Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Congress MLA Zameer Ahmed Khan In Disproportionate Assets Case

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress party legislator Zameer Ahmed Khan, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “A perusal at the source information report or the communication under Section 66 of the Enforcement Directorate would prima facie bring the petitioner under the ambit of Section 13 of the Act.” As per the prosecution case a complaint came to be registered on 09-06-2019, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC against the promoter of I-Monetary Advisory Private Limited, Mohammed Mansoor Khan. The ACB had drawn up a source report correctly.” The bench referring to Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Launder Act said, “Section 66 directs that if the Director or any other authority, on the basis of information or material in his possession, is of the opinion that the provisions of any other law are contravened, then the Director or such other authority shall share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action.” It noted that after the search was conducted at the residence and office premises of the petitioner, a communication was made immediately by the Additional Director of Enforcement Directorate, bringing in detail as to what are the assets that were found at the time when the search was conducted by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. Rejecting the contention of petitioners the bench said “On a coalesce of all the aforesaid information under Section 66 to the ACB, the source report and the order permitting registration of crime if considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, untenability of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.” It observed it is not a case where no crime was registered in which involvement of the petitioner is absent. Merely because information is furnished and a source report is drawn on that basis it would not vitiate the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as they are all backed by the statute.” However, since the order seeking interim order of stay of investigation was earlier rejected by the High Court and it came to be challenged before the Supreme Court which had stayed the high court order, the Bench said “In the light of the pendency of the petition before the Apex Court in a challenge to the refusal of interim stay and an interim stay granted by the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to suspend the operation of this order for a period of 30 days.” Appearance: Senior Advocate V. Lakshminarayana for Advocate Chandra L for Petitioner.