Case Title: Mohd Kashif V. Union of India and Ors
The Court observed that, "An LOC is a coercive measure to ensure that a person surrenders and interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. LOC is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where the accused fails to appear in Court despite issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants,"
The court commented when it overturned an LOC against Mohd Kashif, the petitioner who was the subject of a customs agency investigation. It permitted him to travel to Dubai for three months.
Kashif's attorney had previously argued that the LOC was improperly started because the investigation into the case against him was complete and his presence was no longer necessary for the inquiry's purposes.
Additionally, it was said that Kashif needs to go back to Dubai or risk losing his job and have his NRI VISA terminated. On October 29, a period of six months following his entry into India expired, the court was informed.
Aside from the adjudication processes started by the Customs Department, Kashif's attorney further stressed that no FIR has been filed against him and that the investigation into those proceedings is now complete. The court was informed that the petitioner is being represented there by counsel and that the procedures are only ongoing so that the competent authority can issue the order.
The Additional Commissioner of Customs, however, claimed that Kashif had previously smuggled six kilograms of gold with the help of two other people during an inquiry into a case involving the smuggling of roughly 7.790 kilograms of gold through baggage at IGI Airport.
The responsible authority asked the Deputy Commissioner (Immigration) to launch an LOC against Kashif after he ignored numerous summonses issued against him in July and December of last year and failed to cooperate with the investigation.
After that, a letter dated October 14, 2021, from the Bureau of Immigration told Kashif that an LOC had been filed against him.
The competent authority had advised that the issuing authority revoke the LOC in a letter dated September 30, 2022, and this information was also provided to the court. Customs officials did not object to the request to have the LOC revoked because they had already recommended its withdrawal to the appropriate authority.
The court ruled that the LOC issued against the petitioner is, therefore, revoked and that the learned CMM's ruling from the previous day is invalid.