BENGALURU: The Karnataka high court has stayed an investigation against two senior Enforcement Directorate officers probing the multi-crore fund diversion case pertaining to Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order after hearing a petition filed by ED deputy director (Bengaluru) Manoj Mittal and ED assistant director (Bengaluru) Murali Kannan.
The petitioners had challenged the FIR registered by B Kallesh, additional director of the social welfare department, for the offences of breach of trust and criminal intimidation. Kallesh had alleged that the two ERD officers had threatened and pressured him to give statements against senior state govt members.
Appearing for the ED, additional solicitor general Aravind Kamath claimed that sequences in the case point to the fact that it is a “counter-blast” case with a sinister design to scuttle the ongoing investigation pertaining to loot of public money. On the other hand, advocate general K Shashikiran Shetty claimed the allegations made in the complaint were serious in nature.
After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that a crime was registered, an enforcement case information report (ECIR) was registered, and the ED officers in discharge of their official duty had summoned the complainant to investigate the matter.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order after hearing a petition filed by ED deputy director (Bengaluru) Manoj Mittal and ED assistant director (Bengaluru) Murali Kannan.
The petitioners had challenged the FIR registered by B Kallesh, additional director of the social welfare department, for the offences of breach of trust and criminal intimidation. Kallesh had alleged that the two ERD officers had threatened and pressured him to give statements against senior state govt members.
Appearing for the ED, additional solicitor general Aravind Kamath claimed that sequences in the case point to the fact that it is a “counter-blast” case with a sinister design to scuttle the ongoing investigation pertaining to loot of public money. On the other hand, advocate general K Shashikiran Shetty claimed the allegations made in the complaint were serious in nature.
After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that a crime was registered, an enforcement case information report (ECIR) was registered, and the ED officers in discharge of their official duty had summoned the complainant to investigate the matter.
Source Agencies
