New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others were discharged by a Delhi court on Friday in the liquor policy case. Giving out its judgment, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) telling the probing agency that the case was unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in tis entirety.
Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court said, “This court has no hesitation in holding that the material placed on record does not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion, against any of the accused persons. Accordingly, Accused Nos 1-23 are discharged of all the offences alleged against them in the present case.”
Coming as big relief for the AAP, soon after the judgment, Arvind Kejriwal broke down and said the corruption case against him was the “biggest political conspiracy” in the history of Independent India.
“The court has proved that Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and AAP are ‘Kattar Imaandar’,” the three-time chief minister said. While Kejriwal was in jail for six months in the case, Sisodia was behind bars for almost two years.
In its verdict, the Delhi Court used a term saying all the accused were discharged in the case, whereas many a times, in such cases, when the accused are freed or released, the courts use the term acquittal. So let’s understand what’s the different between somebody getting discharged or acquitted.
How Getting ‘Discharge’ is Different from ‘Acquittal’
If someone gets discharged by the court in any case, it means that the accused secure a pre-trial release as the courts find lack or insufficient evidence.
Whereas, if someone is acquitted, it means that the accused are proved ‘not guilty’ after a trial.
However, one major difference between the two is that, if someone is discharged by a court, they can be tried again if agencies decide to advance the case based on more credible and new evidence while an acquitted person cannot be tried again.
CBI To Appeal in Delhi High Court
The CBI has been probing alleged corruption in the formulation and execution of the erstwhile AAP government’s now scrapped excise policy.
The probe agency said it would immediately appeal in the Delhi High Court against the trial court’s judgement. Several aspects of the probe have been either ignored or not considered adequately, a CBI spokesperson said.
In his order, Singh said the investigation appears to have proceeded on a predetermined trajectory, implicating virtually every person associated with the formulation or implementation of the policy to lend an illusion of depth and credibility to an otherwise fragile narrative.
“A cumulative appraisal of the record further reveals an investigative approach marked by an attempt to stitch together disparate fragments so as to create an impression of a vast and complex conspiracy, unsupported by legally admissible material,” he said.
The judge said that the endeavour to further connect such allegations to the Goa Assembly elections, to project, layering, and utilisation of alleged proceeds of crime, rests more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material.
“Once the formulation of the (excise) policy is shown to be the product of deliberation, institutional scrutiny, and procedural compliance, any subsequent attempt to attribute criminality to its implementation becomes wholly untenable,” he said.
The judge said the case’s very foundation — the allegation of payment of upfront money and its purported recoupment — stands fundamentally eroded.
“In the absence of a tainted policy or demonstrably unlawful implementation, the prosecution theory is reduced to conjecture. Private persons who sought to derive commercial advantage from a policy validly framed and lawfully implemented… cannot be compelled to face the rigours of criminal prosecution,” his judgement read.
It added, “This court finds no apparent breach of restrictions relating to ‘related entities’ or any other policy condition which could, by itself, attract criminal liability.”
The court underlined that, according to the evidence on record, the policy was the outcome of a deliberative exercise.
“Though there was no statutory or constitutional requirement mandating the obtaining of suggestions from the Lieutenant Governor, the file notings unmistakably reflect that such suggestions were nevertheless sought, examined, and incorporated. The procedural integrity of the policy-making process thus stands affirmed from the documentary record itself,” it said.
The court said that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
“The excise policy case, as sought to be projected by the CBI, is wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stands discredited in its entirety,” it said.
The court said that to compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material serves no ends of justice.
What is Liquor Policy Case?
The case originated from allegations of corruption in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government. The CBI had alleged that the policy was framed to benefit certain private liquor licensees by allegedly reducing licence fees and fixing profit margins, resulting in kickbacks and financial loss to the Delhi government.
The FIR was registered by the CBI in August 2022 following a complaint by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena.
According to the agency, a criminal conspiracy was allegedly hatched at the stage of policy formulation, with deliberate loopholes introduced to favour select entities after the tender process.
With the Special Court’s order discharging all accused, the matter at the trial court stage has concluded for now. The legality of that order will now be examined by the Delhi High Court following the CBI’s challenge.
With inputs from PTI, ANI
