No Evidence Of Bribe Or Quid Pro Quo By Arvind Kejriwal: Delhi Court In Excise Police Case

A Delhi Court on Friday discharged Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Telangana Jagruthi founder K Kavitha and 20 others in the corruption case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.

In a strongly worded order running into 598 pages, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts rapped the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the manner of its investigation, while flagging various lapses on part of the probe agency.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to place any material showing that then then Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, accused no.18 in the case, received or facilitated receipt of bribe money.

The allegations against him were based on statements of co-accused or witnesses, but the Court noted the absence of independent corroboration connecting him to any criminal conspiracy.

The Court held that mere approval of policy decisions, without evidence of dishonest intention or quid pro quo, does not attract criminal liability.

The judge also found no documentary or electronic evidence establishing any pecuniary advantage to Kejriwal arising from the alleged scam.

"In a developing economy, policy changes are routine and often necessary for increasing revenue, improving regulatory frameworks, or advancing public welfare objectives...The mere circumstance that a particular policy does not yield the expected outcomes, or that private participants lawfully earn profits under such policy, cannot, without more, justify criminal prosecution...economic and administrative decisions taken in good faith cannot be criminalised in the absence of clear prima facie material disclosing mala fides, quid pro quo, or abuse of office," the Court held.

CBI Failed To Disclose Threshold Of Prima Facie Suspicion, Case Unable To Survive Judicial Scrutiny

The Court observed that the prosecution case did not disclose even the threshold of a prima facie suspicion, far less the “grave suspicion” mandated by settled principles of criminal jurisprudence for proceeding further against the accused persons.

It added that the Excise Policy case, as sought to be projected by the CBI, was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.

“While it is to the credit of the investigating agency that it has placed reliance upon the statement of its own witnesses even when such evidence runs contrary to the prosecution's foundational allegations, the cumulative effect of that very evidence demolishes, rather than supports, the case sought to be built,” the Court said.

It added that to compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material connecting them to the alleged offences would not serve the ends of justice and it would instead constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the criminal process, offending the most basic tenets of fairness and the rule of law.

Departmental Proceedings Against IO

The Court not only flagged the tainted investigative material but also recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against the erring investigating officer for implicating Kuldeep Singh as an accused in the absence of any material against him.

The judge did so to ensure that accountability is fixed and the institutional credibility of the investigative machinery is preserved.

“To permit such conduct to pass without consequence would erode public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and would amount to tacit judicial approval of investigative impropriety, an outcome which the rule of law does not permit,” the Court said.

Reasons Discharging Manish Sisodia

Regarding Sisodia, the Court held that there was no material showing demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by him and that the CBI failed to establish any direct or indirect financial trail linking him to the alleged bribe transactions .

The Court observed that the Excise Policy decisions were taken in a collective manner, involving multiple officials and stakeholders and there was nothing on record to show that Sisodia acted unilaterally or with criminal intent.

While allegations of conspiracy were made, the Court found no concrete material to show his meeting of minds with co-accused for illegal gain. The judge said that mere participation in policy formulation is insufficient to infer criminal conspiracy.

The Court reiterated that at the stage of charge, strong suspicion is required but such suspicion must be based on tangible material. In Sisodia's case, the Court found only bald allegations without supporting evidence.

CBI Probe Reflect Fundamental Failure To Properly Appreciate Evidence

The judge said that the investigation reflected a fundamental failure to properly appreciate, evaluate, or draw lawful inferences from the evidence and documents on record, as a result of which the prosecution case is rendered “legally infirm, unsustainable, and unfit to proceed any further in law.”

“Stated differently, this Court records that the theory of an overarching conspiracy, so emphatically projected, stands completely dismantled when tested against the evidentiary record,” the court said.

Liquor Policy Outcome Of Consultative Exercise

The Court observed that the liquor policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative exercise, undertaken after engagement with relevant stakeholders and in adherence to the procedure prescribed under law.

It said that though there was no statutory or constitutional requirement mandating the obtaining of suggestions from the Lieutenant Governor, the file notings reflect that such suggestions were sought, examined, and incorporated.

The Court said that procedural integrity of the policy-making process stood affirmed from the documentary record itself.

“In the absence of 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, without any established violation of policy conditions or statutory prohibitions, cannot be compelled to face the rigours of criminal prosecution. 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 said.

Further, the Court said that the CBI investigation proceeded on a “predetermined trajectory, implicating virtually every person associated with the formulation or implementation of the policy in order to lend an “illusion of depth and credibility to an otherwise fragile narrative.”

“The endeavour to further connect such allegations to the Goa Assembly elections, so as to project, layering, and utilisation of alleged proceeds of crime, rests more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material,” it said.

CBI Case Rests On Surmises And Conjectures, Carries Unhealthy Precedent

The Court said that the prosecution case as presented in the chargesheet rested largely on surmises, conjectures, and inferential leaps unsupported by cogent material.

Observing that the case did not admit of such a lapse being brushed aside as a mere irregularity, the Court said:

“If such a practice is permitted to pass without judicial scrutiny, it carries the grave potential of setting an unhealthy precedent, effectively normalising a method whereby an investigating agency, after securing pardon on the professed premise of a “full and true disclosure”, continues to repeatedly re-record statements of the approver over an extended period, ostensibly to fill gaps, improve the prosecution narrative, implicate additional accused, or artificially weave missing links in the chain of circumstances.”

The judge added where investigative discretion is exercised in a manner that erodes the presumption of innocence or dilutes the sanctity of a judicially granted pardon, the process itself assumes a punitive character, impermissible in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.

The Court said that the manner in which CBI proceeded by repeatedly recording statements of the approver without justification and over a prolonged duration, reflects an “exercise of discretion that cannot be characterised as fair or reasonable.”

“If left unchecked, such conduct risks converting the exceptional mechanism of pardon into an instrument for narrative construction rather than truth discovery, thereby causing serious prejudice to the accused and eroding confidence in the criminal justice process,” the Court said.

Liberty Once Curtailed Cannot Be Restored By Acquittal, Time Cannot Compensate For Loss

The Court went ahead and observed that liberty, once curtailed, cannot be meaningfully restored by a subsequent acquittal, nor can the passage of time compensate for the loss occasioned by unwarranted pre-trial detention.

The Court said that there is a need to evolve a framework for striking a careful balance between the sovereign interest in the effective investigation of economic offences and the inviolable right of an individual to personal liberty.

“Ultimately, the legitimacy of the PMLA regime depends not merely on the severity of its provisions, but on their fair, proportionate, and constitutionally informed application. The balance between the power of the investigating agency and the right to life and personal liberty is not a matter of legislative grace, but a constitutional command. Any failure to maintain this balance is likely to undermine both the rule of law and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice,” the Court said. 

Notably, the judge discharged all 23 accused persons in the matter. They are Kuldeep Singh, Narender Singh, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Pillai, Mootha Gautam, Sameer Mahendru, Manish Sisodia, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Arjun Pandey, Butchibabu Gorantla, Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, Arvind Kumar Singh, Chanpreet Singh, K Kavitha, Arvind Kejriwal, Durgesh Pathak, Amit Arora, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Chand Mathur and Sarath Reddy.

Also Read: Breaking | All Accused Including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia Discharged In Liquor Policy Case, Delhi Court Raps CBI For Lapses