Read Time: 08 minutes
In August 2022, the CBI registered a case alleging corruption in Delhi’s Excise Policy formulation. The ED launched a parallel investigation under PMLA, summoning Kejriwal multiple times between October 2023 and February 2024. Although Kejriwal provided written responses, he did not appear in person, prompting complaint cases.
Kejriwal argued that the trial court improperly took cognizance and issued summonses without adhering to PMLA provisions, which override IPC in excise-related matters. He highlighted the ED’s failure to obtain necessary prosecution sanctions or prove intentional disobedience.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Arvind Kejriwal, argued before the Delhi High Court that the initial summons were issued by Assistant Director Joginder but the later summons were issued by Officer Sandeep Sharma thus violating section 174 IPC.
These submissions were made in a petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal challenging the summons issued to him on ED’s complaints in the money laundering case related to the now-defunct liquor excise policy.
Senior Advocate John further argued ‘If Sharma was a co-investigating officer, assuming contentions of ED are true, then was this fact brought to the notice of the summoning court in the complaint?’.
Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain, for ED, emphasized the structure of investigative powers within the concerned department. He stated that an assistant director possessed the authority to investigate, with internal authorizations enabling other officers to carry out investigative activities.
When questioned by the court regarding the authorization of Officer Sandeep Sharma to investigate, Special Counsel Hussain affirmed that Sharma held proper authorization and had actively filed all petitions, replies, and prosecution complaints before the trial court.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, however, remarked that filing petitions and similar activities were distinct from the question of investigative authority.
Special Counsel Hussain further asserted that Sharma had the jurisdiction to undertake all such actions, emphasizing that no one had previously questioned his authority. He also highlighted that the cases arose due to the non-appearance by Arvind Kejriwal, who cited reasons such as election rallies, meditation retreats, and other engagements as justifications for his absence.
Senior Advocate John argued that Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) required personal compliance with a summons issued by a legally competent public servant. She stressed the specificity of this section, explaining that only a public servant explicitly authorized to issue summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could do so. She distinguished the roles within the PMLA, pointing out that the powers of various public servants, such as an SDM or Tehsildar, were distinct and not interchangeable with those of lower-ranking officers like a constable or SHO.
Senior Advocate John further scrutinized the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stating that much of the information included was "post facto" and had not been presented before the court at the initial stage. This, she argued, led to non-compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 174 IPC and Section 195. She questioned whether Officer Sandeep Sharma, assuming he was a co-investigating officer, had his role adequately disclosed to the summoning court in the complaint.
The court then inquired whether the ED had submitted proper authorization documents for Officer Sharma. Special Counsel Hussain responded that he could produce the exact authorization and pointed out references to this fact in his counter filings. He also clarified that following the fourth summons, all subsequent summonses had been issued by Sharma.
Senior Advocate John raised additional concerns, questioning whether 'They (ED) can amend, correct or better their complaint at this stage in a revisional jurisdiction?'.
Senior Advocate John questioned why Assistant Director Joginder, who had initially issued three summonses had not continued to handle the matter. It was asserted that 'When AD Joginder is present, he is not been transferred, not Superannuated, he is very much around', then why was the officer issuing summons was changed. This, she argued, reflected a significant procedural inconsistency in the summoning orders.
The court noted that the prosecution had asserted Officer Sandeep Sharma’s role as the investigating officer and had sought time to submit the necessary documentation. The court scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 11, 2025.
Previously, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri had issued notice to ED.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v ED
Please Login or Register
