'You May Be Crusader Against Corruption But Act According To Law': Karnataka High Court Questions ED Searches On Excise Commissioner
One must be an accused or a money-trail connection with the accused must be there, Court said.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 15) questioned the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) decision to conduct search and seizure operations against an Additional Commissioner of Excise, his family members and other persons allegedly unconnected with the predicate offence, cautioning the agency that its zeal to combat corruption must operate within the confines of law.
"Maybe you (ED) are the crusader of corruption but it must be in accordance with law...If you really have the zeal to cut corruption in any department, do it in accordance with law. You need not come to the court and defend an action that is indefensible prima facie”, Justice M Nagaprasanna orally remarked.
The Court was hearing pleas filed by Dr. Y. Manjunath, Additional Commissioner in the Excise Department, and his wife, Mahadevi Manjunath, assailing search and seizure proceedings conducted by the ED under Section 17 of the PMLA at their residences in Belagavi and Bengaluru on June 24 and 25.
Expressing prima facie reservations over the ED's action, the Court directed the agency not to precipitate the matter till the next date of hearing.
“…The petitioners are admittedly not accused. A few of them are officers of the Excise department and other persons totally unconnected to the predicate offence. While it is not the law that merely because the accused name is not found in said predicate offence, the offence under ECIR cannot be registered or subsequent proceedings cant be taken…however, there should be a money trail link between the accused in the predicate offence or any semblance of link stablished by chain of events or by search proceedings that have taken place…”, the Court noted in its order.
The petitioners contended that the ED's action stemmed from a trap case registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police against one Jagadish Nayak, an excise official who was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of ₹25 lakh. They argued that neither the Additional Commissioner nor his family members had any connection with Nayak or the predicate offence.
Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that there was no scheduled offence relatable to his clients and, consequently, no “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.
“…there is no predicate offence. They[ED] have now issued a press release saying there is some kind of corruption in the excise department, therefore it is our duty to go and conduct search proceedings…I can't fathom it… there is a well-oiled system in Karnataka in the form of Lokayukta's to which complaints can be given..”, the senior counsel said.
Questioning the ED's jurisdiction, the Court orally observed:
Case Title: MAHADEVI MANJUNATH V. UNION OF INDIA & Connected Matters
Case No: W.P. NO. 20986, 20987 & 20990 OF 2026