Economic offences - Permission to travel abroad for medical treatment - Past non-cooperation- LOC upheld

Delhi High Court Upholds Look Out Circular Against UK-Based OCI for Economic Offences Court Denies Permission for Overseas Travel for Medical Treatment, Cites Non-Cooperation and Flight Risk

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, upheld a Look Out Circular (LOC) against Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and resident of the United Kingdom, implicated in grave economic offences involving the alleged siphoning of Rs. 208 crores. The court dismissed her plea to set aside the LOC and denied her request to travel abroad for medical treatment, citing her past non-cooperation with the investigation and the substantial risk of absconding.

The petitioner, who suffered a cardiac arrest in September 2022, sought permission to travel to the UK for an advanced cardiac procedure, claiming it was a matter of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the court found that adequate medical facilities for her treatment were available in India, and her financial capacity was not a constraint. The court emphasized that economic offences are viewed with greater seriousness and the petitioner's foreign nationality, coupled with the fact that her co-accused son remains abroad, heightened the flight risk.

Justice Dudeja highlighted that Mrs. Sawhney's conduct during the investigation demonstrated a pattern of non-cooperation, including the failure to disclose complete bank account details and appoint a competent representative. The court noted that the petitioner held key positions within the implicated companies and was actively involved in transactions under scrutiny. Her claim of being a mere non-executive director was contradicted by evidence of her active participation in business decisions and financial dealings.

The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the completion of the investigation mitigated the flight risk, maintaining that her past conduct and evasiveness warranted the continuation of the LOC. Furthermore, the petitioner's plea for medical urgency was dismissed as the court found that the requested procedure was accessible in reputable Indian medical institutions.

The judgment underscores the balance between personal liberty and public interest, with the court prioritizing the latter given the gravity of the economic offences. The court's decision reinforces the principle that individuals accused of serious financial crimes must remain within the jurisdiction to ensure accountability and legal process adherence.

Statutory provision(s): Companies Act, 2013 Sections 177, 188, 189, and 149(12); Constitution of India, Article 21

Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810212