Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Punjab and Haryana High Court stays lookout circular against former Chief Secretary Sarvesh Kaushal

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 6

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of a lookout circular (LOC) issued on Punjab Government’s request against former Chief Secretary Sarvesh Kaushal to facilitate his return to India. The respondent-state of Punjab was also restrained from taking coercive steps against him.

Advertisement

The direction by Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj came on a petition against the state and other respondent by Kaushal through senior advocate RS Cheema with AS Cheema and Satish Sharma. Among other things, it was contended that the respondents were conducting re-investigation under the garb of an inquiry, which was impermissible under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Senior counsel Cheema added investigation in an FIR relating to 2017 had already been concluded. There was no occasion for conducting any further inquiry in a concluded investigation, especially when no evidence had come against the petitioner during the course of investigation and no recovery had been made.

He added the respondents had recommended a LOC against the petitioner only with intent to harass him. The object was to restrain a suspect from leaving the country to escape the process of law. But the petitioner was already abroad and wanted to return to submit his version and to respond any other queries that might be raised against him.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement