New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea filed by senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia against the trial court’s decision taking cognisance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged liquor policy scam case.
A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri issued notice and sought response from the federal anti-money laundering agency in the matter.
In his petition, Sisodia contended that the trial court took cognisance of the alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without any prior sanction having been obtained by the ED for prosecution.
The plea added that the trial court should have not taken cognisance of ED’s prosecution complaint without sanction since he held a public office at the time of the commission of the alleged money laundering offence.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing on Sisodia’s behalf, cited former Union Minister P. Chidambaram’s case where trial court proceedings were stayed in the alleged Aircel-Maxis money laundering case for lack of sanction.
In a brief hearing, the Justice Ohri-led Bench remarked that in the absence of sanction for prosecution, the trial cannot commence as per the apex court ruling in the Bibhu Prasad Acharya case.
The matter will be heard next on December 20, along with a similar petition filed by AAP supremo and former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal seeking a stay of trial proceedings on the grounds of lack of sanction.
In August this year, the Supreme Court granted bail to Sisodia, saying that he cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of a speedy completion of trial in the excise policy case.
Pronouncing the verdict on Sisodia’s bail pleas, a Bench presided over by Justice BR Gavai had said: “In the present case, in ED as well as CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named and the case involves thousands of pages of documents and over lakh pages of digitised documents.”
“It is thus clear that there is not even a remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of the trial would deprive him of the Fundamental Right of Liberty given under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Bench, also comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan, held that on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial not having commenced, the senior AAP leader has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial.
Rejecting the contention that Sisodia, if granted bail, may tamper with the evidence, the Supreme Court had said that the prosecution case majorly stems from documentary evidence, which has already been seized by the CBI and the ED.
The SC refused to accept central agencies’ submission that Sisodia should not be allowed to visit the Delhi Chief Minister’s Office or Delhi Secretariat.
In an earlier judgment delivered on October 30 last year, the top court had denied bail to the former Deputy Chief Minister but said that if the trial proceeds slowly in the next three months, he may apply for bail afresh.
