The Delhi High Court stayed adverse remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation after a trial court discharged 23 accused, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the Delhi excise policy case and paused related proceedings.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court stayed the unfavorable remarks made by the trial court regarding the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its investigating officer in its ruling that discharged all 23 defendants, including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the Delhi excise policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also instructed the trial court to delay the hearing of the money laundering case linked to this matter until the Court resolves the CBI’s revision petition against the trial court’s ruling.
The judge stated,
“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,”
She issued a notice to the accused and requested them to respond to the CBI’s plea.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest-To-Discharge Journey: Delhi Excise Policy Case Timeline Explained
The CBI filed the revision petition challenging the trial court’s verdict from February 27.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, stated that he is not currently seeking the start of the trial in the CBI case, but instead a directive ensuring that the trial court’s findings do not affect the separately investigated money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
He explained,
“It’s a peculiar way in which the discharge has taken place. I understand that a 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 further noted that the excise policy scam is among the largest in the country’s history.
He contended,
“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 conducted. Each and every aspect of the conspiracy was established,”
Mehta also asserted that there were 164 witness statements that clearly demonstrated conspiracy.
He said,
“There were 164 statements. There are witnesses who clearly elaborate on how the conspiracy was hatched, how bribes were paid, and to whom the bribes were paid. One individual, Vijay Nair, is the communications in charge of the political party… bribes ranging from Rs 19 crore to Rs 100 crore were paid in exchange for favors. Of this, Rs 44.50 crore were transferred via hawala, and meticulous scientific investigation shows that the money was sent to Goa to fund elections for the party,”
Factual Background
On February 27, Special Judge Jitendra Singh discharged all accused, stating that the prosecution’s case lacked judicial merit, as the CBI attempted to construct a conspiracy narrative based on mere conjecture. Consequently, he ruled that the case did not warrant a trial.
The case began in 2022 when the CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) claiming that the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 was manipulated to facilitate monopolization and cartelization in the liquor trade in Delhi.
The CBI’s inquiry was initiated following a complaint from Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022. The agency alleged that AAP leaders and the party itself received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to the policy’s manipulation. The ED later registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) concerning the same matter.
This led to a series of arrests of opposition leaders, which some critics labeled as politically motivated. It was claimed that a criminal conspiracy was orchestrated by AAP leaders, including Sisodia and Kejriwal, along with other unnamed private individuals during the policy formulation stage. Allegations indicated that loopholes were “intentionally” left in the policy to benefit certain liquor licensees and conspirators after the tender process.
Based on these assertions, the CBI charged 23 individuals.
Several political leaders spent a significant time in jail as the Rouse Avenue Court and the Delhi High Court denied them bail, with the Supreme Court eventually granting them relief. However, the trial court discharged all accused on February 27.
The special court criticized the CBI for constructing its case based on statements from approvers.
The judge stated,
“If such conduct is allowed, it would be a grave violation of constitutional principles. The conduct where an accused is granted pardon and then made an approver, with his statements used to fill the gaps in the investigation and make additional people accused, is wrong,”
In its revision petition, the CBI argued that the special judge’s order on February 27 is “patently illegal, perverse, and suffers from errors apparent on the face.”
The CBI contended that the judge essentially conducted a mini-trial, examining separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation.
According to the CBI’s plea,
“The Ld Special Judge has passed the impugned order on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused.”
Additionally, the petition critiqued the judge’s order for suggesting departmental action against the CBI officer investigating the case, calling it “shocking to say the least.”
The plea asserted that while delivering his discharge order, the judge mentioned he had spent the past four months reviewing only the case file, demonstrating a detailed appreciation of the evidence, which is not permissible at this stage of charge framing.
The revision petition argued that the trial court mistakenly analyzed the roles of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia.
The plea stated,
“The Ld Special Judge has erred in not appreciating the entirety of the conspiracy. Such piecemeal consideration of evidence, rather than a collective review of the case, has led to the issuance of the impugned order, which should be set aside,”
Hearing Before the High Court
The Solicitor General argued that the discharge order was akin to an acquittal, even though no trial had taken place.
The Solicitor General noted,
“This is an order of acquittal without trial. It is as severe as that. It may sound like an exaggeration, but it’s an understatement,”
He asserted that the evidence presented by the investigation agency was “meticulous.”
He argued,
“With my limited experience in this field, I have not encountered such thorough evidence collected by an investigative agency,”
He indicated that the ruling essentially reverses established criminal law, as statements from approvers do not require corroboration until the trial stage.
The Solicitor General submitted,
“This [the judgment] is turning criminal law on its head. Approver statements do not need corroboration until the stage of trial. They [approvers] can be cross-examined during the trial. The approver has not been presented before the court in the witness box, nor examined or cross-examined. His status as an approver was established before the magistrate, and there is no claim that he became an approver under threat or coercion,”
He pointed out that one of the trial court’s findings was that Manish Sisodia was responsible for handling the bribe.
He queried,
“Now we have to demonstrate that the person personally handled the cash, similar to past cases where an officer was caught red-handed with cash?”
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE