https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/advertisment/1734528783_header_adds.gif

ED's raids at Ex-MUDA chief's home unlawful: HC

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, delivering the verdict, stated that the ED must uphold fairness in its investigations, as it is a key agency responsible for tackling money laundering.

PTI

https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/newsimages/maannewsimage29012025_214751_siddaramaiah.jpg
  • Chief Minister Siddaramaiah

Bengaluru, 29 Jan

High Court ruled on Wednesday that the Enforcement Directorate's search and seizure at the residence of former Commissioner of MUDA was unlawful and an abuse of legal procedures.

The court also granted the official the right to initiate legal action against those involved in the search.

The case is linked to allegations of illegal site allotment to Parvathy BM, the wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, delivering the verdict, stated that the ED must uphold fairness in its investigations, as it is a key agency responsible for tackling money laundering.

He emphasised that searches conducted arbitrarily infringe upon the fundamental right to liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the ED had no prima facie evidence to invoke Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), making the search baseless and a violation of legal procedures.

"The ED cannot disregard procedural fairness outlined in the PMLA. Civil liberties cannot be compromised without adhering to due process," the judgment noted.

Granting relief to Natesh DB, former commissioner of Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), the court nullified the search operation carried out on 28-29 October, 2024. It also invalidated his statements recorded under Section 17(1)(f) of the PMLA and quashed the summons issued on 29 October and 6 November, 2024, under Section 50 of the Act.

The court observed that while the allegations revolve around the illegal allotment of sites during Natesh's tenure as MUDA Commissioner, no evidence suggested that he received any financial benefit from the transactions. As a result, he could not be held liable for possessing, concealing, or using proceeds of crime under Section 3 of the PMLA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *