NEW DELHI: Defying a special court order to discharge former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and others in a tax policy case, the CBI submitted to the Delhi High Court that the order was based on a “selective reading of the prosecution case, ignoring material showing the guilt of the accused”, and was “manifestly illegal”.
In its 974-page petition before the Supreme Court, the CBI said the special judge essentially conducted a mini-trial dealing with separate parties of the conspiracy separately rather than assessing the actions of the accused cumulatively. The agency described the matter as “anomalous” and said it suffered from “apparent errors”, was based on a “misreading” of the facts and violated the Supreme Court’s assurances regarding the stage at which charges would be brought.
The special court on Friday discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case by refusing to peruse the CBI chargesheet against them.
Among the 21 people who got a clean chit in the case was Telangana President Jagruthi K Kavitha.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh criticized the CBI for loopholes in the investigation, saying there was no convincing evidence against Kejriwal and no prima facie case against Sisodia and the other accused.
Within hours, the CBI had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order through an urgent review petition. The hearing in this case is scheduled for March 9.
“The impugned order is patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors evident on the face of it. Not only does it fail to appreciate the facts of the case in their proper perspective, this failure on the part of the Special Judge has also resulted in adverse observations being passed against the investigating agency, as well as the investigating officer, all of which are unwarranted and incomprehensible, to say the least.”
The Central Investigation Agency went on to claim that the observations contained in the order attest to the fact that the special judge “lacks basic understanding of the prosecution case as a whole and the corresponding law at the charge stage”.
She said that the conspiracy revolves around facts that “may not in themselves be indicative” of the role played by the various defendants. However, the agency said that when the accused’s actions are taken cumulatively, the conspiracy to monetize politics becomes clear.
“However, the special judge completely ignored the basis of the conspiracy, but evaluated in detail small discrepancies, which is not even the case as presented by the prosecution. In fact, the special judge formulated his own understanding of the individual roles of the accused from a completely different perspective.”
The CBI has, in essence, alleged that the case of rampant corruption, emanating from the highest levels of the executive, led to the dismissal due to incorrect inferences drawn to attribute defamation to the investigating agency, while the record of the case, which will be treated as indisputable at this stage, speaks otherwise.
It claimed that the matter suffers from a misreading of the facts, as well as making incorrect findings on the law of consents, the probative value of the materials and is “contrary to the dictum” established by the Supreme Court at the charge stage.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
