Karnataka High Court has directed the counsel appearing for the CBI for the material evidence regarding investigation conducted at the residence of the IPS officer Seemant Kumar Singh, during the investigation into the case for illegal mining at Ballari. Seemant Kumar Singh is a superintendent of Ballari district and the investigation conducted on the allegations that monthly bribes by the illegal transporter’s of iron ore and the name of the SP was also included. Previous hearing was summoned by Justice H P Sandesh, the service record Seemant Sukumar Singh who is currently heads the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). The service record were needed when the ACB did not submit documents to the COURT pertaining chargesheet. The service record documents were submitted by the Department of Personnel and administrative reforms before the court.
The court has directed the Counsel for the CBI produce the documents to the investigation conducted. The court said that in case the report is not placed, the SP, CBI has to appear before the court on Monday, the next date of hearing. From the service records, the court observed that searches were conducted by the CBI and during the enquiry it emerged that the then SP, Ballari used to take ‘mamools’ of Rs 3 lakh from Kharapudi Mahesha, Swastika Nagaraj and Devedrappa - all into transportation of illegally mined iron ore from Ballari district.
During the hearing the court told to the special counsel for ACB, that “ask your ADGP a question for his conscience . I have no grudges against him.” The court put a remark against the ACB and ADGP stating that the latter was protecting and IAS officer. The court referred to IAS officer Manjunath (former Bengaluru Urban DC), who was not shown as an accused in a trap case. The ACB had shown him as an accused only after the court pulled up senior officers of the agency. While hearing a petition justice Sandesh also stated that the CBI should produce the investigation report. Questioning to the ACB counsel that whether it is the duty of the ADGP to protect the institution.
ACB councils argument taking serious expectation that the court of hearing has no jurisdiction to seek a report filed by ACB. Justice Sandesh has cited many judgements of the Supreme Court which has emphasised that the court can monitor every investigation and ensure that there is no last time or lapse on the part of investigation agencies. The council has informed the court that 819 search warrants were obtained from the court from the date when a ACB was established that is from 2016 to 2021. The council has also informed that 99 the B-reports were filed before the court. The charge has questioned why the ACB has concealed the B-reports detail filed in 2022 till date. The counsel submitted that they have no intention of concealing details of ‘B-reports’ but have furnished year-wise data.
Copyright A unit of White Code Global Consulting Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by A unit of White Code Global Consulting Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.
