Rouse Avenue Court Grants Time To Arvind Kejriwal To File Response To ED’s Reply

The Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday has granted time to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to file a rejoinder on the replies filed by the Enforcement Directorate on his 2 revisions against summons issued to him.

The trial court issued a summons to Kejriwal on 2 complaints filed by the ED.

Special Judge Rakesh Syal, after hearing submissions of counsels appeared for Kejriwal, granted 2 weeks to file rejoinders and for arguments on revisions.

The matters have been listed on May 14 for further hearing.

BENCH FOR HEARING

Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Mudit Jain, Mohd. Irshad appeared for Arvind Kejriwal. For ED special public prosecutor NK Matta and Simon Benjamin appeared.

It was submitted by the counsels that they couldn’t get the instructions from Kejriwal as he has been arrested in the Delhi Excise policy case.

They need 2 weeks to file a rejoinder and for arguments.

The ED has already filed replies to 2 revisions challenging the issuance of summons on the complaints filed by the Agency in the Delhi Excise policy case.

Arvind Kejriwal has been arrested by the ED on March 21. He is in custody till May 7.

The Rouse Avenue Court on March 15, refused to grant a stay on summons issued to CM Arvind Kejriwal on complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Kejriwal has challenged the summons issued by the court after taking cognizance of 2 complaints filed by the ED for avoidance of the summons issued to him.

Earlier, it was submitted by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta counsel for Kejriwal that there was no disobedience by Arvind Kejriwal. A person can be summoned only when his non-appearance is intentional.

ARGUMENTS IN COURT

Senior Advocate Gupta argued, he replied to each summons and informed that he couldn’t come due to responsibility as the Chief Minister.

The senior advocate also argued that the revisionist was not given show cause notice by the ED before filing these complaints.

The senior advocate argued that, he is a public servant therefore a prior sanction was required to prosecute him which wasn’t obtained.

“I (Kejriwal) have not failed, I mentioned the reasons for not appearing.

Senior counsel submitted, I went to the CBI office in 2023. The purpose and reasons for calling me personally were not cleared by the ED.”

He also submitted that summons were deliberately sent for dates on which he was busy with public functions like budget preparation. The trial court has not considered my replies to ED that “I can’t come because of public events like the budget. Can it be called intentional?”

Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued on the 2nd revision moved by Kejriwal. It was submitted that the summons were issued in haste without application of judicial mind. Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that the trial court issued summons on the same day after taking cognizance.

He added that the trial court also didn’t consider the responses by Kejriwal to the summons issued by the ED.

The counsel for Kejriwal stated that to prosecute him under 174 CRPC, there should be disobedience and intention. The court first decides whether there is any disobedience or not.

The counsel argued, the trial court didn’t consider this aspect. A person is being made an accused and order is passed cryptically.

Furthermore, he submitted that the trial court considered the version of the complainant as gospel truth.

The order of summoning was passed without mindful consideration and applying judicial mind.

The counsel submitted, the word in person is not in the form for issuing summons prescribed by the legislature. This form can’t be interpolated.

Rajiv Mohan argued, “Due to failure of justice an ordinary citizen is an accused before the court as judicial mind was not applied by the court.”

There was an interpolation in the form, incorporating the word in person. A person can’t be summoned in person to produce evidence, he submitted.

ASG SV RAJU’s ROLE

On the other hand, ASG SV Raju opposed the submissions by the counsels for the accused and submitted that whether disobedience is intentional or not is a matter of trial. He added, this revision is against the order of summoning.

ASG submitted that AD, DD, and JD are legally empowered to summon any person to produce evidence.

ASG Raju Submitted, if the evidence asked for is not given, then that is intentional disobedience. The summons were following the law.

ASG added, any person can be summoned in person under PMLA.

There was intentional disobedience as he attended the CBI office in 2023 but didn’t wish to attend the ED office. He can travel to various states for campaigns but can’t come to the ED office for one day, he submitted.

ASG also argued that it is immaterial that weather you (Kejriwal) were summoned as a witness or accused. He added, there was clear disobedience on the part of the revisionist.

Kejriwal while challenging the summons in sessions court had submitted that there was no intentional disobedience on his part and he always explained the reason which to the date has not been controverted or found false by the department.

Kejriwal through plea had sought the direction of the sessions court to stay proceedings adjudication before the trial court.

ED moved that a 2nd complaint has been filed against Arvind Kejriwal under Section 190 (1)(a) CrPC r/w section 200 CrPC 1973 r/w section 174 IPC, 1860 r/w section 63 (4) of PMLA, 2002 for non-attendance in compliance with Section 50, PMLA, 2002.

ROLE OF ED IN CASE

In the first ED’s complaint, Rouse Avenue Court on February 7, 2024, took cognizance of the ED’s recent complaint filed against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for not complying with the summons issued by the central probe agency in the Delhi liquor policy money laundering case.

According to the ED, the agency wants to record Kejriwal’s statement in the case on issues like the formulation of policy, meetings held before it was finalized, and allegations of bribery.

LG Vinai Kumar Saxena’s move to order a probe into alleged irregularities in the regime prompted the scrapping of the policy.

The AAP has accused Saxena’s predecessor, Anil Baijal, of sabotaging the move with a few last-minute changes that resulted in lower-than-expected revenues.

Manish Sisodia, who was the then Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, was arrested by the CBI on February 26 following several rounds of questioning.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International