Read Time: 07 minutes
In the present case, the ED had accused the Aam Aadmi Party, led by Kejriwal, of receiving ₹100 crore in kickbacks related to the policy, which was allegedly used in the party's election campaign in Goa.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday, November 21 issued notice on a plea moved by Arvind Kejriwal challenging a trial court's decision to take cognizance of a chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case concerning the liquor policy scam.
The bench led by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while issuing notice, granted time to the ED to file its response. The court has accordingly listed the matter for hearing on December 28.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, argued that the ED has official sanctions to prosecute Arvind Kejriwal. " Let me file an affidavit," he added.
Mehta also informed the court that the trial court is currently inspecting the documents related to the case.
However, Senior Advocates N Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal while seeking a stay on the proceedings, argued that ED's 7th prosecution complaint is the same as the sixth prosecution complaint. "There is nothing afresh which has been investigated and no further investigation, this is the same prosecution complaint," he said.
Opposing the same, SGI Mehta submitted that this information was factually incorrect and that this argument had been rejected by the trial court.
According to Kejriwal's plea, he has sought directions from the high court to set aside the trial court's order taking cognizance of the ED's chargesheet, arguing that it lacks sanction. He has also challenged the validity of the 7th prosecution complaint filed by the ED, as no fresh material had been placed on record.
Recently, the Court issued notice to the ED in a petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal challenging summons issued to him on ED’s complaints in the money laundering case related to the now defunct liquor excise policy.
The CBI registered a case in August 2022 for alleged corruption in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy. The ED initiated a parallel investigation under PMLA, issuing several summonses to Kejriwal between October 2023 and February 2024. Kejriwal submitted written responses but did not appear in person, leading to the filing of the complaint cases. He argued that his disobedience was not intentional, as he had provided valid reasons for his absence and had always expressed a willingness to cooperate.
Additionally, Kejriwal contended that the trial court improperly took cognizance and issued summonses without considering the applicable provisions of PMLA, which supersede the IPC in matters related to the excise policy. He also argued that the trial court failed to consider that the ED had not sought the necessary sanctions for prosecution and had not proven that his disobedience was intentional. Furthermore, Kejriwal asserted that the case should have been heard in a Special Court under PMLA, as prescribed by law.
The appellate court, however, dismissed Kejriwal’s revision petitions against the complaints filed by ED noting that the language of Sub Section (4) of Section 63 of PMLA, which begins with a non-obstante clause, indicated that despite liability under Section 63(2)(c) of PMLA, a person who intentionally disobeys a direction under Section 50 of PMLA is also liable under Section 174 of the IPC.
The appellate court held that the fact that the ED had not taken action under Section 63(2)(c) for disobedience of summons, or that summons were reissued to the petitioner, did not imply that the reasons provided by the petitioner for non-appearance were accepted as genuine by the Investigating Officer or that the petitioner was exonerated.
In August 2024, the Rouse Avenue Court granted authorization to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate prosecution against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal concerning the now-defunct liquor excise policy case.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v ED
Please Login or Register
