New Delhi, March 9 The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia, and 21 others to a petition filed by the CBI challenging the trial court's discharge of the accused in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notices to all the accused and listed the CBI's petition for hearing on March 16.
"A reply should be filed," ordered Justice Sharma.
The court said it would pass an order asking the trial court to defer proceedings in the related money laundering case, being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, to await the outcome in the present matter.
At the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the investigating agency, the court further indicated that it would stay the operation of the "prejudicial" remarks made by the trial court regarding the CBI officials.
Mehta urged the court to finally decide the CBI's plea by fixing a schedule for the hearing.
He contended that the trial court order discharging Kejriwal and Sisodia in the excise policy case was "perverse" and "turned the criminal law on its head".
He alleged that the excise policy case was one of the biggest scams and a clear case of corruption.
"This is one of the biggest scams in the history of this nation, and therefore, a national shame. A thorough investigation has been carried out," Mehta submitted.
Asserting that the trial court passed an acquittal order in favour of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others without a trial, Mehta contended that the agency had collected meticulous evidence to show a conspiracy and bribery related to a manipulated liquor policy, which "cannot be brushed aside".
He added that there was enough evidence against Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused to frame charges, and the CBI's case was supported by the approvers and witnesses.
Mehta submitted that the discharge order relied on the lack of "independent corroboration" for approver statements, when such corroboration was not required at the stage of framing charges.
He said that the requirement of corroboration for approver evidence applies at the stage of conviction, not at the stage of framing charges.
He submitted that around 170 mobile phones were changed or destroyed by the accused and other related people during the period of the scam, and despite such destruction of evidence, the CBI recovered evidence to show the criminal conspiracy and the role of the accused persons.
Mehta said the material on record undeniably established a grave suspicion of a systematic criminal conspiracy among the accused to manipulate the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 for illegal gratification, which was followed by money laundering and utilisation of the proceeds for the AAP's election expenditure for the Goa elections.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others, criticizing the CBI by saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct based on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence, and therefore, to compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice.
Among the 21 people given a clean chit in the case is Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha.
While Kejriwal was in jail for six months in the case, Sisodia was behind bars for almost two years.
The CBI has been probing alleged corruption in the formulation and execution of the erstwhile AAP government's now-scrapped excise policy.
In its revision petition filed the same day as the trial court's decision, the CBI said the discharge order was patently illegal, perverse, and suffered from errors apparent on the face.
The petition contended that the trial court conducted a "mini-trial" at the stage of framing of charges and passed the discharge order on a "selective reading of the prosecution case".
Not only did the trial court fail to appreciate the facts of the case, but it also passed unwarranted adverse remarks against the investigating agency and the investigating officer, the plea claimed.
"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," the petition stated.
In the discharge order, the trial court said the investigation appeared to have proceeded on a predetermined trajectory, implicating virtually every person associated with the formulation or implementation of the policy to lend an illusion of depth and credibility to an otherwise fragile narrative.
It said that the endeavour to further connect such allegations to the Goa Assembly elections to project utilisation of alleged proceeds of crime rested more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material.