The Karnataka High Court on Monday reserved its verdict in the case filed by Advocate Anil Gowda, a legal consultant to arrested Congress MLA KC Veerendra Puppy. Gowda had challenged the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to allegations of illegal betting and gambling.
The matter was heard by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, who also directed the ED not to take any hasty steps against Gowda until the judgment is delivered.
Read also: Himachal High Court Quashes Divisional Commissioner’s Order in Panchayat Election Dispute
During the hearing, the Court questioned the ED about the lack of supporting documents against Gowda. In response, the ED’s counsel assured that the required documents would be submitted to the Court.
In his petition, Advocate Gowda alleged that the ED was targeting him and MLA KC Veerendra out of political vendetta.
He argued that:
- The ED’s action was aimed at silencing opposition leaders.
- His name does not appear in any FIRs or charge sheets.
- The proceedings were based on FIRs from the past 10–15 years, many of which have already ended in acquittals or quashing.
Read also: Maratha Quota Stir: Bombay High Court Orders Manoj Jarange to Vacate Azad Maidan Protest by 3
FIR Timeline Cited in Gowda’s Plea:
- 2011 FIR → All accused acquitted in 2014.
- 2015 FIR → Quashed in 2016.
- 2016 FIR → Two accused convicted after pleading guilty.
- 2022 FIR → KC Veerendra’s name was dropped after investigation.
Despite this, the ED issued summons on August 24, asking Gowda to provide details of his property, tax records, and his legal work for Veerendra.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Gowda, submitted that:
- The ED summons interfered with Gowda’s professional role as a lawyer.
- The legal advice given by an advocate is protected.
- The issue is connected to the suo motu case pending before the Supreme Court, which will decide on the extent of ED’s powers to summon advocates.
Read also: Supreme Court Hears Insurer's Plea Against NCDRC Order on Rajasthan Royals' Rs 82 Lakh Claim
Pahwa stressed:
“They have asked in my capacity as legal advisor… queries only relate to my professional relationship with the accused. I am a lawyer, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has protected me in such matters.”
The ED, represented by ASG Arvind Kamath and Advocate Madhukar Deshpande, opposed Gowda’s plea.
Their main arguments were:
- The summons was not related to his role as a lawyer.
- Gowda is a partner in several commercial companies, including one owned by KC Veerendra.
- There are serious allegations of illegal investments against him.
Deshpande further argued that:
“Lawyers cannot claim exemptions when they are summoned in relation to their possible direct involvement in a crime.”
The ED also pointed out that the August 24 summons had become infructuous since Gowda did not appear on August 26. A fresh summons would be required.
The Karnataka High Court has now reserved its verdict in the matter and has restrained the ED from taking immediate action against Gowda until the final decision is delivered.
Case Title: Anil Gowda H v. Directorate of Enforcement
Date: Verdict reserved on September 2, 2024 (Monday hearing)
