New Delhi: In a reprieved for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Delhi High Court, on Monday, stayed the adverse observations made against it and its investigating officer by a trial court in its verdict discharging all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy case.
Among those discharged were Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also directed the trial court to postpone the hearing in the money laundering case connected to the matter till the Court decides the CBI’s revision plea against the trial court verdict, as reported by Bar and Bench.
“I will pass an order of stay with regard to whatever remarks and statements are made against the investigating agency and officer. I will ask the trial court to postpone the hearing of the PMLA case to a date after the hearing before this court,” the Court said.
Justice Sharma then issued notice to the accused persons and asked them to file their replies to the CBI’s plea.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, said that he is, for now, not seeking a stay on the discharge of the accused, but only a direction that the trial court verdict will not affect the money laundering case being probed separately by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“It’s a peculiar way in which the discharge has taken place. I understand that the stay of the judgment would mean that the trial takes place. I would not ask for that, but this is a CBI case based on which the ED case is proceeding. This judgment may not affect that. My ladyship may stay this saying that the ED case will not be affected,” he submitted.
Mehta further said that the excise policy scam is one of the biggest in the nation’s history.
“This is one of the biggest scams in the history of the capital of this nation and in my opinion a national shame. Scientific investigation was carried out. Each and every aspect of conspiracy was established,” he contended.
There were witness statements which clearly established a conspiracy, he submitted.
“There were 164 [CrPC] statements. There are witnesses who clearly elaborate how the conspiracy was hatched, how the bribe was paid, and to whom the bribe was paid. There is one person called Vijay Nair, he is the communications incharge of the political party… ₹19 crore to ₹100 crore bribe was paid in lieu of favours given. Out of this, ₹44.50 crore were transferred by hawala, and meticulous scientific investigation demonstrates that the money went to Goa to fund the elections for the party,” the SG contended.
On February 27, special judge Jitendra Singh had discharged all the accused in the case, holding that the prosecution case does not survive judicial scrutiny as the CBI had tried to construct a narrative of conspiracy on the basis of mere conjecture.
Hence, the case did not merit a trial, he had ruled.
The case arose in 2022 when the CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 was manipulated to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation of liquor trade in Delhi.
The CBI case was registered on a complaint made by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena on July 20, 2022.
The probe agency said that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its leaders received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to manipulation of the policy. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) also later registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the matter.
“At least with my limited experience in this field, I have not come across such meticulous evidence collected by an investigation agency,” Mehta argued in the CBI’s favour.
The trial court judgment turns the criminal law on its head since approver statements don’t need corroboration till the stage of trial.
“This [the judgement] is turning criminal law on its head. Approver statements do not need corroboration till the stage of trial. They [approvers] can be cross-examined (during trial). Approver has not been placed before the court in the witness box, not examined, not cross-examined. His approvership is before the magistrate, and it is nobody’s case that he became an approver under threat or coercion,” the SG submitted.
Mehta said that one of the findings by the trial court was that Manish Sisodia handled the bribe.
“So, now we have to show that the person personally handled the cash, like in the past when an officer was caught red-handed with cash?” he asked.
