The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday reserved its verdict on the petitions filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi, and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh, who have questioned the legality of the summons issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the case of illegal allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
Larger scope
Meanwhile, the ED made it clear to the court that its investigation in the MUDA case was not confined to only the allegation of allotment of 14 sites illegally to Ms. Parvathi but also the illegal allotment of hundreds of sites by MUDA to various individuals, including real estate businessmen/agents, officials, and influential individuals.
The complaint filed by Mysuru-based social activist Snehamayi Krishna before the Lokayukta court itself speaks about large-scale illegality in the allotment of sites while claiming that the allotment of 14 sites to Ms. Parvathi is only “the tip of the iceberg”, said Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India K. Arvind Kamath on behalf of the ED.
Even though Ms. Parvathi has returned the 14 sites to MUDA, the ASG said, this action of hers does not change the character of the sites as “proceeds of crime”, while also clarifying that the ED, at this stage, is not bound to state whether she has been summoned to record her statement as a witness or an accused as it would depend on the evidences collected in the investigation.
‘Subjected to pressure’
An official has given a statement to the ED that he was subjected to pressure from the office of Ms. Suresh to do certain things, Mr. Kamath said while pointing out the reasons to summon the Minister for recording statement. The ASG said that petitioners cannot question the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) as it not akin to a First Information Report (FIR) as held by the apex court.
The ED can continue its probe even if the investigating agency, which has registered the FIR for predicate offence, files a ‘B’ report stating that it has not found evidence for the predicate offence, till the jurisdictional court accepts the ‘B’ report, the ASG said while also pointing out that the Madras High Court has held that the ED has the right to challenge the ‘B’ report filed by the investigating agency that probed the predicate offences.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who heard the arguments, reserved the verdict on the separate petitions filed by Ms. Parvathi and Mr. Suresh.
ED’s ‘haste’
Earlier, Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, appearing for Ms. Parvathi, contended that she had surrendered the 14 sites and she was neither in possession of nor enjoying any “so-called proceeds of crime” while questioning the haste with which the ED initiated proceedings under the Provisions of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Mr. Chouta contended that there must exist a clear element of “laundering” of “proceeds of crime” and in the present case, there was no transaction of allotted sites to attract the “laundering” under the PMLA.
Meanwhile, Mr. Chouta also pointed out to the court that media reports indicate that the Lokayukta police are filling a ‘B’ report in the MUDA case stating that there is no evidence to establish the allegations.
