The Delhi High Court issued notices to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others in the excise policy case, challenging their discharge by a trial court. It also stayed adverse remarks against the CBI, a move welcomed by the Delhi BJP.
BJP Reacts to High Court's Direction
Reacting to the court's direction to stay adverse remarks against the probe agency, Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva asserted that the decision ensures the investigation into the alleged scam continues, which he claimed has significantly damaged the national capital's reputation. Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva, while speaking to ANI, said, "...The High Court has clearly put a stay, and the trial court's order will not have any impact on the ED's investigation; it will continue with its investigation... Whatever investigation is done will come before the High Court, and today's decision is a scam that will directly tarnish Delhi's image... Whatever decision comes in the future will be in front of all of you."Court Stays Remarks, Defers PMLA Proceedings
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court on Monday said it will stay the remarks made against the investigating agency and officer in the discharge order in the Delhi Excise Policy case and directed the trial court to defer proceedings in the connected case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma passed the directions while hearing an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge order. The court also issued notice to the other side as none appeared on behalf of the respondents during the hearing, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Siaodia and 21 other persons in the matter.CBI Challenges Discharge Order in Court
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, took the Court through the background of the case and argued that the trial court's order effectively amounted to an "acquittal without trial. "He contended that the alleged conspiracy involved bribe payments routed through hawala channels and made in several tranches, supported by meetings and forensic evidence collected during the investigation.Mehta submitted that the trial court had misapplied the law at the stage of discharge by scrutinising the prosecution's evidence as if it were deciding the case after a full trial. He argued that conspiracy cases are established by assembling various links of evidence during trial and cannot be expected to be proved through direct acts done openly. The Solicitor General further argued that the discharge order wrongly disregarded the statement of the approver recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. According to him, settled legal principles recognise that such statements carry significant weight at the stage of framing charges and do not require corroboration at that preliminary stage.(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)Add Asianet Newsable as a Preferred Source
