Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court’s Adverse Remarks Against CBI in Delhi Excise Policy Case, Defers Related PMLA Proceedings

The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed the operation of certain adverse remarks made by a trial court against the investigating agency and the investigating officer in connection with the discharge of accused persons in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The high court also directed the trial court to defer proceedings in the connected money laundering case until the matter is heard further.

The order was passed by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma while hearing an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the discharge order passed by the trial court. The high court issued notice to the respondents in the matter. According to the court record, none appeared on behalf of the respondents at the time of the hearing.

“…..some scathing remarks have been made against the investigation officers which at this stage was uncalled for, and therefore the operation of the order in that respect be stayed...I will pass an order of stay with regard to whatever remarks and statements are made against the investigating agency and officer...Issue fresh notice through IO...I will ask the trial court to postpone the hearing of the PMLA case to a date after the hearing before this court…”, court observed during the hearing.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the investigating agency, took the Court through the background of the case and strongly criticised the trial court’s decision to discharge all accused persons at the preliminary stage. He argued that the impugned order effectively amounted to an acquittal without trial.

According to the Solicitor General, the case involved allegations of a criminal conspiracy relating to the now withdrawn Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021 to 2022. He submitted that the investigation had revealed a pattern of alleged bribe payments that were routed through hawala channels and delivered in several tranches. These allegations were supported, he said, by evidence gathered during the investigation, including records of meetings and forensic material.

Mehta argued that the trial court had misapplied the legal principles governing the stage of discharge and framing of charges. He submitted that the court had examined the prosecution’s evidence in excessive detail as if it were deciding the matter after a full trial. According to him, such an approach was contrary to settled law because at the stage of framing charges the court is only required to assess whether a prima facie case exists.

He also emphasized that cases involving criminal conspiracy often rely on the cumulative effect of several pieces of evidence. Such offences are rarely proved through direct acts done openly. Instead, the prosecution typically establishes the conspiracy by assembling different links of circumstantial evidence during the course of trial.

The Solicitor General further argued that the trial court had wrongly disregarded the statement of an approver recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, settled legal principles recognise that statements recorded under this provision carry considerable weight at the stage of framing charges. He submitted that corroboration of such statements is not required at the preliminary stage and is ordinarily tested during trial.

Referring to the investigation conducted by the agency, Mehta told the court that the CBI had collected meticulous evidence during the course of its inquiry. He contended that the conclusions reached by the trial court were perverse and had been drawn at the wrong procedural stage. He warned that by discharging all accused persons without allowing the case to proceed to trial, the entire investigative exercise undertaken by the agency would be rendered meaningless.

Another major concern raised before the high court related to the strong remarks made by the trial court against the investigating officer and the investigating agency in its order. The Solicitor General argued that these observations were unnecessary and inappropriate at the stage of discharge.

After considering these submissions, the high court directed that the operation of the adverse remarks against the agency and the officer would remain stayed until further orders.

The high court also directed the trial court to postpone proceedings in the related case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The direction was issued to ensure that the connected proceedings do not continue while the high court examines the appeal against the discharge order.

The appeal arises from an order dated February 27 passed by Special Judge Jitender Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court. In that order, the trial court discharged all 23 accused persons who had been named in the case registered by the CBI in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021 to 2022.

The trial court had held that no prima facie case was made out against the accused and that the allegations of criminal conspiracy did not withstand judicial scrutiny at the stage of consideration of charges.

Challenging this finding, the CBI has argued before the high court that the trial court misapplied settled legal principles governing the framing of charges and engaged in a detailed evaluation of the evidence which is not permissible at that stage. The agency has also contended that the trial court incorrectly assessed the legal value of the approver’s statement and ignored several pieces of material gathered during the investigation.

The case relates to allegations that the excise policy was framed in a manner that extended undue benefits to certain private licensees, which allegedly resulted in kickbacks and financial loss to the Delhi government. Among those discharged by the trial court were Arvind Kejriwal, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, and Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister.

The high court will consider the matter further after the respondents enter appearance and file their responses to the appeal.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

With Inputs From: ANI