Special Court conducted mini-trial, misread facts: CBI on order discharging Kejriwal, others in excise case

New Delhi, Mar 2 (PTI) Challenging the special court order discharging former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, the CBI has submitted to the Delhi High Court that the order was based "on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused", and was "patently illegal".

In its 974-page petition before the high court, the CBI said the Special Judge essentially conducted a mini-trial and "spent 4 months' time reading only the file of the case", which shows appreciation of the evidence by the judge which "otherwise is not permitted at this stage".

The special judge dealt with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation rather than assessing the actions of the accused cumulatively, the agency also said.

Terming the order "perverse", the agency said it suffers from "errors apparent on the face", is based on "misreading" of facts and violates the Supreme Court's assertions related to the stage when charges are to be framed.

The special court had on Friday discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor-policy case by refusing to take cognisance of the CBI chargesheet against them.

Among the 21 people given a clean chit in the case is Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh had rapped the CBI for lapses in the investigation, saying there was no cogent evidence against Kejriwal and no prima facie case against Sisodia and the other accused.

Within hours, the CBI had approached the high court challenging the order through an urgent revision petition. The hearing in the case will take place on March 9.

"The Impugned Order is patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face. Not only does it fail to appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective, such failure on the part of the Ld. Special Judge has further led to passing of adverse remarks against the investigating agency, as well as the investigating officer, all of which are unwarranted and incomprehensible, to say the least," the CBI contended.

The central probe agency went on to allege that the observations in the order bear testimony to the fact that the Special Judge "lacks the basic understanding of the prosecution case as a whole and the corresponding law at the stage of charge".

It said the conspiracy revolves around the facts which individually "may not be per se indicative" of the role played by various accused. However, when the actions of the accused are taken cumulatively, the conspiracy to monetise the Policy (excise policy) becomes clear, the agency said.

"However, the Ld. Special Judge has completely ignored the basis of the conspiracy but has evaluated in detail small contradictions which is not even the case as laid out by the prosecution. In effect, the Ld. Special Judge has formulated his own understanding of the individual roles of the accused in a completely different perspective," it said.

The CBI alleged that, in substance, a case of rampant corruption, emanating from the highest levels of executive, has resulted in a discharge owing to incorrect conclusions being drawn to impute aspersions on the investigating agency, when the record of the case, which is to be treated as uncontroverted at this stage, speaks otherwise.

It claimed that the order suffers from misreading of the facts, in addition to arriving at incorrect findings on the law of approvers, the evidentiary value of material and "is in teeth of the dictum" laid down by the Supreme Court at the stage of charge.

"At the stage of charge, (a) mini trial is not what is envisaged in law. Singular facts or facts limited in their scope cannot be assessed at this stage. It is the cumulative effect of the conspiracy which gives an entire conspectus of the case.

"The case, read as a whole, discloses a single, continuing criminal conspiracy beginning from the formulation of the Policy and culminating in the generation and utilisation of the kickbacks for Goa elections, as well as the conduct of the accused post the registration of the case,' the agency alleged.

The CBI went on to allege that the court has "erred gravely in evaluating the evidence in such great detail without the evidence being tested on the witness stand", which makes the evaluation "partial and incorrect", whereas at the charge stage, the court had to take evidence on face value.

The agency claimed that the special judge had made oral observations while pronouncing the discharge order that he "spent 4 months' time reading only the file of the case", and contended that it shows appreciation of the evidence by the judge which "otherwise is not permitted at this stage".

"Many observations made by the Ld. Special Court are unduly harsh on the prosecuting agency, especially when the same are made on incorrect understanding of law and incorrect facts," it said.

The CBI termed the order "self-contradictory" claiming that on one hand, it highlights the limited scope of review of matters of policy, on the other hand, it enters into an exercise of evaluating the material leading to the formulation of the policy, also critically analysing the expert committee report, which is the genesis of the conspiracy, without any evidence being adduced at this nascent stage.

"Such piecemeal appreciation of evidence, rather than a conjoint reading of the case, has led to the passing of the Impugned Order, which needs to be set aside," it said. PTI ABS RT