BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the state to provide police security to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) which will record the statement of Gowramma, mother of Congress leader D K Shivakumar, as witness, at her residence in relation to summons issued under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Naragund, made a submission before the Karnataka High Court, in response to the petition filed by Gowramma, questioning the summons issued by the ED and also the provisions of PMLA invoked against her. Before this, the ASG submitted that the statement of Gowramma will be recorded at her residence by the officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of ED.
He also expressed apprehensions of facing hindrance for recording the statement at her residence due to Shivakumar’s political background and other incidents like demonstrations and protests occurred earlier.
For this, Justice G Narendar said that the ED can approach the concerned police for security at the time of recording the statement and police authorities will have to extend the security if such requests are made by the investigating agency.
The senior counsel for Gowramma pressed for an interpreter to help the petitioner as officers from outside the state will be recording her statement. However, the same was opposed by the ASG, saying that the there was no need for an interpreter as the statement will be recorded in vernacular language known by the petitioner.
Then the court made it clear that the statement of the petitioner could be audio recorded and submitted to the court if the same is needed. Granting an interim order on the above terms, the court adjourned the hearing to January 27, 2020. Before this, the senior counsel epresenting Goramma, argued that ED cannot conduct an open-ended inquiry by asking the details mentioned in summons without specifying the period for which the same was sought and Gowramma cannot be summoned as she is aged, as contemplated under Section 160 of CrPC. Her name was not mentioned in the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), which was registered one-and-a-half years ago. The petitioner cannot be investigated for the period before the commencement of PML Act.
In reply, the ASG submitted that only summons was issued against her to record her statement as witness. If petitioner pointed out the technical issues in issue of summons, “I would also submit technically. As on today, no summons is pending as the time of the said summons has already lapsed. Hence, the writ petition is premature,” he submitted.
He also submitted that there will be consequences if she doesn’t come as a witness. The court has no power to restrict how the investigation should be, what type of questions, etc. She is summoned as a witness to answer but there should be no investigation against her. If ED revealed the facts of the case, it will be like opening a Pandora’s box. If the power of investigating agency is restricted, it will definitely cause damage. For another three weeks, “We are not going to take any coercive action. We have lready recorded the statement of 15-20 witnesses,” he pleaded.