April, 2012,

search and seizure was conducted by respondent no.1 at his

premise.     On   20th  June,   2018,   respondent   no.1   asked   for

copy of passport and photograph of the petitioner.   On very

same   day,   the   petitioner   via   e­mail   furnished   copy   of   his

passport and photograph to respondent no.1. The petitioner

further   submits   that   on   15th  August,   2018,   he   was

restrained/ detained and off loaded and was not allowed to

travel out of India by the immigration officers of respondent

no.2 on the basis of respondent no.1’s look­out­notice.   The

petitioner,   thereafter,   on   24th  December,   2018,   requested

respondent   no.1   to   provide   and   furnish   the   details   of   the

look­out­notice. Those details were not provided.   Thus, the

petitioner   has   approached   this   Court   for   the   reliefs   stated

here­in­above. 

4. Mr.   Venegaonkar,  the   learned  Counsel for  respondent

no.1/CBI has  opposed  the  petition  by filing  an  affidavit­in­

reply dated 12th February, 2019. Mr. Venegaonkar, submitted

that   on   the   basis   of   complaint   dated   23 rd  February,   2012,

2/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 907-WP263-19.DOC

filed by Mr. Paul E. Lyngdoh, the then Branch Manager of the

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC), Mumbai, the

FIR   came   to   be   registered   by   CBI,   ACB,   Mumbai,   for   the

offences punishable under Section 120­B read with Section

420   of   Indian   Penal   Code   and   Sections   13(2)   read   with

Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  There

are   total   20   persons   arraigned   as   accused,   including   the

petitioner,   whose   name   appears   at   serial   no.18.   Mr.

Venegaonkar,   further   submitted   that   in   view   of   an

apprehension that the petitioner may abscond and may never

return   to   India   to   face   legal   action   launched   against   him,

look­out­notice   was   issued   against   the   petitioner   on   22 nd

June,   2018,   at  the   instance   of   respondent  no.1.     He   lastly

submits that, since the FIR is pending against the petitioner,

no interference is called for, in this petition, at this stage. 

5. Dr.   Kantawala,   the   learned   Counsel  for   the   petitioner

submitted that FIR is registered seven years back and from

the date of registration of the subject FIR, he has travelled

abroad on 17 occasions and the details of each of those visits

abroad are given at ‘Exhibit – C’, at page 23 of the petition.

He   also   submitted   that   the   petitioner   has   reported   to

respondent   no.1   for   the   purpose   of   investigation   of   the

3/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
907-WP263-19.DOC

subject  FIR  on  eight  occasions  and,  therefore,  it  cannot  be

said   that   the   petitioner   is   not   co­operating   with   the

investigation agency.  Relying upon the decision of Delhi High

Court   in   the   case   of  Sumer   Singh   Salkan   vs.   Asstt.

Director   &   ors.1,  he   submitted   that   the   respondent   could

not have issued Look Out Circular (LOC) in the absence of

any   material   with   respondent   no.1   to   conclude   that   the

petitioner is deliberately evading arrest/trial.

6. Before   the   Delhi   High   Court   in   the   case   of  Sumer

Salkan  (supra)   the   following   questions   arose   for

consideration:

“A. What   are   the   categories   of   cases   in   which   the

investigating   agency   can   seek   recourse   of   Look­out­
Circular and under what circumstances?
B. What   procedure   is   required   to   be   followed   by   the
investigating   agency   before   opening   a   Look­out­
circular?
C. What   is   the   remedy   available   to   the   person   against
whom such Look­out­Circular has been opened?
D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a
case   is   brought   before   it   and   under   what
circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene?”

Those questions were answered as follows:

“A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency
in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws,
where  the accused was  deliberately  evading  arrest  or
not   appearing   in   the   trial   court   despite   NBWs   and
other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the
accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

1  ILR (2010) VI Delhi 706
4/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
907-WP263-19.DOC

B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request
for   LOC   to   the   officer   as   notified   by   the   circular   of
Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for
seeking   LOC.   The   competent   officer   alone   shall   give
directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this
respect. 
C. 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 &  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.
D. 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.”

7. The decision  of  the Delhi High  Court  is  based  on the

judgment of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of

India.2    The   decision   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   in  Sumer

Salkan  (supra) is followed by the Madras High Court in the

case of  Cheruvathur Chakkutty Thampi @ C. C. Thampi

vs. Union of India and others. in  Writ Petition No.1104

to 1106 of 2017 and W.M.P. Nos.1077 to 1080 of 2017. 

8. The   decision   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   in   the   case   of

Sumer   Salkan  (supra)   makes   it   abundantly   clear   that

recourse to look­out­notice can be taken by the investigating

2 1978(1) SCC 248.
5/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
907-WP263-19.DOC

agency in cognizable offences under IPC or the other penal

laws,   where   the   accused   was   deliberately  evading  arrest   or

not   appearing   in   the   trial   court   despite   NBWs   and   other

coercive   measures   and   there   was   likelihood   of   the   accused

leaving the country to evade trial/ investigation.  

9. In   the   case   at   hand,   Dr.   Kantawala   has   placed   on

record   the   chart   of   the   dates,   on   which   the   petitioner   has

appeared before respondent no.1 in the subject investigation.

The chart shows that from 10 th April, 2012 to 24th July, 2019

he   appeared   before   respondent   no.1   for   eight   times.   This

chart is  not disputed  by  respondent  no.1.    That  apart,  the

petitioner has travelled abroad on 17 occasions as disclosed

in the chart annexed at 'Exhibit – C'.   This chart is also not

disputed by respondent no.1.  On the contrary, an additional

affidavit dated 15th  March, 2019,  filed     by Mr.  Girish  Soni,

P.I., CBI, ACB, Mumbai, on behalf of respondent no.1, shows

that   for   the   investigation   purpose   the   petitioner   was

contacted by the investigating agency on 8 th  February, 2019

and the petitioner was directed to come to CBI office on 11 th

February, 2019.  It is not the case of respondent nos. 1 and 2

that prior to February, 2019, either the petitioner was called

or he did not appear before them when called. Though the

6/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
907-WP263-19.DOC

apprehension is expressed by respondent no.1 that petitioner

will   abscond   and   never   return   to   India,   however,   there   is

absolutely no material in support of this apprehension.

10. On   the   contrary,   the   material   relied   upon   by   the

petitioner shows that the petitioner is very much available for

the   investigation.   The   petitioner   is   a   Managing   Director   of

Shalimar Rexine India Limited, which is stated to be engaged

in manufacturing PVC leather and its ailed products and a

largest   exporter.     The   petitioner   appears   to   have   roots   in

India and Society to bind him down to his place of abode and

business. 

11. Dr.   Kantawala,   further   submits   that   the   petitioner

needs to travel UAE and Saudi Arabia from Monday i.e. 2 nd

September, 2019, for pilgrimage.

12. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view

that the look­out­notice could not have been issued after the

period   of   six   years   from   the   date   of   registration   of   subject

crime,   especially   in   absence   of   any   material   to   support

respondents   apprehension.   The   look­out­notice,   therefore,

cannot be sustained  and the  same deserves  to  be  quashed

and set aside.   At the same time, we deem it appropriate to

put   the   petitioner   to   terms   to   co­operate   with   the

7/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
907-WP263-19.DOC

investigating agency in the investigation of the subject crime.

To this end, we deem it appropriate to defer the quashment of

look­out­notice   by   a   reasonable   period   to   facilitate   effective

investigation in the intervening period. At the same time, to

address   the   immediate   concern   of   the   petitioner   to   travel

abroad   urgently,   we   find   it   appropriate   to   direct   the

suspension of operation of look­out­notice for a period of 10

days. 

13. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the petition

by passing following order:

(i) The subject look­out­notice issued at the instance

of   respondent   no.1,   on   22nd  June,   2018,   shall

remain   suspended   for   the   period   of   10   days   i.e.

from   2nd  September,   2019   till   11th  September,

2019.

(ii) The   petitioner   is   allowed   to   travel   to   UAE   and

Saudi   Arabia   during   the   abovementioned   period

and the petitioner shall return before the expiry of

10 days as indicated above.

(iii) The petitioner, after his return from abroad, shall

co­operate   with   the   respondents   –   investigating

agency   in   the   investigation   of   the   subject   crime

8/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 907-WP263-19.DOC

and shall remain present before respondent no.1,

as   and   when   called,   during   the   period   of   one

month thereafter. 

(iv) The   subject   look­out­notice   shall   remain   in

operation for the period of one month, thereafter,

i.e. from 12.09.2019 to 11.10.2019 and petitioner

cannot travel out of India, in the said period.

(iv) The   said   look­out­notice   dated   22nd  June,   2018,

and   renewed   from   time   to   time,   shall   finally

stands quashed and set aside with effect from 11 th

October, 2019. 

14. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. 

  [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

9/9

::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:24:21 :::