2022 (7) TMI 1066 - HC - Money Laundering

Permission to travel abroad - Recovery of Bribe amount - certain records were seized regarding the company of the respondent using forged documents/invoices to make bogus entries in the books of its accounts and using the same as genuine - It is the case of the respondent that only two grounds were raised before learned Trial Court that the treatment was available in the country and the respondent may tamper with the evidence - HELD THAT - As far as availability of the treatment in India is concerned, as per respondent s counsel, the father of the present respondent had died in Apollo Hospital while suffering from the same/similar ailment, so the respondent does not wish to get himself treated in Apollo Hospital, where the requisite CT Scan machine is available - The maxillofacial cyst surgery is to be done by and under the supervision of the Doctors who are treating him regarding his heart ailment. The grandfather and the father of the present respondent had also died with the same heart disease. Even the respondent had undergone major surgery (angiography) in the year 2016 and he is taking blood thinning medicines prescribed by his treating doctors. For removal of maxillofacial cyst, he has to stop taking the said drug. Hence, the supervision, care and treatment under Doctor Ramasamy Danapal based in London is required, who is well aware of the respondent s medical history. A report has been also placed on record by the petitioner obtained from medical Superintendent AIIMS Hospital regarding availability of the treatment of maxillofacial cyst at the Center for Dental Surgery at AIIMS and the 640 Slice CT Scan machine being available in Apollo Hospital - It is the admitted case of both the parties that after the registration of the earlier ECIR in the year 2010, the respondent has travelled abroad on a number of occasions after getting his passport released from the Court and he has never violated any of the terms and conditions, which were imposed by the learned Trial Court. The only change in circumstance is that another ECIR has been registered against him, in which he is on bail and a condition for deposit of passport was put afresh. One of the apprehensions expressed by the present petitioner is that the respondent may tamper with the evidence and he may influence the witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that till date, officials of the petitioner have failed to point out as to what is the evidence abroad, which will be tampered with by the respondent during his treatment period or who are the witnesses who will be influenced by him - the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the present respondent to travel abroad because he needs to be under the treatment of the concerned Doctor, who knows his medical condition and because of his heart condition, his cyst cannot be removed without a competent Doctor being in charge of his heart condition during procedure, when the cyst is being removed. Merely stating that the treatment for removal of maxillofacial cysts is available in AIIMS where appointment is not available till August, 2022 end and the 640 Slice CT Scan is available in Apollo where the respondent has lost his father during the treatment, cannot be a ground to deny the respondent the permission already granted by the learned Trial Court. If the cyst is to be removed in AIIMS then how the machines available in Apollo Hospital can be of any help? It is deemed proper to put one more condition in addition to the conditions put by the learned Trial Court while granting the permission to the respondent to travel abroad and the said condition is that the respondent shall share all his Mobile numbers with the officials of the petitioner and he shall keep the mobile location on at all times - In case, the respondent violates any of the conditions mentioned in the impugned order as well as the condition put today, the official of the petitioner are at liberty to move the Court of learned Special Judge for recalling the said order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside an order granting permission to travel abroad by the Special Court, PMLA.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside an order passed by the Special Court, PMLA granting permission to the respondent to travel abroad. The petitioner argued that the respondent's travel was not justified as medical treatment was available in India, the respondent was stable during custody, and there were concerns about tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses due to the grave economic offenses involved. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of disclosure of foreign assets and businesses by the respondent.

The case involved the registration of ECIR against the respondent based on a CBI FIR related to irregularities in a medical college admission process. The respondent was arrested, and incriminating documents were seized during investigations. Subsequently, a separate FIR was registered by the EOW of Delhi Police against the respondent for substantive offenses. The respondent was granted bail with a condition not to leave the country without court permission.

The respondent sought permission to travel abroad for medical treatment, citing the unavailability of specific procedures in India. The respondent argued that he had a medical history requiring treatment by a specific doctor in London due to heart and maxillofacial cyst issues. The respondent emphasized the need for specialized care unavailable in Indian hospitals, referencing past family medical experiences and the urgency of the required procedures.

The High Court considered previous judgments cited by both parties and reviewed medical reports from AIIMS and Apollo Hospital regarding treatment availability in India. The Court noted that the respondent had a history of complying with travel conditions and returning on time. The Court found the concerns of tampering with evidence and not returning unfounded based on the respondent's past behavior. The Court upheld the Special Court's decision to allow the respondent to travel abroad for medical treatment under specified conditions.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the order granting travel permission to the respondent. The Court added a new condition for the respondent to share mobile numbers and keep location services on. The Court warned that any violation of the conditions would allow the petitioner to seek a recall of the travel permission. The respondent was granted permission to travel abroad for one month, with requirements to provide detailed travel itinerary and return information to the Trial Court.

The judgment highlighted the importance of specific medical needs, past compliance with legal conditions, and the necessity of specialized medical care in approving travel abroad for the respondent.