Karnataka Bitcoin Scam: High Court Directs ED To Complete Investigation Against Accused Sirkrishna's Brother In 6 Weeks, Review LOC

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to consider the representations made by Sudarshan Ramesh, brother of bitcoin scam accused Sirkrishna, seeking to recall the Look Out Circular issued against him, thereby not allowing him to leave India.

The representation is to be considered after completing the investigation in the money laundering case against Sudarshan, for his alleged involvement, within 6 weeks. However, it reminded petitioner that an accused or any other person who is connected with the proceeds of crime, but may not be accused in the predicate offence, has a bounden duty to co-operate with the investigation.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while disposing of the petition filed by Sudarshan said “The Enforcement Directorate to complete the investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned, within an outer limit of 6 weeks from the date of receipt copy of the order for which, the petitioner shall co-operate and give such information that is necessary for completion of such investigation.”

It added “After six weeks, the ED shall consider the representation of the petitioner for withdrawal of LOC issued against him.”

Case Details:

Sudarshan is a Mechanical Engineer and employed at Brunel, based in Eindhoven, Netherlands. As his father was suffering from illness and was hospitalised he had arrived in India on August 12, 2021, he claimed.

On January 13, he reached the Bangalore International Airport and complied with the requisite immigration protocol. However, before he could board the flight, the authorities restrained him from proceeding further. Thereafter, an endorsement was affixed on the petitioner's passport for cancellation, it is averred.

Earlier, the High court had vide its order dated 20-06-2022 rejected the petition filed by Sudarshan questioning the action of authorities in restraining him from leaving India and travelling to the Netherlands where he is employed. Liberty was granted to him to submit a representation seeking recall/withdrawal of LOC issued against him.

Pursuant to which, he made representations on 21-09-2022 and 19-12-2022 indicating that he had rendered complete co-operation to the investigation and, therefore, his need in the investigation is not required and he may be permitted to travel as he is not named in the FIR as an accused. Since these were not considered he approached the court.

ED opposed the plea saying that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. He has not divulged the password of emails that are created for the purpose of transaction of huge amounts between the accounts of the prime accused, his father and himself, it was argued.

Findings:

The bench noted that an LOC can be sought by the originating agency (ED etc) in certain cases where cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal laws are registered against the subject. Even in cases where there are no cognizable offences registered under the IPC or any other penal law, the originating agency can only request about the arrival and departure of the subject in such cases.

In exceptional cases, LOC can be issued even in those cases which are not covered under the guidelines whereby departure of a person from India could be declined if it appears that the inputs received on the subject that his departure would be detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism. The LOC originating from Court orders is also one of those species that would result in issuance of an LOC, the court noted.

On going through the records of the case and referring to the earlier high court order wherein the court had recorded the submissions of the ED that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, the bench said,

“He does not indicate the keys, the password or any other information that is necessary for completion of investigation...Any amount of judgments could be quoted to drive home the point that the fundamental right of a person is taken away but all of them with a rider that one should cooperate with the investigation. An accused or any other person who is connected with the proceeds of crime, but may not be accused in the predicate offence, has a bounden duty to co-operate with the investigation.”

It added “If the investigation does not get completed on account of his non-cooperation which would result against others not being taken to logical conclusion, it would defeat the delivery of justice as it would defeat discovery of crime.”

Thus it held “Therefore, it is for the petitioner to give complete details and desist answering vaguely to the ED, explain as to why temporary mails were created for transactions and reveal the password that the ED is asking. Therefore, his travel beyond the shores of this nation will be subject to such clearance by the ED.”

The bench also reminded the ED that the petitioner cannot be kept on tenterhooks by the sword of LOC hanging on him for all time to come. It said “The ED shall also bear in mind a plethora of judgments rendered by constitutional Courts from time to time where emphasize is on the right to travel abroad being a fundamental right.”

Noting that it is the allegation that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, it remarked “This cannot be the swan song for the ED by not summoning the petitioner for questioning or concluding the investigation.”

Accordingly it directed the Enforcement Directorate to complete the investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned, within an outer limit of 6 weeks. Sudarshan is directed to co-operate and give such information that is necessary for completion of such investigation.

Case Title: Sudarshan Ramesh And Union of India & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

Date of Order: 16-03-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Gaurav N for petitioner; CGC Aditya Singh ADITYA FOR R1 AND R2; Advocate Madhukar Deshpande for R3.