The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has challenged the closure report filed by the Lokayukta police in the alleged irregularities in Mysuru urban development authority (Muda) land allotment, saying it is an aggrieved party in the case involving Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah and others.
ED filed a petition om Tuesday before the special court for elected representatives against the Karnataka Lokayukta police, which had on February 19 informed the court that the allegations against Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi M, and two others could not be substantiated due to insufficient evidence.
“It is being realised, world over, that money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also their integrity and sovereignty,” ED said in its petition, quoting the statement of objects and reasons of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Submitting that the state (country) comes under the definition of “victim” of money-laundering offence, the federal agency further said it should be construed as an aggrieved party. As the designated prosecutors under PMLA, ED has the locus standi to protest or to be heard before any order is passed on the closure report filed by the investigating agency, in this case, the Lokayukta police.
“Since the offence of Money Laundering and Predicate offence are intrinsically linked the Enforcement Directorate cannot be said to be an alien to the issues involved in the Predicate Offence. Further, in the instant case the Directorate of Enforcement had shared the evidences/information gathered during the course of investigation, under PMLA,” the petition said.
{{/usCountry}}“Since the offence of Money Laundering and Predicate offence are intrinsically linked the Enforcement Directorate cannot be said to be an alien to the issues involved in the Predicate Offence. Further, in the instant case the Directorate of Enforcement had shared the evidences/information gathered during the course of investigation, under PMLA,” the petition said.
{{/usCountry}}The special MP/MLA court is yet to decide whether or not to entertain the protest petition.
The case pertains to alleged allotment of 14 sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife in an upmarket area in Mysuru as compensation for 3.16 acres of Parvathi’s land “acquired” by Muda. It is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over the said 3.16 acres at Kasare village and that the plot was a gift to her from her brother Mallikarjuna Swamy, who claimed to have bought it from one Devaraju. Swamy and Devaraju are also accused in the case.
In February, the Lokayukta police probing the Muda site allotment case had mentioned that the charges against the CM and others could not be proved for want of evidences. The ombudsman police’s findings indicated that though Muda officials violated regulations during the land denotification and conversion processes, there was no evidence suggesting any wrongdoing by veteran Congress leader Siddaramaiah or his wife.
The Lokayukta police have stated that further investigations into compensatory allotments from 2016 to 2024 will continue, and an additional report will be presented to the high court.
Meanwhile, the Karnataka high court on Wednesday declined to stay a single judge’s ruling that had set aside ED’s summons to Natesha DB, former commissioner of Muda in the land allotment case.
A division comprising chief Justice NV Anjaria and justice KV Aravind, however, clarified that the order does not hinder ongoing investigations against other accused in the case.
“ED shall be at liberty to utilise all the documents materials which may have been gathered, recovered or seized at the place of petitioner as well as to utilise the statement of the petitioner for the purpose of rest of investigation in accordance with law,” the court ordered.
(With PTI inputs)