cbi-says-discharge-of-kejriwal-others-patently-illegal

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 dealing with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation rather than assessing the actions of the accused cumulatively. 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 as well as 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. It fails to appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective. 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’.