New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma sought responses from the accused on the CBI’s criminal revision petition assailing the trial court order which had refused to frame charges and discharged all 23 accused in the matter.
The Delhi High Court also stayed the trial court’s direction ordering departmental action against a CBI officer who had investigated the case and said the remarks made against the investigating agency and the officer would remain stayed.
“I will pass an order of stay with regard to whatever remarks and statements are made against the investigating agency and officer,” Justice Sharma observed during the hearing.
The judge further indicated that the trial court at the Rouse Avenue Courts complex should defer proceedings in the linked money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) till the Delhi High Court decides the CBI’s revision petition.
“I will ask the trial court to postpone the hearing of the PMLA case to a date after the hearing before this court,” Justice Sharma said, listing the matter for further hearing on Monday next week.
During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the Delhi High Court that the trial court’s order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia and the other accused was “perverse” and effectively amounted to an acquittal without trial.
Appearing for the CBI, SG Mehta submitted that the case involved “one of the biggest scams in the history of the national Capital”.
“This is a petition challenging the discharge order. The basic charge is that a manipulated policy was created which facilitated certain traders,” SG Mehta said, contending that the impugned order “turns criminal law on its head”.
The Centre’s second highest law officer argued that the trial court erred in concluding that there was no corroborative material against the accused.
“The judge, while deciding the question of discharge, says there is no corroborative material. There is enough corroborative material which cannot be brushed away. The stage of discharge is not where you examine corroboration in detail,” SG Mehta submitted.
According to probe agency, the order had the effect of granting an acquittal even before a full-fledged trial could begin. “This is an order of acquittal without trial. There is a clear case of corruption — bribes being taken, accepted and utilised, meetings taking place and forensic evidence being available,” he told the Delhi HC.
Referring to the investigation conducted by the CBI, SG Mehta said the agency had carried out a scientific probe and gathered substantial material indicating a larger conspiracy behind the formulation of the excise policy.
“This is one of the biggest scams in the national Capital. A scientific investigation has been conducted. The conspiracy and its various facets have been established,” he argued. “There are witnesses who clearly state how the conspiracy was hatched, how the bribes were paid and to whom they were given,” SG Mehta submitted, adding that the prosecution also possessed emails and WhatsApp chats linked to the alleged transactions.
The Delhi High Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the CBI challenging the order of the Rouse Avenue Court, which had discharged all 23 accused in the case relating to the now-scrapped excise policy introduced by then AAP-led city government.
The CBI had alleged that the policy was tailored to benefit certain private liquor entities, including the ‘South Group’, in exchange for alleged upfront bribes purportedly routed for electoral purposes.
It further claimed that irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the policy resulted in undue favours to licensees and losses to the public exchequer.
However, the trial court had rejected the agency’s “theory of an overarching conspiracy”, holding that the contemporaneous record indicated that the policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process undertaken in accordance with prescribed procedure.
(IANS)
