Delhi High Court Stays Judge's Remarks Against CBI Officers In Liquor Policy Case

In major relief to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Delhi High Court stayed portions of the discharge order by the Rouse Avenue Court, which had made scathing observations against the central agency over the probe into the alleged scam by AAP leaders in the Delhi liquor policy case. 

The high court bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also issued notices to AAP's Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Telangana Jagrithi's K Kavitha and 20 other accused who were discharged in the case. The case will now be heard next on March 16. 

The judge also stayed the trial in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) money laundering case against AAP leaders in the alleged liquor policy scam till the time the high court decided this CBI plea against discharge. 

The Delhi court had also directed an inquiry against the CBI officer for the manner in which the investigation was carried out.

While dropping all charges against the AAP leaders, the judge had observed that it seemed that the CBI was trying to create a narrative based on the approver's statements and expecting the court to "join the dots" in a case without sufficient evidence.

Terming the alleged liquor policy scam "one of the biggest scams in the history of the national capital" and "a national shame", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said the agency had conducted a "meticulous" and "scientific investigation".

He told the High Court that, in his experience, he had rarely seen such extensive evidence collected by an investigative agency and urged the court to set aside the discharge order.

Solicitor General Mehta told the Delhi High Court that portions of the trial court's judgment discharging 23 accused in the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam were "factually incorrect" and ignored key evidence collected during the investigation. 

Arguing against the discharge order, he said the ruling effectively amounted to an "acquittal without trial" in a serious corruption case.

He also argued against the Delhi court's observations that the CBI has built most of the case on the approver's statements.

"The approver has not been placed before the court in the witness box, not examined, not cross-examined. His approvership is before the magistrate, and it is nobody's case that he became an approver under threat or coercion," the Solicitor General submitted.

Detailing the evidence gathered by investigators, Solicitor General Mehta said there were multiple statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and witnesses who had described how the alleged conspiracy was carried out. 

According to him, witness accounts outlined how the alleged bribes were arranged and delivered and who the intended recipients were.

He also referred to the role of Vijay Nair, described in court as the communications in-charge of a political party, alleging that bribes ranging from Rs 19 crore to Rs 100 crore were paid in exchange for favours under the now-scrapped excise policy. 

He further argued that Rs 44.50 crore was transferred through hawala channels and that the investigation had traced the funds being used to finance election-related activities in Goa.

The solicitor general argued that the trial court had repeatedly cited a lack of corroboration while granting discharge but said such an assessment was premature at that stage of proceedings.

"Discharge is not the stage for seeking corroboration," he said, adding that the investigative record nevertheless contained corroborative material which, according to him, had been overlooked.