New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s stand on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate challenging his acquittal in cases for not appearing before the agency despite summonses issued in the excise policy case.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to the AAP functionary on two petitions by ED against the trial court’s Jan 22 orders.“Respondent has chosen not to appear despite service (of advance notice). Issue fresh notice and list it for hearing on April 29,” the court recorded while seeking Kejriwal’s stand.ED’s counsel submitted that the trial court had committed a “grave error” in acquitting Kejriwal, arguing that the material on record clearly established that the summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was duly served and acknowledged.“There are various judgments which hold that where a document is not disputed, there is no requirement of formally proving it,” the counsel said, even as the HC pointed out that Kejriwal did spend time in jail eventually.The agency has alleged that the then chief minister intentionally omitted to obey them by not responding to the summons and did not attend the probe.Earlier, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal held that the material on record did not warrant his prosecution for non-compliance.
Before the same bench,
CBI
has already challenged a trial court order discharging all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, in the main corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.The trial court, in a detailed order, held that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case and that the material on record did not give rise to any grave suspicion against the accused.Meanwhile, the former CM has moved the
Supreme Court
challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice declining his request to transfer the hearing of the CBI’s plea from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.In his writ petition, Kejriwal has contended that the refusal to reassign the matter raises a reasonable apprehension regarding the impartiality of the proceedings.
