HC refuses to allow woman to go abroad due to non-cooperation in SFIO’s Rs 738 crore probe

PTI, Dec 18, 2022, 2:24 PM IST

The Delhi High Court has refused to allow a woman facing investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in a Rs 738 crore matter to go abroad, saying there was a clear non-cooperation by her.

The high court, however, said if over the next two months, the woman fully cooperates with the SFIO, the court is willing to reconsider the issue of allowing her to travel outside India.

“As per the facts of this matter as also the statements made by the petitioner to the authorities, it is clear that there is non-cooperation by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, at this stage, the court is not inclined to let the petitioner travel abroad. However, over the next two months, if the petitioner fully cooperates with the SFIO, the court is willing to reconsider the issue,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

The court was dealing with an application by Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney seeking permission to travel to the UK for medical reasons. The application was filed by the woman in two pending petitions seeking stay of the operation of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the SFIO on June 13 this year.

She has also sought direction to authorities for furnishing the reasons for denying permission to her to travel outside India.

The high court, in its December 13 order, noted that on November 28, it had sought a status report from the woman as well as from the authorities regarding compliance of the conditions levied in an earlier order.

The conditions that were to be satisfied for granting her permission to travel abroad were that she was asked to provide all details in respect to bank accounts that may be maintained by her in India or any other jurisdiction within one week, authorised representative shall appear before the SFIO and attend to the summons to be issued in the course of investigation and undertaking that she would render cooperation and assistance in investigation and handing over of records or materials which may be under her possession.

Regarding the bank details, the court noted that the woman has submitted to the authorities the bank account details for a period of two years and she has refused to provide beyond the two-year period on grounds that the statements pertaining to the period beyond two years cannot be fetched online and can only be obtained by her after submitting a request upon physically visiting the branch concerned of the bank.

“In today’s day and age, it is unbelievable for the court to accept that banks would not issue bank account statements unless the petitioner visits the bank personally. Most banking now-a-days is conducted online and clearly there has been non-cooperation by the petitioner as the bank account statements beyond the two years period are not being provided,” the high court said.

Regarding the condition of the authorised representative, the court noted that a company secretary was appointed but he has not met the petitioner.

The court said it was not satisfied with the authorised representative as he does not seem to have any knowledge of the petitioner or her family dealings in order to extend any cooperation to the SFIO.

“The court clearly gets the impression that a novice has been simply engaged for showing compliance, which is merely lip service, considering the amount of public money obtained from the banks, that is alleged to have been siphoned of,” it said.

The court was informed by the counsel for the authorities that the matter involves investigation of Rs 738 crores in respect of four Indian banks and two foreign banks and it also involved four family run companies — Net4 India Ltd, Net4 Network Services Ltd, Pitetel Communications Pvt Ltd. and Trak Online Net India Pvt Ltd — operated and run by the petitioner, her husband and son.

The authorities said the investigation does not extend only to the petitioner but also to all the four companies and while her husband passed away in 2017, her son is a resident of the UK.

The court noted that the woman had agreed to cooperate in the investigation, however, she claimed to have no knowledge of the businesses of the companies.

“Her husband having passed away, the records and other details of the companies are obviously with the petitioner and her son. On being queried by the court, the counsel for the petitioner is unwilling to disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner’s son, where he is engaged currently and what kind of business he is involved in. Moreover, as per the statements on record, the petitioner is refusing to provide bank account statements of her own bank accounts beyond the two-year period,” it said.