Delhi HC Issues Notice to ED Regarding Sisodia's Challenge to Trial Court's Cognisance in Liquor Policy Case

New Delhi, Dec 2 (NationPress) On Monday, the Delhi High Court agreed to scrutinize a petition submitted by senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia regarding the trial court's decision to recognize the prosecution complaint lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the purported liquor policy scam case.

A bench led by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri issued a notice and requested a response from the federal anti-money laundering agency regarding the matter.

In his petition, Sisodia argued that the trial court acknowledged the alleged offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without obtaining prior authorization from the ED for prosecution.

The petition further stated that the trial court should not have recognized the ED's prosecution complaint without sanction, considering that he was in public office during the time of the alleged money laundering violation.

Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Sisodia, referenced the case of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram, where trial court proceedings were halted in the supposed Aircel-Maxis money laundering case due to lack of sanction.

During a brief hearing, the Justice Ohri-led Bench noted that in the absence of prosecution authorization, a trial cannot commence, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bibhu Prasad Acharya case.

The case is set to be heard again on December 20, alongside a similar petition filed by AAP chief and former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, who is also seeking a stay on trial proceedings due to lack of sanction.

In August, the Supreme Court granted bail to Sisodia, stating that he should not be confined indefinitely while waiting for a swift resolution of the trial in the excise policy case.

In delivering the verdict on Sisodia's bail applications, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai remarked: "In this case, both the ED and CBI have named 493 witnesses, and the case involves thousands of pages of documentation and over a lakh pages of digitized records."

"It is evident that there is no immediate chance of the trial concluding soon. Therefore, retaining the appellant in custody indefinitely while hoping for a prompt trial would infringe upon his Fundamental Right to Liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution."

The Bench, which also included Justice K.V. Viswanathan, determined that due to a prolonged incarceration of nearly 17 months and the trial not yet beginning, the senior AAP leader has been denied his right to a speedy trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that Sisodia might tamper with evidence if granted bail, stating that the prosecution's case largely relies on documentary evidence already secured by the CBI and the ED.

The SC also rejected central agencies’ assertion that Sisodia should be prevented from accessing the Delhi Chief Minister’s Office or the Delhi Secretariat.

In a prior ruling delivered on October 30 of last year, the Supreme Court had denied bail to the former Deputy Chief Minister but indicated that if the trial progressed slowly over the next three months, he could apply for bail again.