1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2011 Usman Abdul Sattar Noble Petitioner versus The Commissioner of Customs and others Respondents Mr.Rizwan Merchant for petitioner. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP for respondents 2 and 3. Mrs.Anuradha Mane, Special P.P. for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 22nd September 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Ms.S.V.Gajare, learned APP waives service for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mrs.Anuradha Mane waives service for respondent no.1 respectively. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, is that, he had travelled abroad on the basis of permission given to him in terms of order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Mumbai. However, when he returned to India, firstly in September 2010 and again in April 2011, on both the occasions, he was detained at the airport by the Immigration Department and was handed over to the Customs Department purportedly in connection with Look Out Circular issued on the basis of request made by the Customs Department in that behalf. 2 3. According to the petitioner, on the relevant dates neither any unexecuted warrant was pending against him nor any order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction declaring him as proclaimed offender was in force. In absence thereof, the action of detaining him at the airport on his arrival in India, was wholly impermissible. In other words, the action of the Customs Department in the first place to make recommendation to the Police Machinery and on the basis of which Look Out Notice was issued in the name of the petitioner, as also the act of detaining him by the Police, was not backed by law. 4. The respondents, in particular, Customs Department has filed reply affidavit sworn by Bhaskar Dabral, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CST Airport. The reply affidavit refers to some statement made by the petitioner as justification for proceeding against the petitioner. However, the reply does not make any reference as to pendency of any unexecuted warrant against the petitioner or any order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender to be in force on the given dates. 5. We are of the considered opinion that the premise on which the Customs Department has sought to justify their impugned action is preposterous. In absence of any unexecuted warrant pending against the petitioner or for that matter any order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in force on the given dates, the question of issuing Look Out Notice against him did not arise. The purpose of Look Out Notice is to secure arrest of a fugitive offender. Indeed, the petitioner has been named as an accused in criminal case pending against him, but as aforesaid, the petitioner has already been released on bail in the said case and more so the petitioner had obtained permission of the 3 concerned Court for travelling abroad during the relevant period. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned communications issued by the concerned authorities - the Look Out Circular - are ex-facie illegal. 7. In the circumstances, the petition ought to succeed. We are inclined to allow this petition by quashing the Lookout Circular impugned in this petition. We, however, reserve the right of the petitioner to proceed against the Department or the officers of the concerned Department, who were responsible for issuance of the impugned Lookout Circular, for the claim of damages/compensation, as the case may be. All questions in that behalf are left open. Ordered accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)