The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) raid on the residence of former MUDA commissioner Natesha DB, concerning alleged irregularities in the distribution of 14 sites to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathy, during his tenure, was illegal and an abuse of the law.
As there is no prima facie evidence to establish the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, the high court ruled that the search of Natesha’s premises under the pretense of an investigation constituted an abuse of the legal process. According to the court, ED is unable to implement the PMLA’s procedural fairness requirements during its implementation. Individuals’ rights to privacy and liberty cannot be violated, and any restriction on civil liberties must follow the due process of law.
The court decided that the mere existence of a website that was allegedly illegally granted to an accused person in a criminal case cannot be considered an infraction until Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is broken.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed Natesha’s petition contesting the ED’s actions, stating that the contested search and seizure that took place at the petitioner’s home on October 28 and 29, 2024, as well as the statement that was subsequently recorded under Section 17(1)(f) of the PMLA, were vitiated due to the lack of “reason to believe” and were thus deemed unlawful.
According to the judge, the contested summonses of October 29, 2024, and November 6, 2024, issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, as well as the statement recorded under Section 50 of the Act, are annulled, and the statement recorded under Section 17(1)(f) of the PMLA is ordered to be retracted.
As reported in the New Indian Express, the court said they indicate no specific allegation against Natesha, except that of improper allotment of sites in favour of Parvathy, and that he is close to realtors. The reasons recorded do not in any manner, whatsoever, indicate the involvement of the petitioner in any act of money laundering or to be in possession of proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering, or to be in possession of any records or property related to money laundering or crime, respectively.
The court reserved the liberty with the petitioner to initiate action under Section 62 of PMLA against the officer concerned before an appropriate forum for the impugned search and seizure operation.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
