Allegation That Liquor Group Paid Rs 100 Crores To Manish Sisodia Debatable; But Few Distributors Made Profits Of Rs 338 Crores: Supreme Court

In the judgment denying bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in relation to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam, the Supreme Court observed that the allegation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) that kickback of Rs.100 crores were received from the liquor group, and used by the associates of Sisodia and other leaders of AAP is "somewhat a matter of debate."The further allegation was that out of the Rs 100 crores kickbacks, Rs 45 crores were transferred to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) through hawala route for Goa elections. However, the Court noted that AAP is not being prosecuted. Hence, the Court said that it cannot be alleged that Sisodia is vicariously liable under Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002."the assertion in the complaint filed with the DoE that kickback of Rs.100,00,00,000 (rupees one hundred crore only) was actually paid by the liquor group is somewhat a matter of debate. However, there is an assertion, and the DoE has relied on evidence and material, that a portion thereof, that is, Rs. 45,00,00,000 (rupees forty five crores only) was transferred through Hawala for the Goa election and used by AAP, a political party, which is a juristic person. AAP is not being prosecuted. The charge that the appellant – Manish Sisodia is vicariously liable in terms of Section 70 of the PML Act cannot be alleged and has not been argued."The Court also said that there is no specific allegation regarding the involvement of Sisodia in the transfer of Rs 45 crores to AAP for Goa elections."Prima facie, there is lack of clarity, as specific allegation on the involvement of the appellant – Manish Sisodia, direct or indirect, in the transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 (rupees forty five crores only) to AAP for the Goa elections is missing."At the same time, the Court observed that the allegation that new liquor policy enabled few wholesale liquor distributors to make windfall gains to the tune of Rs 338 crores was tentatively established. "In the analysis, there are certain aspects, which we said are doubtful. But one aspect, with regard to transfer of money, Rs 338 crores, is tentatively established. We have therefore dismissed the application for bail," Justice Sanjiv Khanna orally said today morning while pronouncing the judgment.In the judgment which was uploaded later, the Court explained the aspects of the case which it found doubtful and probable.Sisodia is facing two cases over the alleged case - one under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the second under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, with the former being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the latter by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).The gist of the allegations of the CBI & ED is that the new excise policy of 2021 was formulated with the motive of enabling few wholesale distributors to rake in exorbitant profits. The annual license fee was hiked from Rs 5 lakhs under the old policy to Rs 5 crores, allegedly to ensure that only a handful of wholesale distributors can apply. The profit commission of distributors was hiked from 5% to 12% of the ex-distillery price declared by the manufacturer. Also, while the manufacturers were mandated to enter into agreement with a single wholesale distributors, the wholesale distributors could form agreements with multiple manufacturers. Therefore, it was alleged that the policy paved the way for cartelisation. It was also alleged that one distributor, who had 20% market share, was forced to surrender its license as it was not ready to give kickbacks.Though the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti framed five questions of law for consideration, it did not answer them in view of the preliminary nature of adjudication in bail applications.The Court clarified in its judgment that its findings are tentative in nature, only for the purpose of deciding the bail applications and that its findings will not have any bearing on the trial.ED's allegation of bribe of Rs 2.20 crore being paid to Sisodia not accepted by the CourtThe ED had alleged that an amount of Rs. 2,20,00,000 (rupees two crores twenty lakhs) was paid as bribe to Manish Sisodia by Amit Arora, through middleman Dinesh Arora. However, the Court did not accept this amount as "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA as this allegation was not there in the chargesheet filed by the CBI in the predicate offence. It may be recalled that during the hearing also, the Court had orally observed that ED cannot fall back on an allegation which is not present in the predicate offence."First, the assertion that Rs. 2,20,00,000 (rupees two crores twenty lakhs only) was paid as bribe to the appellant – Manish Sisodia by Amit Arora, through middleman Dinesh Arora, is not a charge or an allegation made in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. It may be difficult to regard the alleged payment as a ‘proceed of crime’ under the PML Act."The...

Allegation That Liquor Group Paid Rs 100 Crores To Manish Sisodia Debatable; But Few Distributors Made Profits Of Rs 338 Crores: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags