Arvind Kejriwal

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a case against Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly failing to comply with summons issued by the agency in the Delhi excise policy matter.

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court declined to immediately suspend the trial court proceedings against the former Delhi Chief Minister in the case filed by the ED for not responding to repeated summonses in connection with the Delhi excise policy investigation.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, sitting on the bench, rejected the plea to halt proceedings, noting that Kejriwal had approached the court two months after the sessions court dismissed his request to quash the summons issued by the magisterial court.

Referring to the September 17 order, Justice Ohri remarked, “This is an order from 17/09. It’s not a fresh order. You are approaching after two months. I am issuing notice on both the petition and the application,” addressing senior advocate Rebecca John, who represented Kejriwal.

The AAP leaderтАЩs petition challenged the September 17 decision of the city court, which had dismissed his appeal to cancel the summons issued to him by the magisterial court. The ED filed two complaints against Kejriwal in February and March, requesting the initiation of prosecution under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for failing to appear before investigators, despite repeated summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Under Section 174 of the IPC, failing to attend a summons issued by a public servant could lead to up to one month in prison and a fine of тВ╣500. The ED claimed Kejriwal had no right to know whether he was summoned as a witness or an accused and accused him of intentionally avoiding the summons by raising “frivolous” objections.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra took cognizance of the EDтАЩs complaints and issued summons for Kejriwal to appear before the court in February and March, prompting him to approach the sessions court. On September 17, the sessions court rejected his petition, affirming that the magisterial courtтАЩs direction for his appearance was neither incorrect nor illegal.

Kejriwal’s petition to the high court questioned the maintainability of the EDтАЩs complaint, arguing that the summonses were issued by one officer of assistant director rank while the complaint was filed by another officer of the same rank, which he claimed was legally barred.

Representing the ED, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain objected to the maintainability of KejriwalтАЩs petition, arguing that the plea was a second revision filed under the guise of Section 482 of the CrPC, which was legally impermissible, and that the grounds in this petition mirrored those previously raised in the trial court.

The court, after considering these arguments, requested a response from the ED and scheduled the next hearing for December 19.

Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 and by the CBI on June 26 following dramatic developments in the case. On July 12, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the ED case, recognizing that he had spent over 90 days in custody, and reaffirmed the principle of bail being the rule, with imprisonment being an exception in the CBI case on September 12.

This case arises from allegations of irregularities in the Delhi excise policy of 2021-22, which was later scrapped and triggered investigations by the CBI following a recommendation from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in July 2022.

Please follow and like us:
RSS
Follow by Email
X (Twitter)
Visit Us
Follow Me
YouTube
LinkedIn
Share
Instagram

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *