Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Why Political Party, Which Is Alleged To Be Beneficiary, Not Made An Accused? Supreme Court Asks ED In Manish Sisodia's Bail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (04.09.2023,) while hearing the plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia against the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) over the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam, asked why the political party, which is alleged to be a beneficiary, is not made an accused in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was hearing two petitions filed by Sisodia challenging the decisions of the Delhi High Court to deny Sisodia bail in the cases being investigated by the CBI and the ED. As the bench was about to raise after concluding the hearing today, Justice Khanna asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who is appearing for the ED and CBI, "As far as PMLA is concerned, your whole case is that it went to a political party. That political party is still not an accused. How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary, the political party is the beneficiary".ASG said that he will respond to the query tomorrow."Whatever it is, you answer that. I just put the question. This is not a point which he (Sisodia's lawyer Senior Advocate AM Singhvi) has raised directly. I put it directly," Justice Khanna said concluding today's hearing.Before that, Singhvi addressed the bench for over two hours, seeking bail for Sisodia in both the cases. While CBI is probing the allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ED is handling the money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The allegations relate to the excise policy framed by the Government of the National Capital of Delhi in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made. The Central Bureau of Investigation started investigation into the policy following a reference by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on a complaint by Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena.Manish Sisodia was first arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on February 26 and has been behind the bars since then. Later, the Enforcement Directorate arrested him on March 9 this year.No money trail found against Sisodia, argues SinghviSenior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Sisodia argued that being is a sitting MLA, Sisodia is not a flight risk. There is also no question of him influencing any witnesses and hence the triple tests for bail are satisfied, he contended. "Everybody else has got bail. Unfortunately, in public life, there are some high value targets and they won't get bail," Singhvi said. He also cited the ailments of Sisodia's wife as a reason for grant of bail. The ED has claimed that there was a conspiracy which was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with the "South Group" to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers. The allegation is that Vijay Nair is said to be Sisodia's close associate, Singhvi said. "But there is no material to prove he was my agent. The reliance is on various vague statements that have to be proven during trial", Singhvi added."The allegations stop at Vijay Nair and it is alleged he is a close associate of Manish Sisodia. There is no specific individual allegation against Sisodia. Vague allegation is that he assisted in the proceeds of crime. But there is no money trail," Singhvi stated. Singhvi told the Court that all other accused in the case, the principal perpetrators against whom money trail has been found, have all been granted bail.Singhvi also informed the Court that in both cases by the CBI and ED, chargesheets have been filed. In the CBI matter, there is one main chargesheet and two supplementary chargesheets and 31,423 documents and 294 witnesses. In the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) matter by the ED, there is one prosecution complaint, 4 supplementary complaints, 21,465 documents and 162 witnesses. "So total is, more than 50,000 documents and over 500 witnesses," he told the Court. As far as a policy decision is concerned, Prevention of Corruption Act will apply only if there is an element of bribery or quid pro quo, Justice Khanna said in the course of the hearing. "Given the fact that we are not going into the wisdom of the policy, it becomes a question of quid pro quo and for that we go into the question if the policy was something which was totally absurd or causing loss to the government or benefit to the third party", Justice Sanjiv Khanna told Dr. Singhvi. "It was an institutional decision. Your lordships will allow a margin of error. In hindsight, everything can be done differently", Singhvi said. New policy increased revenue generation, no loss caused to public exchequer"The liquor policy is an institutional decision spread over multi-levels. It was a collective decision. As per old policy, due to cartelisation of private manufacturers, profit margin went up to 70%. In Sep 2020, Ravi Dhavan committee was...

Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Why Political Party, Which Is Alleged To Be Beneficiary, Not Made An Accused? Supreme Court Asks ED In Manish Sisodia's Bail

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Why Political Party, Which Is Alleged To Be Beneficiary, Not Made An Accused? Supreme Court Asks ED In Manish Sisodia's Bail

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers