Bengaluru: Enforcement Directorate (ED), probing the alleged Karnataka Public Service Commission job-for-cash scam, told a special court that suspended KPSC chairperson Shivashankarappa Sahukar had prepared plans for construction projects worth an estimated Rs 35-Rs 40 crore in his hometown of Shahpur in Yadgir district.Opposing the bail petitions filed by Sahukar and fellow accused KPSC member BV Geeta, ED informed the court that it had seized architectural plans for several projects on land registered in the name of Sahukar’s wife, Vijayalakshmi. The designs reportedly included plans for malls and commercial complexes, a playground and school.Arguments from defence counsels are scheduled to be presented before the court Wednesday.Sahukar and Geeta were arrested by ED along two other accused, IAS officer Gyanendra Kumar and tout Basavaraj Kannale. All four are in Bengaluru Central Prison under judicial custody. During an earlier hearing on extension of judicial custody, ED had alleged that Sahukar was involved in cash transactions amounting to around Rs 10 crore with Bengaluru-based realtor SP Dayananda.Defence counsel CH Hanumantharaya argued that Sahukar was entitled to bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as he was not accused of personally receiving more than Rs 1 crore in proceeds of crime.Opposing the plea, public prosecutor DM Maheshwari cited statements recorded by ED from a candidate and his father, who allegedly paid an advance of Rs 10 lakh to Sahukar in exchange for access to question paper and answer scripts of veterinary officer recruitment examination. According to the prosecutor, Sahukar initially demanded Rs 50 lakh, but the amount was subsequently negotiated to Rs 20 lakh as the candidate belonged to his community.ED also raised questions over financial transactions between Sahukar and Geeta. The agency alleged that Sahukar regularly deposited Rs 75,000 into the bank account of Geeta’s daughter and also paid her educational expenses. Sahukar reportedly claimed the monthly payments were rent for a flat owned by Geeta in which he was residing. However, the prosecution pointed out that no rental agreement had been produced to substantiate the claim.Seeking bail, Geeta’s defence counsel argued that she deserved special consideration under PMLA provisions applicable to women. But the prosecution said Geeta, a non-practising advocate who had previously served as a prosecutor with Karnataka Lokayukta, was well aware of the legal implications of her alleged actions.
