BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court said that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. The court also said that allowing the ED to prefer a private complaint, when other government authorities deem it inappropriate to initiate any proceedings against anybody, will amount to permitting the ED to act as a super cop, and it goes against the philosophy of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“ED is not empowered to file a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, now Section 223 of the BNSS, when the investigating agencies did not act on the information shared by it under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,” the court noted.
The court stated that a perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if, during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, it is duty-bound to intimate the agency concerned and not take up the investigation by itself.
In law, where an act is to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and in no other way, it said. Justice M I Arun passed the order while allowing a batch of petitions filed by Malur Congress MLA K Y Nanjegowda, who is also the chairman of the Kolar and Chikkaballapur Milk Union Ltd. (KOMUL) and its former director Y B Ashwathanarayana and three others.
They have challenged the complaint registered by the ED in November 2023, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the seizure of articles, the summons issued to them and also a private complaint filed by the ED before a special court in the city.
In a land scam case, one KC Rajanna filed a private complaint before a trial court in Kolar accusing the Land Grant Committee of Malur, headed by Nanjegowda, of allotting about 80 acres of land to 38 persons in violation of law. Treating it as a predicate offence, the ED registered the complaint in 2023.
During the search, ED found materials indicating irregularities in appointments made by the KOMUL, and such information was shared with Lokayukta police.
Meanwhile, the land scam case was closed with a closure report filed by the local police and the trial court dismissed the same for want of sanction to prosecute the public servants. As the Lokayukta police did not act on the information shared by it, the ED filed the private complaint before a special court in the job scam case.
“If we were to accept the contention of the ED in the instant case, it would amount to concluding that the jurisdictional police and the sanctioning authority are guilty of dereliction of their respective duties and the ED alone is correct. Similarly, in the job scam case, it amounts to presuming the Lokayukta police or agency, who have not proceeded against the accused by not initiating any criminal proceedings based on the information provided by the ED, are guilty of dereliction of their respective duties and putting the ED on a higher pedestal, which is not contemplated in law,” the court observed.
The court stated that the constitution envisages separation of powers between different organs of government, the reason being that one institution in the country does not become supreme so that it is in a position to abuse the powers conferred on it. Law recognises the requirements of checks and balances. The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice, the court added.