Aakar Patel LOC: Delhi High Court's Justice Talwant Singh recuses from hearing CBI plea against Special Court order

The Delhi High Court's Justice Talwant Singh on Wednesday recused from hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a Special Court order setting aside the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by CBI against former Amnesty International India chair Aakar Patel [CBI v. Aakar Patel]..The Special Court had on April 16, upheld a Magistrate court verdict that set aside the CBI LOC against Patel.Special CBI Judge Santosh Snehi Mann had, however, granted partial relief to CBI by setting aside the Magistrate direction to the CBI Director to tender a written apology to Patel.The CBI sought to challenge certain finding of Mann's order concerning the issuance of the LOC against Patel. .When the matter was taken up earlier in the day, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the CBI, cited the relevant paragraphs of the Special Court order that the agency was challenging.He clarified that there was no grievance with regard to the setting aside of the LOC issued against Patel."We believe that this reasoning will be quoted and applied in all other cases," Raju informed Court.Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, appearing for Patel, countered,"It can't be quoted anywhere because CBI Court is not a court of record. What is the apprehension?"Mir opposed the CBI plea following which the Court said it would hear the matter at the end of the board.The single-judge, however, subsequently, recused from the matter. .The LOC against Patel was purportedly issued in relation to a case regarding evasion of Rules under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) through "commercial" methods after Amnesty UK remitted ₹10 crore and subsequently ₹26 crore to its India entities without the approval of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Patel was thus stopped from leaving the country.He then moved the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) court, which set aside the LOC and also directed the CBI director to tender a written apology to Patel.After the ACMM order, Patel again booked tickets to the US, but was once again stopped at Bengaluru Airport on April 7 by immigration authorities, since the CBI had not withdrawn the LOC.The agency, meanwhile, filed a revision application before the Special Court assailing the ACMM order.On April 16, the Special Court held that the LOC issued was bad in law since Patel had joined the investigation whenever called for and did not try to hamper the probe or tamper with evidence in any manner..In its plea before the Delhi High Court, the CBI said that the Special Court and the ACMM before it "completely misconstrued the scope and purpose of taking recourse" to an LOC.The agency specifically challenged paragraphs 26 to 28 and 38 of the Special Court order insofar as they lay down that recourse to LOC can be taken only on co-existence of the following three circumstances: (i) Look Out Corner Notice can be issued only in cognizable offences; and(ii) Accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court despite non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and other coercive measures; and (iii) There is likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest."It is respectfully submitted that if the rational of the Ld. Spl Judge is accepted then any investigating agency will have to first await for an accused to abscond and only thereafter it will be permitted to take recourse to the process of LOC," the plea stated.This interpretation, if followed, would amount to sending a message to the CBI and other agencies that in case they apprehend an accused's unavailability, the only power available to them is that of arrest, it was submitted..Further, the CBI has submitted that the power to issue LOCs stems from Chapter 11 of the CBI Manual. In this context, the plea stated,"The special judge has only referred to this provision and has returned a finding that even the Manual permits the CBI only to take recourse to provisions of LOC once an accused has absconded. The petitioner submits that this view is plainly perverse as contrary to plain reading to other provisions of CBI Manual."The plea also paragraph 29 of the order to the extent that it holds that Section 170 (cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would be applicable in a case covered by FCRA or any other law which requires prior prosecution sanction.Paragraph 37 which approved the finding of the ACMM that statutory powers are to be exercised under a threat of being sued for damages, even if such powers are exercised bonafide, was also challenged.On the grant of monetary compensation to Patel as ordered by the Special Court, the plea said,"...the trial court has opened up the investigating agency to face litigations for a bonafide official act. The special judge despite finding the act to be bonafide has still permitted such an action to continue. It is submitted that this approach is plainly erroneous and would put a sword over officers who are to act within the four corner of the power to investigate.".[BREAKING] Special CBI Court upholds Magistrate court order setting aside CBI LOC against Aakar Patel