E-Paper
AAP to be made accused in Delhi excise case, ED tells SC
The court told ED to make a considered statement in this regard on Tuesday even as the agency told the court that the charge against the AAP will be separate but shall pertain to the same offence
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday told the Supreme Court that it is contemplating to make the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) an accused in the Delhi excise case.
“We are contemplating to make AAP an accused invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to probe it additionally for being vicariously liable. We have taken a decision in this regard,” additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, representing ED, said. Section 70 deals with the offences committed by companies.
He was responding to a query put to him by the court on October 4 on whether the AAP is being sought to be made an accused in the case.
The court had raised this question while dealing with the bail petitions filed by former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who was arrested in the case.
The comment by a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti had come after a chart by ED was shown indicating the political party to be one of the beneficiaries in the alleged scam. A day later, the court clarified that its intention was not to implicate the AAP.
The bench on October 5 said, “The question we posed was not to implicate anybody as that was not our intention. When we were shown a chart by ED, there was the name (of the political party) given at the end. In court we ask questions to get answers. If under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), if A is a beneficiary who is not prosecuted, can B or C be prosecuted?”
The bench told Raju whether the charge against the political party will be for the same offence as against Sisodia and others or under a different charge, both under the CBI and ED case and said, “Be careful in making your statement. Will it also be a separate charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act investigated by CBI?”
Sisodia is facing investigation by both ED and CBI and in the CBI case where he is accused of introducing changes in the Delhi government’s excise policy to benefit certain liquor traders, referred to by the ED and CBI as the ‘South Group’.
In this connection, the investigations claimed that Sisodia along with AAP’s media incharge Vijay Nair played a major role in increasing the profit margin available under the now-scrapped excise policy 2021 from the previous 5% to 12%.
The ED relied on this increase in profit margin to be the generation of proceeds of crime and sought to proceed against Sisodia and other accused.
The court told ASG Raju to make a considered statement in this regard on Tuesday even as the law officer told the court that the charge against the AAP will be separate but shall pertain to the same offence.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Sisodia told the court that such statements are made with the intention of creating headlines. “On the last sentence made by him (ASG), you will see the effect in tomorrow’s newspapers.” Singhvi said that after one year of arresting his client, filing nearly five supplementary chargesheets and examining 500 witnesses, they are now seeking to add an accused.
The court said, “The last sentence (by ASG Raju) will not affect our decision. We are dealing with the charge sheet as on date. It is not a case where they are saying he has been arrested in anticipation. Therefore, I have asked whether it is the same offence or a different one.”
The court is likely to conclude arguments on Sisodia’s bail plea on Tuesday. It asked Singhvi to respond to the arguments by ED and CBI dealing with the evidence to suggest that changes were introduced in the new excise policy to benefit a few. The bench told Singhvi that by restricting the license to two wholesalers, it could have resulted in cartelisation in the Delhi liquor trade, as alleged by ED and CBI.
Sisodia approached the top court against separate orders passed by the Delhi high court denying him bail. On May 30, he was denied bail in the CBI case followed by another order on July 3 in the ED case. The former deputy CM had also sought interim bail citing his wife’s health condition.
