BENGALURU: In a major order related to a case of alleged irregularities in allotment of sites by MUDA, the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday permitted the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to proceed with its investigation in relation to other persons. Whether to be investigated in the capacity of the accused or otherwise, except former MUDA commissioner DB Natesha, under whose tenure 14 sites were allotted to Parvathy, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
A division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind passed the order while disposing of an interlocutory stay application filed by ED to the appeal filed by it challenging the quashing of proceedings against Natesha by a single judge on January 27.
The bench said the court cannot permit a judgment, which could be viewed only as, and which is indeed an inter-parte, has the effect of stalling all the investigation process in general, as if it is a verdict in rem. Even otherwise, it is well-settled law that the process of investigation by investigating agencies cannot be interjected and it has to be permitted to proceed.
Allowing the process of investigation of any crime, whether under the PML Act or offences under any other law, is part of the rule of law. The investigation or inquiry into any alleged criminal activity or offence has to be permitted by the court uninterrupted in accordance with law.
There is no valid reason not to permit ED to continue with its investigation in relation to other persons, whether to be investigated in the capacity of the accused or otherwise, the court said.
‘All PMLA probes need to carry on’
Considering the judgment of a single judge as precedent, the coordinate bench quashed ED’s proceedings in more than half a dozen cases, including two against the CM’s wife and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh. In some cases, proceedings were stayed.
The division bench said that all investigations under PMLA need to be permitted to be carried on in accordance with law, notwithstanding the directions in the operative order of the single judge. The investigating agency, therefore, is entitled to proceed and to carry on the investigation in respect of other persons or accused, in accordance with law.
As the court has permitted the inquiry and investigation to be continued against other accused as well as other persons as may be required, ED should be at liberty to utilise all documents and materials which may have been gathered, recovered and secured in the case of search and seizure at the place of Natesha, as well as to utilise the statement recorded, for investigation. This would prejudice Natesh as his case is pending consideration on merits, the bench said.