BENGALURU: Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner BM Vijay Shankar, who was arrested by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the IMA case, has moved the Karnataka High Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the case.
Vijay Shankar has urged the court to quash the notification forming the SIT issued by the government on June 12, 2019, and stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated July 6, 2019 issued to him. He has also urged the court to stay all the proceedings initiated against him before the city civil court.
Urging the court to issue direction to the Central government to entrust the matter to the CBI under Section 29 and 30 of Ordinance 7/19 (Banning of unregulated deposits, schemes, ordinance 2019) promulgated by the President of India, Vijay Shankar contended that the SIT had no jurisdiction to investigate.
Making both state and Central governments respondents in his petition, Vijay Shankar has sought directions to the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (SFIO) to submit a report to the Union government to take action in terms of Section 212 of the Companies Act. “As per Clause 29 and 30 of the ordinance promulgated by the President of India, the CBI can investigate the cases referred by the state government. Therefore, the state exercising power under Section 30 of the Karnataka Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act is without authority of law, and investigation by SIT is unconstitutional,” he claimed.
According to the petition, SIT served notice under Section 160 of the CrPC to Vijay Shankar, who also has been appointed as competent authority under the Karnataka Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act. Therefore, Vijay Shankar cannot be summoned as witness by the SIT and there is vast difference in investigation and enquiry under CrPC. Being a competent authority, it would not come in the way of the petitioner challenging the notice issued as he can never be a witness in investigation. Therefore, the notice is without authority of law, it said.