Arvind Kejriwal moves Delhi court over summons in ED case

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal challenges ED summons in court ahead of physical appearance, citing procedural flaws. Hearing is scheduled for March 15.

Delhi chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal has moved a Delhi sessions court against the summons issued to him by the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, barely a few days before he is to make a physical appearance before the magisterial court over two complaints of non-compliance filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal during a press conference in New Delhi on Thursday. (HT Photo)

Kejriwal had moved two separate revision petitions before Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court challenging the summons issued to him, to appear before the court on March 16, by additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra on two complaints filed by ED on February 3 and March 6. ED had approached the magistrate court on February 3 and March 6 with a complaint seeking initiation of proceedings against Kejriwal under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for not appearing before investigators despite repeated summons issued to him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

The matter has now been posted for hearing on March 15.

While arguing about the first summons issued on the first complaint, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta along with advocates Vijay Bishnoi, Shailendra Singh and Mudit Jain, appearing for Kejriwal, argued that while the summons were issued by one ED official asking Kejriwal to join the investigation, the complaint was filed by another.

Read Here | Delhi excise policy case: Court summons CM Arvind Kejriwal on March 16 after ED move

“The complaint has been filed by assistant director Sandeep Sharma, while the summons was sent by assistant director Joginder... their complaint is barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and therefore the cognisance taken by the court and the subsequent summons is bad in law,” it was argued.

Opposing the revision petitions, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju and special prosecutor Zoheb Hussain, appearing for ED, submitted that the two officials are co-investigators in the case and are authorised to file the complaint.

“The word stated in the statute is ‘concerned’, and Sandeep Sharma is considered as a person concerned as he is a co-investigating officer in the case and is of equal rank to Joginder,” Raju argued.

Raju also said that after the initial three summons, issued by Joginder, the subsequent summons were issued by Sharma, adding they were both authorised to file the complaint.

Read Here | ‘BJP would send ED-CBI even to Lord Ram if…’: Arvind Kejriwal's ‘vikas-vinash’ jibe at Centre

He also argued that the stay of proceedings is being asked at the last moment when Kejriwal has to appear before the court on March 16, while the order was passed on February 17. “The order passed on that date has also not been annexed in the petition deliberately hiding the fact that Kejriwal had given an assurance that he would appear on March 16,” said ASG Raju.

“Their entire modus operandi would have been to move the court at the last minute and get an order passed ex-parte, they moved the petition without giving an advance copy… their conduct is such that no relief should be granted”, he further added.

Special judge Rakesh Syal heard the submissions of both parties and listed the matter for further hearing on March 15 when the court will hear the arguments on the summons issued by the magistrate court on the second complaint filed by ED on March 6.

Under Section 174 of the IPC, the person not appearing on the summons issued by a public servant shall be punished with imprisonment up to one month and a fine of ₹500.

The federal investigating agency has so far issued eight summons to Kejriwal asking him to join the investigation being conducted in the alleged money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor excise policy case — on March 4, February 26, February 19, February 2, January 18, January 3, and December 22 and November 2 last year.

ACMM Malhotra took cognisance of both complaints filed by the agency and issued summons to Kejriwal to appear before the court.

ED, in its complaint, submitted that Kejriwal had no legal right to know whether he was being summoned as a witness or an accused.