Prashant Bothra and another Vs. Bureau of Immigrations and others
WPA 25668 of 2022
Facts:
1.Petitioners have challenged Look-Out Circulars (LOC) issued against them by the Immigration Authorities. The originators of the two requests on the basis of which the same was issued were respondent no.2, the Bank of Baroda (BoB) and respondent no.6, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Issue: Whether the LOC issued is liable to be set aside?
Arguments:
Petitioner:
1.Counsel for the petitioners argues that the issuance of LOCs against the petitioners was palpably de hors the law and beyond the authority vested by the concerned Office Memorandum dated February 22, 2021. It is argued that the petitioners are neither threats to the economic interests of the country nor, if the petitioners leave the country, there will be any detriment to public interest.
2.Counsel contended that the petitioner no.1 tried to visit Nepal on June 9, 2022 for prospective business opportunities; however, he was stopped from boarding the plane in the last minute by the immigration authorities at the international airport at Kolkata without any reason being assigned.
3.It is contended that the criteria for requesting issuance of LOC under ordinary circumstances are not met in the present case. With regard to the request made by the BoB for issuance of LOC, no cognizable offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or other penal laws has been cited.
Respondent:
1.Counsel for the SFIO seriously opposes the writ petition. Several allegations are made against the petitioners including that they are suspended Directors of one Kohinoor Power Private Limited (KPPL) which is in liquidation before the NCLT, Kolkata.
2.Counsel submitted that Allegations of serious fraud are there against the petitioners, which are at present being investigated, and give rise to a detriment to the public interest, it is argued.
Decision: Hon’ble HC allowed the petition and set aside the LOC issued.
Rationale:
1.The court noted that The very premise of the request was a forensic audit report allegedly authored by a particular concern. The said report, at best, is a piece of evidence in the liquidation proceeding and is in no manner conclusive proof of evidence of any illegality committed by any entity.
2.Under no stretch of imagination can such a report be conclusive proof of the allegations against the petitioners.
3.It also noted and held that the Bank filed a CBI complaint in January, 2021 but there is not an iota of evidence or indication that the CBI complaint has yielded any fruitful result against the petitioners till date. Thus, the grounds shown by BoB do not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners and/or anything to indicate that the impact of the petitioners leaving the country would be to adversely affect the economic interest of the country as a whole or the public interest at large.
4.An ad interim order by the NCLT in an oppression and mismanagement proceeding cannot by any stretch of imagination prove “guilt” against the petitioners on any count whatsoever. The entire context of such observation is different from a proceeding under Section 212 of the 2013 Act and, as such, a stray observation in such an ad interim order, that too ex parte, cannot be a valid reason for issuance of an LOC.
5.It held that Initiation of an investigation under Section 212 of the 2013 Act cannot be equated with a person being guilty of a cognizable offence or any offence for that matter.
Order Copy:
