Court dismisses Kejriwal’s 2 petitions against summons issued to him on ED’s complaints

New Delhi [India], September 17 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Tuesday dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s two revisions petitions against the summons issued by the magisterial court to him on complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

ED had issued several summons to Kejriwal for appearance in the PMLA case linked to the Delhi Excise policy. But he failed to appear before the ED. Thereafter, ED had moved to the court.

Special judge Rakesh Syal dismissed both the revision petition moved by Arvind Kejriwal. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.

Kejriwal had challenged the summons issued by the magistrate court after taking cognisance of two complaints filed by the ED for avoidance of summons issued to him. He was granted bail after he appeared before the magistrate court.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta had appeared for Kejriwal and he argued that there was no disobedience by Arvind Kejriwal. A person can be summoned only when his non appearance is intentional. He replied to each summons and informed that he could not come due to responsibility, as the chief minister, senior advocate, submitted.

The senior advocate had also argued that the revisionist was not given show cause notice by the ED before filing these complaints. He is a public servant; therefore, a prior sanction was required to prosecute him, which was not obtained, the senior advocate argued.

I (Kejriwal) have not failed; I mentioned the reasons for not appearing. I went to the CBI office in 2023. Purpose and reasons for calling me personally were not cleared by the ED, senior counsel submitted.

He also submitted that Summons were deliberately sent for dates on which he was busy in public functions like budget preparation. Trial court not considered my (Kejriwal’s) replies to ED that I can’t come as busy in the public function as CM. Can it be called intentional?

Advocate Rajiv Mohan also appeared for Kejriwal and argued on the second revision moved by Kajriwal. It was submitted that the summons were issued in haste without application of judicial mind. Advocate Rajiv Mohan had argued that the trial court issued summons on the same day after taking cognisance. The trial court also not considered the responses by Kajriwal to the summons issued by the ED, he added.

Counsel for Kejriwal said that to prosecute him under 174 CR.PC, there should be disobedience and intention. The court first decided whether there was any disobedience or not. The trial court had not considered this aspect. A person is being made an accused and an order is passed in a cryptic manner,counsel argued.

Hr further submitted that the Trial court considered the version of complainant as gospel truth. The order of summoning was passed without mindful consideration and applying judicial mind. The word ‘in person’ is not in the form for issuing summons prescribed by the legislature, the counsel submitted. This form can’t be interpolated. “Due to failure of justice, an ordinary citizen is an accused before the court as judicial mind was not applied by the court, Rajiv Mohan argued.

There was an Interpolation in the form that incorporated the word in person. A person can not be summoned in person to produce evidence, he submitted.

On the other hand, ASG S V Raju opposed the submissions by the counsels for accused and submitted that was disobedience intentional or not is a matter of trial.This revision is against the order of summoning, he added. ASG submitted that Assistant Director (AD), Deputy Director (DD) and Joint Director (JD) legally empowered to summon any person to produce evidence.

If the evidence asked for not given, then that is intentional disobedience, ASG Raju Submitted. Summons were in accordance with the law. Any person can be summoned in in person under PMLA, ASG added. There was intentional disobedience as he attended CBI office in 2023 but not wish to attend ED office. He can travel various states for campaigns but can’t come to ED office for one day, he submitted.

ASG had also argued that It is also immaterial whether you (Kejriwal ) were summoned as witness or accused. There was clear disobedience on the part of the revisionist, he added.

In rebuttal, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta said they have not responded to three of my replies. And it was not considered not considered by the trial court. Arvind Kejriwal in Marh 2024 has moved the Sessions Court challenging summons issued to him by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on ED complaints for not complying with the summons issued by the central probe agency in the Delhi liquor policy money laundering case.

Kejriwal, while challenging the summons in sessions, further submitted that there was no intentional disobedience on the part of him and he always explained the reason, which till date has not controverted or found false by the Department.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, alongwith Mudit Jain, Mohd Irshad and Samprikta Ghosal, appeared for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the matter, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, alongwith Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, appeared for Enforcement Directorate in the matter. Advocate Simon Benjamin also appeared the ED in the matter.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s second complaint and issued a fresh summons to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for his personal appearance before the court on March 16, 2024.

The Enforcement Directorate has moved two complaints 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.

In the first ED’s complaint, Rouse Avenue Court on February 7, 2024, took cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s recent complaint filed against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. 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 finalised, and allegations of bribery.

In its sixth charge sheet filed in the case on December 2, 2023, naming AAP leader Sanjay Singh and his aide Sarvesh Mishra, the ED has claimed that the AAP used kickbacks worth Rs 45 crore generated via the policy as part of its assembly elections campaign in Goa in 2022.

Lieutenant Governor 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.

Sisodia, who was the then Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, was arrested by the CBI on February 26 following several rounds of questioning. On October 5, the ED arrested Sanjay Singh, who is a Rajya Sabha member. Both are on bail. Kejriwal was also arrested by the ED and the CBI.