The CBI, while challenging the discharge of all 23 accused including former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case, alleged that Judge Jitendra Singh conducted a “mini trial” and passed the order after selectively reading its case.
The CBI, in its appeal against the discharge of all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy probe including former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal accused Judge Jitendra Singh of conducting a “mini trial” and issuing his order after selectively reading the agency’s case.
The agency contends the judge lacked a basic understanding of the prosecution’s overall case and of the applicable law at the charge stage, calling Singh’s adverse remarks about the CBI and its investigating officer in his February 27 order “unwarranted and incomprehensible.”
Last Friday, Singh acquitted Kejriwal, his then-deputy Manish Sisodia, and 21 others of any wrongdoing in framing and implementing the now-repealed 2021–22 excise policy. He wrote that the CBI’s material did not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion.
In its 974-page appeal the CBI argues that the changes to Delhi’s liquor policy were not mere administrative choices but “foundational acts in furtherance of ‘a pre-arranged quid pro quo,’” orchestrated by senior Delhi government and AAP leaders.
According to the appeal,
“Unimpeachable evidence of senior bureaucrats to show the preconceived intent of Manish Sisodia and Arvind Kejriwal to formulate a tailor-made policy. These include privatisation of the wholesale mode, the incorporation of manufactured and procured comments in the form of public opinions, the non-inclusion of legal opinions asking for a status quo. There is ample digital evidence to support the same,”
Singh’s judgment, however, was unequivocal about the absence of proof, he wrote,
“This court has no hesitation in holding that the material placed on record does not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion, against any of the accused persons. Accordingly, Accused Nos 1–23 are discharged of all the offences alleged against them in the present case,”
The order added,
“Due to the absence of any admissible evidence, the prosecution case is rendered legally infirm, unsustainable and unfit to proceed any further in law,”
The judge also rejected the idea of a broad conspiracy,
“The theory of an overarching conspiracy, so emphatically projected, stands completely dismantled when tested against the evidentiary record.”
The CBI counters that Singh failed to grasp or follow proper procedure.
Calling the decision “patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face.”, the agency said,
“While passing the impugned order, the special judge has essentially conducted a mini-trial dealing with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation. He has passed the order on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused,”
It added that the judgment not only misapprehended the facts, but also led the judge to level inappropriate and puzzling criticisms at the investigating agency and its officer.
The agency further contends,
“The 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 judge has formulated his own understanding of the individual roles of the accused in a completely different perspective. The observations in the impugned 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”.
CBI maintains that its evidence, “read as a whole, discloses a single, continuing criminal conspiracy beginning at the stage of formulation of the policy and culminating in the generation and utilisation of the kickbacks for Goa elections.”
The judge, however, said the CBI’s attempt to tie allegations to the Goa polls relied more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material.
In its appeal the CBI also alleged,
“The conspiracy was conceived at the highest political level, where the policy framework was deliberately altered to create a private wholesale regime with an enhanced 12% margin from the existing 5% and also relaxed the turnover criteria, despite expert recommendations to the contrary.”
It reiterated that,
“The policy-level changes were not mere administrative decisions but were foundational acts in furtherance of a pre-arranged quid pro quo, facilitated by the top leaders of the Delhi government and AAP.”
The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the CBI’s appeal on March 9.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
