New Delhi, March 9 (NationPress) - On Monday, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other individuals in response to a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that contests their discharge in the ongoing Delhi excise policy case.

A single-judge Bench led by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma requested responses from the accused regarding the CBI’s criminal revision petition, which challenges the trial court's decision that declined to frame charges and discharged all 23 individuals involved.

The Delhi High Court also put a hold on the trial court's directive for departmental action against a CBI officer involved in the investigation, emphasizing that the comments made against the agency and the officer would remain on hold.

“I will issue a stay concerning any remarks or statements made against the investigating agency and officer,” Justice Sharma stated during the proceedings.

Additionally, the judge suggested that the trial court in the Rouse Avenue Courts complex should delay proceedings in the related money laundering case being pursued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) until the Delhi High Court reaches a decision on the CBI’s revision petition.

“I will instruct the trial court to postpone the hearing of the PMLA case to a date following the hearing before this court,” Justice Sharma remarked, scheduling the case for further discussion next Monday.

During the session, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta informed the Delhi High Court that the trial court's decision to discharge Kejriwal, Sisodia, and the other accused was “perverse” and effectively acted as an acquittal without a proper trial.

Representing the CBI, SG Mehta argued that the case represents “one of the largest scams in the history of the national capital.”

“This petition contests the discharge order. The primary allegation is that a manipulated policy was created to benefit certain traders,” SG Mehta asserted, claiming that the contested order “turns criminal law on its head.”

The Centre’s second-highest legal officer contended that the trial court mistakenly concluded there was no corroborative evidence against the accused.

“The judge, while addressing the discharge question, stated there was no supporting material. However, there is substantial corroborative evidence that cannot be dismissed. The discharge stage is not where corroboration should be examined in detail,” SG Mehta said.

The probe agency indicated that the order effectively granted an acquittal before a comprehensive trial could commence. “This is an acquittal order without trial. There is a clear indication of corruption — with bribes being taken, accepted, and utilized, meetings occurring, and forensic evidence available,” he remarked to the Delhi HC.

SG Mehta referred to the investigation conducted by the CBI, stating that a scientific probe was executed, yielding significant evidence that indicates a broader conspiracy behind the creation of the excise policy.

“This is one of the largest scams in the national capital. A scientific investigation has been conducted, establishing the conspiracy and its various dimensions,” he noted. “Witnesses clearly outline how the conspiracy was devised, how bribes were paid, and to whom they were given,” SG Mehta added, indicating that the prosecution also has emails and WhatsApp chats related to the alleged transactions.

The Delhi High Court was reviewing a criminal revision petition filed by the CBI challenging the Rouse Avenue Court's order, which discharged all 23 accused in the case tied to the now-repealed excise policy initiated by the AAP-led city government.

The CBI has alleged that the policy was designed to advantage specific private liquor companies, including the 'South Group', in exchange for alleged upfront bribes that were supposedly funneled for electoral gains.

Moreover, it claimed that the irregularities in the development and implementation of the policy led to undue benefits for licensees and losses for the public treasury.

However, the trial court dismissed the agency’s “theory of a grand conspiracy”, asserting that the contemporaneous records showed that the policy resulted from a consultative and deliberative process conducted per established procedures.