2023 (9) TMI 1550 - HC - Money Laundering

Setting aside the impugned order whereby application filed by the petitioner was erroneously and mechanically dismissed - permission to travel to London for a period of 4 weeks in order to receive medical treatment for his rare medical condition affecting the vision of his eyes - Setting aside/suspension of the Look Out Circular - HELD THAT - The facts indicate that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The ground on which the petitioner is seeking permission to travel abroad is allegedly to undergo , Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy . It is a matter of the record that this treatment is widely available in India. It is also a matter of record that the Medanta Hospital as well as Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS have opined that the treatment of Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy is widely available in many hospitals in India including Medanata Hospital as well as Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS. E.D. has contended that treatment of Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy is available in India and permission should not be granted to the petitioner to travel abroad. The contention of the petitioner that the passports of her daughter or father may be detained, cannot be accepted as admittedly they are also British nationals. Taking into account that the facts are serious in nature and the medical treatment is available in India, the order of the learned Trial Court is well reasoned, there is no ground to consider the prayer for travela broad of the petitioner. It is also a settled proposition that the power under Section 482 Cr. PC is to be exercised wherein such power can only be used to prevent the miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of law. It is not considered that this is the case where the order of the learned Trial Court can be interfered while exercising the powers of Section 482 Cr. PC. The learned Trial Court has dealt with the matter in accordance with the law. Hence, there is no ground for the same, petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Setting aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2022.
2. Permission to travel to London for medical treatment.
3. Setting aside/suspending the Look Out Circular (LOC) dated 05.08.2019.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Setting Aside the Impugned Order Dated 11.10.2022:
The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Learned ASJ-04, Central District Court Tis Hazari, which dismissed his application to set aside the LOC and to permit travel abroad for medical treatment. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish a case to set aside the LOC and noted that the petitioner attempted to flee the country soon after the FIR registration. The Supreme Court, in a related bail matter, had directed that the petitioner would not travel abroad without the trial court's permission.

2. Permission to Travel to London for Medical Treatment:
The petitioner, a British citizen of Indian origin, sought permission to travel to London for a rare eye condition treatment. The trial court denied this request, stating no evidence was provided that the treatment could not be done in India. The petitioner argued that his condition, Keratoconus, required treatment from Dr. Mark Wilkins in London, who had previously treated him. The petitioner contended that the treatment was not available in India and that the trial court was misled by the respondent's letters from AIIMS and Medanta. The petitioner was willing to provide additional sureties, deposit passports, and share his live location while in London.

3. Setting Aside/Suspending the Look Out Circular (LOC) Dated 05.08.2019:
The LOC was issued to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country due to his involvement in a money laundering case. The respondent argued that the petitioner, being a British citizen, posed a flight risk and had several properties abroad. The trial court's decision to uphold the LOC was supported by the respondent's argument that the petitioner tried to flee the country shortly after the FIR was registered. The respondent also cited multiple pending FIRs against the petitioner and the substantial amount of money involved in the alleged fraud.

Court's Observations and Judgment:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to travel as part of personal liberty but emphasized the need to balance this right with the prosecuting agency's interests. The court noted previous judgments, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, which affirmed the right to travel. However, in cases involving serious allegations, the court must ensure the accused's presence for trial.

The court referred to similar cases where travel for medical treatment was denied if the treatment was available in India. The court found that "Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy," the treatment sought by the petitioner, was available in India, as confirmed by AIIMS and Medanta Hospital.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner's previous attempt to leave the country, and the availability of the required medical treatment in India, the court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order. The petition was dismissed, and the trial court's decision was upheld.

Conclusion:
The petition to set aside the impugned order, permit travel to London for medical treatment, and suspend the LOC was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the availability of the required medical treatment in India and the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner.