New Delhi, March 2 Challenging the special court order discharging former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, the CBI has submitted to the Delhi High Court that the order was based "on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused", and was "blatantly illegal".
In its 974-page petition before the high court, the CBI said the Special Judge essentially conducted a mini-trial dealing with separate aspects of the conspiracy in isolation, rather than assessing the actions of the accused cumulatively. Terming the order "perverse", the agency said it suffers from "obvious errors", is based on a "misinterpretation" of the facts, and violates the Supreme Court's assertions related to the stage when charges are to be framed.
The special court had on Friday discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case by refusing to take cognizance of the CBI chargesheet against them.
Among the 21 people given a clean chit in the case is Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh had rapped the CBI for lapses in the investigation, saying there was no cogent evidence against Kejriwal and no prima facie case against Sisodia and the other accused.
Within hours, the CBI had approached the high court challenging the order through an urgent revision petition. The hearing in the case will take place on March 9.
"The impugned order is blatantly illegal, perverse, and suffers from obvious errors. Not only does it fail to appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective, but this failure on the part of the Learned Special Judge has further led to the passing of adverse remarks against the investigating agency, as well as the investigating officer, all of which are unwarranted and incomprehensible," the CBI contended.
The central probe agency went on to allege that the observations in the order bear testimony to the fact that the Special Judge "lacks the basic understanding of the prosecution case as a whole and the corresponding law at the stage of charge".
It said the conspiracy revolves around the facts which individually "may not be per se indicative" of the role played by various accused. However, when the actions of the accused are taken cumulatively, the conspiracy to monetize the Policy (excise policy) becomes clear, the agency said.
"However, the Learned Special Judge has completely ignored the basis of the conspiracy but has evaluated in detail small contradictions which is not even the case as laid out by the prosecution. In effect, the Learned Special Judge has formulated his own understanding of the individual roles of the accused in a completely different perspective," it said.
The CBI alleged that, in substance, a case of rampant corruption, emanating from the highest levels of executive, has resulted in a discharge owing to incorrect conclusions being drawn to impute aspersions on the investigating agency, when the record of the case, which is to be treated as uncontroverted at this stage, speaks otherwise.
It claimed that the order suffers from misreading of the facts, in addition to arriving at incorrect findings on the law of approvers, the evidentiary value of material, and "is in teeth of the dictum" laid down by the Supreme Court at the stage of charge.
