NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Saturday filed replies to two revisions of CM Arvind Kejriwal challenging issuance of summons on the complaints filed by the Agency in Delhi Excise policy case. Arvind Kejriwal has been arrested by the ED on March 21. He is in custody till April 1. Advocate Mudit Jain and Advocate Rehan Khan Counsels for Arvind Kejriwal sought time to response to the replies filed by the ED. Special judge Rakesh Syal granted time and listed the matter April 24 for argument. The Rouse Avenue Court on March 15, refused to grant stay on summons issued to CM Arvind Kejriwal on complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate ((ED). Kejriwal has challenged the summons issued by the court after taking Cognizance of two complaints filed by the ED for avoidance of summons issued to him. On the last date, It was submitted by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta counsel for Kejriwal that there was no disobedience by Arvind Kejriwal. A person can be summoned only when his non appearance is intentional. He replied to each summon and informed that he cannot come due to responsibility as the chief Minister, senior Gupta had argued. Senior advocate also argued that the revisionist was not given show cause notice by the ED before filing these complaints. Three summons were issued to Kejriwal as chief minister of Delhi. He is a public servant therefore a prior sanction was required to prosecute him which was not obtained, the Senior advocate argued. He also submitted that summons were deliberately sent for dates on which he was busy in public function like budget preparation. Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued on the second revision moved by Kejriwal. It was submitted that the summons were issued in haste without application of judicial mind. Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that the trial court issued summons on the same day after taking cognizance. The counsel said that the trial court had not considered the responses by Kejriwal to the summons issued by the ED. The counsel for Kejriwal said that to prosecute him under 174 CR.pc there should be disobedience and intention. The counsel said that the court first needed to decide whether there is any disobedience or not? The counsel argued that the trial court had not considered this aspect. A person is being made an accused and order is passed in a cryptic manner, counsel argued. He further submitted that the Trial court considered the version of complainant as gospel truth. The order of summoning was passed without mindful consideration and applying judicial mind. The word in person is not in the form for issuing summons prescribed by the legislature, the counsel submitted.This form can’t be interpolated. “Due to failure of justice an ordinary citizen is an accused before the court as judicial mind was not applied by the court, Rajiv Mohan argued. On the other hand, ASG S V Raju opposed the submissions by the counsels for accused and submitted that if disobedience was intentional or not is a matter of trial. This revision is against the order of summoning, he added. ASG submitted that AD, DD and JD legally empowered to summon any person to produce evidence. If the evidence asked for not given, then that is intentional disobedience, ASG Raju submitted. The ASG ardued that the summons were in accordance with the law. Any person can be summoned in in person under PMLA, ASG added. There was international disobedience as he attended CBI office in 2023 but not wish to attend ED office. He can travel various stated for campaigns but can’t come to ED office for one day, he submitted. ASG also argued that it is also immaterial that weather you (Kejriwal ) were summoned as witness or accused. There was clear disobedience on the part of the revisionist, he added. In rebuttal senior advocate Ramesh Gupta said “They have not responded to three my replies. And it was not considered not considered by the trial court.” Earlier it was submitted that The Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal gave reply to each and every notice issued by Directorate of Enforcement but despite coming to know of the reasons for non-appearance in person provided by him, the Directorate of Enforcement continued issuing cyclostyle notices under Sections 50 PMLA. Earlier Arvind Kejriwal moved the Sessions Court challenging summons issued to him by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on ED complaints for not complying with the summons issued by the central probe agency in the Delhi liquor policy money laundering case. Kejriwal while challenging the summons in sessions court further submitted that there was no intentional disobedience on the part of him and he always explained the reason which till the date has not controverted or found false by the Department. According to the ED, the agency wants to record Kejriwal’s statement in the case on issues like the formulation of policy, meetings held before it was finalized, and allegations of bribery. Manish Sisodia, who was the then Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, was arrested by the CBI on February 26 following several rounds of questioning. On October 5, the ED arrested Sanjay Singh, who is a Rajya Sabha member.
