Karnataka HC terms ED proceedings against MUDA former commissioner 'illegal'

Quashing Natesh's statements recorded by the ED, the high court said that the right to liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution also vests the right against the conduct of arbitrary searches.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka HCFile photo
Updated on
3 min read

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court declared the search and seizure conducted at the residence of Dr Natesh D B, former Commissioner of Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) illegal, unwarranted and abuse of process of law.

The case is in connection with the alleged illegal allotment of sites to B M Parvathy, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

The court observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a premier investigative agency established to prevent the serious offence of money laundering and confiscation of the proceeds of crime and that it is expected to discharge its duties with fairness.

Karnataka HC
CM Siddaramaiah confident of getting justice in MUDA case

Quashing Natesh's statements recorded by the ED, the high court said that the right to liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution also vests the right against the conduct of arbitrary searches.

It also added that the search conducted on the premises of the petitioner-Natesh under the garb of investigation, when there is no prima facie evidence to establish the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is an abuse of process of law.

"The ED cannot give the elements of procedural fairness contained in the PMLA a go-by in the course of its administration. It is pertinent that the right to liberty and privacy of individuals cannot be trampled upon and that any curtailment of civil liberties is subject to the due process of law", the court noted.

Karnataka HC
Karnataka HC stays ED notice to CM Siddaramaiah's wife, Minister Byrathi in MUDA land allotment scam

Allowing the petition filed by Natesh questioning the action of ED, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said that the impugned search and seizure conducted at the residence of the petitioner on October 28 to 29 2024 and the subsequent statement recorded under Section 17(1)(f) of PMLA, 2002 is vitiated on the grounds of absence of ‘reason to believe’, and is hereby declared invalid and illegal.

The judge also said that the statement recorded under Section 17(1)(f) of PMLA, 2002, is ordered to be retracted and the impugned summons dated October 29, 2024, and November 6, 2024 issued under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002, and the various statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act are quashed.

The judge also stated that, in the present case, the alleged predicate offence pertains to the illegal allotment of sites during the petitioner’s tenure as the Commissioner of MUDA.

However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that any consideration passed in relation to the conveyance or relinquishment of such sites was received by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be attributed any role in possessing, concealing, or using the proceeds of crime to constitute an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.

Furthermore, mere possession of a site that was allegedly illegally allotted to an accused in connection with a scheduled offence does not, by itself, constitute an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), unless the essential ingredients of the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act are satisfied, the judge said.

The court reserved the liberty with the petitioner to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002 against the officer concerned before the appropriate forum, as whether the impugned search and seizure is vexatious or not is a matter of trial.

The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) dated October 1, 2024, was registered by the ED based on an FIR filed by the Lokayukta concerning a predicate offence related to the illegal allotment of sites by MUDA during the petitioner’s tenure as Commissioner of MUDA.

Pursuant to authorization by the Joint Director of the respondent agency, the Assistant Director conducted a search of the petitioner’s residence under Section 17 of the PMLA.

During the search, the petitioner’s mobile phone was seized, and its data was transferred to a hard disk. Furthermore, the ED examined the petitioner on oath under Section 17(1)(f) of the Act.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com