THE ENFORCEMENT Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court on Monday that it is “contemplating” adding the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as an accused in its money laundering probe linked to the Delhi government's now-scrapped excise policy. “We are contemplating making the Aam Aadmi Party an accused and invoking Section 70 (of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) to probe it additionally with respect to vicarious liability,” Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who appeared for the ED, told a bench presided by Justice Sanjeev Khanna. The bench, which included Justice S V N Bhatti, was hearing the bail plea of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who has been arrested in the case. While Sisodia was arrested in February and AAP's communication in-charge, Vijay Nair, was arrested in September last year, the party’s Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh was arrested earlier this month. As the bench asked if the AAP would be made an accused in the same offence or a separate one, the ASG replied that it would be the same offence but a separate charge. The bench asked him to get instructions and inform the court at the next hearing on Tuesday. Taking exception to the ED's submission that it was considering making AAP an accused, senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, said: “The last sentence by my learned friend, Your Lordships, will see the effect in tomorrow’s papers. That is the purpose”. He added: “If the prosecutor, after one year of incarceration, tells Your Lordships, when the bail is being argued, with five supplementary chargesheets, 500 witnesses, and 50,000 documents, that they now intend to make someone else (an accused)…” The bench said the submission would not impact its decision. “It's not a case where they're saying he's been arrested in anticipation. Therefore, I put that question very clearly on whether it's the same offence or a new one,” said Justice Khanna. Hearing the matter on October 4, Justice Khanna had pointed out that as per the ED’s case, the recipient of the proceeds of crime was “a political party” and not Sisodia, and asked why the party was not made an accused then. “As far as PMLA is concerned, your whole case is that it went to a political party. That political party is still not an accused. How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary, the political party is the beneficiary,” Justice Khanna had said. Hearing the matter again on October 5, the bench clarified that it was only a legal question and not meant to implicate anyone. “We want to clarify that our question yesterday was not to implicate anyone. Suppose, as per the prosecution, if A who is a beneficiary is not being prosecuted, can B or C be prosecuted? In that context, the question was posed as a legal question,” the Judge explained. Justice Khanna clarified this after Singhvi pointed out that newspapers had reported the query as if the court wanted investigative agencies to make the AAP an accused, and there were also reports that the ED was planning to add the party as an accused in the matter. Responding to Singhvi’s submission then, Justice Khanna had said there were two things to it. “One, in court, we ask questions. We want answers because when he (ASG Raju) showed us the chart, there was a name. Number two, we don’t get influenced by the media. I did go through the papers. It’s not going to affect us,” he had said. Underlining that stringent requirements have to be fulfilled for a charge under the PMLA, the court had questioned the ED about the admissibility of its evidence to link Sisodia with the money laundering offence, and asked if it had any proof other than the statement of a co-accused-turned-approver. It had warned that the ED's claims against Sisodia “will fall flat” after “two questions in the cross-examination”. Saying that Sisodia cannot be kept in jail indefinitely, the court on Monday asked the ASG when the arguments on the charges against him would begin. “Why have arguments on charge not commenced yet? You cannot keep somebody behind bars ad infinitum… once the chargesheet is filed, arguments must commence,” said Justice Khanna. The ASG said the delay was because the case is at the stage of supply of documents to the accused, and once that is over, the arguments would commence. The ASG also told the court that Sisodia had changed his cellphone on the day that the Delhi Lieutenant-Governor had forwarded the complaint to CBI. Saying that the phone was yet to be recovered, the ASG said Sisodia had said that it was damaged, but was not able to explain where it was. He said that tampering of evidence was enough ground to deny bail. The ASG also pointed to alleged proximity between Sisodia and co-accused Vijay Nair, and contended that the changes to the excise policy were not meant to reform the liquor market, but to ensure exorbitant profits for certain private companies.
