Special Judge Rakesh Syal rejected both of Kejriwal’s petitions. A detailed order is pending. Kejriwal had contested the summons issued by the magistrate’s court, arguing that his non-appearance was not intentional and that he had responded to each summons, citing his responsibilities as Chief Minister.
NEW DELHI: Today (17th Sept): The Rouse Avenue court has dismissed two revision petitions filed by Arvind Kejriwal against summons issued by the magistrate’s court on complaints from the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED had summoned Kejriwal multiple times in connection with a PMLA case related to the Delhi Excise policy, but he did not appear. The ED then took the matter to court.
Special Judge Rakesh Syal rejected both of Kejriwal’s petitions. A detailed order is pending. Kejriwal had contested the summons issued by the magistrate’s court, arguing that his non-appearance was not intentional and that he had responded to each summons, citing his responsibilities as Chief Minister.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing Kejriwal, argued that there was no intentional disobedience and claimed that the ED failed to issue a show cause notice before filing complaints. Gupta also contended that, as a public servant, prior sanction was needed to prosecute Kejriwal, which was not obtained.
Kejriwal argued that he had not failed to appear as claimed; instead, he provided reasons for his absences, including a visit to the CBI office in 2023. He noted that the ED did not clarify the purpose and reasons for requiring his personal attendance.
His senior counsel argued that the summons were deliberately scheduled on dates when he was occupied with public functions such as budget preparation, and the trial court did not take into account his responses explaining his unavailability due to these duties. He questioned whether this could be considered intentional.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan, also representing Kejriwal, argued that the second revision petition was filed because the summons were issued hastily, without proper judicial consideration. Mohan contended that the trial court issued the summons on the same day it took cognizance of the case and failed to consider Kejriwal’s responses to the ED’s summons.
Kejriwal’s counsel argued that to prosecute him under Section 174 of the CrPC, there must be evidence of deliberate disobedience. The court should first determine whether such disobedience exists, but the trial court did not address this aspect. The counsel contended that a person cannot be made an accused and have an order issued in a vague manner without proper consideration.
The counsel further argued that the trial court accepted the complainant’s version as absolute truth and issued the summons without adequate judicial consideration. He pointed out that the term “in person” is not part of the summons form prescribed by legislation and argued that this form should not be altered.
He claimed that due to a failure of justice, an ordinary citizen like Kejriwal is now facing accusations because the court did not apply proper judicial scrutiny. Additionally, there was an unauthorized addition of the term “in person” in the form, which is not appropriate for summoning someone to produce evidence.
On the other hand, ASG S.V. Raju challenged the submissions made by the defense counsels, asserting that whether disobedience was intentional is a matter for trial. He emphasized that this revision pertains specifically to the order of summoning. ASG Raju argued that the Assistant Director (AD), Deputy Director (DD), and Joint Director (JD) have the legal authority to summon individuals to produce evidence.
He contended that if requested evidence is not provided, it constitutes intentional disobedience, and the summons were issued in accordance with the law. ASG Raju noted that under the PMLA, any person can be summoned to appear in person. He criticized Kejriwal for attending the CBI office in 2023 but failing to attend the ED office, questioning how he could travel for various campaigns but not manage a single visit to the ED.
ASG Raju also argued that whether Kejriwal was summoned as a witness or an accused is irrelevant. He maintained that there was clear disobedience on Kejriwal’s part.
In rebuttal, Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta stated that the trial court had not addressed three of his responses to the summons. He argued that these responses were not considered by the court.
Arvind Kejriwal has moved the Sessions Court in March 2024, challenging the summons issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate related to ED complaints for not complying with summons in the Delhi liquor policy money laundering case.
Kejriwal, in his challenge to the summons, maintained that there was no intentional disobedience on his part. He has consistently provided reasons for his absences, which have not been disputed or proven false by the Department.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, along with Mudit Jain, Mohd Irshad, and Samprikta Ghosal, represented Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the case. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, with Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Advocate Simon Benjamin, appeared for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance of the ED’s second complaint and issued a new summons for Kejriwal to appear personally before the court on March 16, 2024.
The Enforcement Directorate has filed two complaints against Kejriwal under Section 190(1)(a) of the CrPC, read with Section 200 CrPC of 1973, Section 174 IPC of 1860, and Section 63(4) of the PMLA, 2002, for failing to comply with Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002.
On February 7, 2024, the Rouse Avenue Court took cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The ED is seeking to record Kejriwal’s statement regarding issues such as the formulation of the Delhi Excise policy, pre-finalization meetings, and allegations of bribery.
In its sixth charge sheet, filed on December 2, 2023, the ED named AAP leader Sanjay Singh and his aide Sarvesh Mishra. The charge sheet claims that the AAP used Rs 45 crore in kickbacks from the policy as part of its 2022 assembly election campaign in Goa.
The probe into alleged irregularities, ordered by Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena, led to the policy’s cancellation. The AAP has accused Saxena’s predecessor, Anil Baijal, of undermining the policy with last-minute changes that resulted in lower-than-expected revenues.
On February 26, the CBI conducted several rounds of questioning. On October 5, the ED arrested Sanjay Singh, a Rajya Sabha member, who is currently out on bail. Both Sanjay Singh and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal were arrested by the ED and the CBI, respectively, and are currently on bail.
