Setback to DK Shivakumar as HC refuses to stay ED summons

Agencies
August 29, 2019

Bengaluru, Aug 29: In a major setback to former minister and powerful leader of Karnataka Congress DK Shivakumar, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to stay the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case. The Congress MLA from Kanakapura and a few others had filed a petition before the HC seeking cancellation of summons issued by the ED.

 The single judge bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar dismissed the petition filed by DK Shivakumar and four others. Income Tax officials had raided the properties of DK Shivakumar in Bengaluru and New Delhi on 2 August 2017 and had seized unaccounted cash over Rs 8.59 Cr. The ED had issued summons to Shivakumar to appear for questioning in connection with the IT riads. Cases have been registered under Section 277 and 278 of the Income Tax act of 1961 and Sections 120(B), 193 and 199 of IPC against DK Shivakumar, Sachin Narayana, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah and Rajendra.

The ED officials had issued summons to Shivakumar in December 2018 on charges of money laundering after IT sleuths recovered unaccounted cash from a flat owned by Shivakumar in New Delhi. The High Court bench also expressed that it is for the agencies (IT or ED) to decide whether the offence is made out or not under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act while dismissing the petitions.

Following the judgement, DK Shivakumar reportedly rushed to his advocate’s office near High Grounds and consulted about the future course of action. Sources close to the former minister revealed DH that Shivakumar—often hailed as troubleshooter of state Congress is likely to appeal against the verdict in Supreme Court on Friday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 31,2020

Mangaluru, Jan 31: Four people, including a minor and a teen-aged boy, have been arrested on charges of spreading false messages on social media with in Bantwal taluk of Dakshnina Kannada District.

Police said on Friday that the arrested have been identified as Siddik (27), K Mohammed (19), Hanif (25) and a 16-year-old boy.

They are accused of spreading false news on social media using different mobile numbers in Bantwal Taluk for disturbing communal harmony, police said adding a case had been registered at the Vitla police station in this connection.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
June 27,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 27: Karnataka witnessed the biggest single-day spike in Covid cases on Saturday as 918 cases were recorded and 11 more deaths were linked to the pandemic. 

In Bengaluru alone, 596 more people tested positive for the infection in the last 24 hours as three more fatalities were also confirmed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services.

Following is the district wise tally:

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
February 14,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.