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 ScrutinyThe 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 IOThe 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 SisodiaRegarding 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 EvidenceThe 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...

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

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags