MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

National Interest Paramount in Economic Crimes: High Court Denies Shivinder Mohan Singh’s Travel Plea”

31 December 2024 1:43 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court upholds Special Judge’s decision to deny suspension of LOC for ongoing SFIO investigation into significant economic offenses.

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Special Judge, Dwarka Courts, denying Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh’s request to suspend the Look Out Circular (LOC) and permit him to travel abroad. The judgment, delivered by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, underscores the court’s emphasis on the national interest over individual liberties in cases involving serious economic offenses.


The case revolves around Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh, a former director of Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL) and Religare Enterprises Limited (REL), who sought permission to travel to the United Kingdom to attend the graduation ceremonies of his two sons. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has been investigating Singh for alleged misappropriation and siphoning off of funds amounting to significant losses for FHL and REL. Despite his previous full cooperation, Singh’s request was denied by the Special Judge due to ongoing investigations and the perceived flight risk.


The court noted discrepancies in Singh’s disclosure of assets. Despite his claims of not owning any properties or having sources of income, evidence from his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) indicated otherwise. The court highlighted the importance of full and truthful disclosure, especially in cases involving substantial financial interests and potential economic offenses.


Justice Sharma emphasized the significant overseas interests and family connections of the petitioner. With substantial financial stakes abroad and family members residing outside India, the court found a credible risk that Singh might not return to face ongoing investigations. “The interest of the nation, whether economic or strategic, is paramount,” stated Justice Sharma.


The judgment distinguished this case from others where travel permissions were granted. The court stressed that each case must be assessed on its individual facts, noting that in Singh’s case, the investigation was ongoing, and the full extent of his involvement in the alleged offenses was yet to be determined.


The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence in cases involving significant economic offenses. The court reiterated that national interest must take precedence over individual liberties in such serious investigations. “The investigation conducted so far by the IO indicates that the applicant is a serious flight risk,” the court stated. Justice Sharma also underscored the incomplete and misleading nature of Singh’s asset disclosures, which undermined his trustworthiness.


Justice Dharmesh Sharma remarked, “The interest of the nation, whether economic or strategic, is paramount. In the present case, economic/national interest of the country is involved. Therefore, this case falls under the exception.”


The High Court’s dismissal of Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh’s petition reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the national interest in cases of serious economic offenses. By affirming the lower court’s decision, the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of asset disclosure and the risks associated with international travel permissions in ongoing investigations. This landmark decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases, ensuring a robust legal framework for addressing economic crimes.


Date of Decision: June 26, 2024
 

Latest Legal News