A Delhi court on February 27 had discharged Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the case.The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the trial court’s remarks on the CBI’s investigating officer in the excise policy case were prima facie foundationally misconceived as it stayed the trial court’s observations made against the investigating officer including the direction recommending departmental action against him.
“This Court takes note of the fact that such scathing remarks recorded in the impugned order, and the reasons given for passing such remarks including, concluding that the investigating officer has abused his official position to conduct unfair investigation, are prima facie foundationally misconceived especially when made at the stage of charge itself,” the order read.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the order on CBI’s plea against discharge.
“The observations limited only qua the Investigating Officer are stayed, till the next date of hearing, including the direction recommending departmental action against him,” the order further added.
The court also noted that the observations made by the trial court regarding statements of the witnesses and the approvers, at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appeared erroneous.
“After hearing arguments on behalf of CBI, since the respondents remained absent despite service of advance notice, this Court is of the opinion that certain factual discrepancies pointed out in the impugned order, the observations made by the learned Trial Court regarding statements of the witnesses and the approvers, at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appear erroneous, and need consideration when viewed in the background of well-settled law on charge and conspiracy, as to whether such observations could have been made at the stage of charge itself,” the order read.
Earlier while hearing the revision plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the discharge order passed in favour of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, the Delhi High Court said that it will be staying trial court’s remarks and statements made against the CBI’s investigating officer in the excise policy case.
The matter was listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma who issued notice to the accused persons in the case and also directed the trial court to defer ED’s money laundering case till it hears the CBI’s revision plea.
“I will be granting stay of whatever observations were made against the investigating agency…”, the judge said.
The trial court had recommended departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer. Special (CBI) Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court had said that the investigation had crossed the line from flawed inquiry to institutional misconduct, making it necessary to fix accountability beyond merely discharging the accused.
CBI’s written submissions: CBI has submitted that the trial court:
a) conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charges;
b) discarded relevant evidence like statements of approvers and witnesses under section 164 CrPC by declaring them unreliable or uncorroborated;
c) impermissibly questioned the credibility of witness testimonies at this stage;
d) departed from the settled principle that prosecution material must be taken as true at the stage of faming of charge;
e) erroneously held that absence of direct evidence of meetings/cash transactions negates conspiracy, contrary to settled position of law that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and can be inferred by surrounding facts and circumstances
f) noted various pieces of incriminating evidence but consistently adopted interpretations favorable to accused.
“The discharge order repeatedly speaks of lack of “independent corroboration” for approver statements failing to consider that corroboration is not the requirement for framing charges and that the requirement of corroboration for approver evidence applies at stage of conviction, not at stage of framing charges,” the written submissions filed by the CBI read.
It was further submitted that even uncorroborated testimony at preliminary stage, if discloses commission of offence, is sufficient to frame charges. On the approver statements, the CBI has submitted that the evidentiary value of statements is a matter of trial. In its written submission before the high court, CBI has said that the Special judge misapplied the law governing criminal conspiracy.
Discharge: Noting that there ‘was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy’, a Delhi court on February 27 had discharged Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the case. The Judge, in several instances, slammed the CBI over its conduct, the nature of its investigation, and its presentation of evidence. He described the investigation as a “pre-meditated and choreographed exercise, wherein roles appear to have been retrospectively assigned to suit a preconceived narrative”.
Grounds of Challenge: The CBI has submitted that the trial court dealt with ‘separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation’ by ‘selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing culpability of the accused’. It has further argued that the trial court has ‘given its own interpretation to various factual aspects and statements recorded by (CBI) and to documents attached,’ while discarding the approver statements on ‘absolutely untenable grounds’. CBI has further contended in its plea before the high court that the evidentiary value of statements, of both witnesses and approvers, is a subject matter of trial.
The Excise Policy Case: The case arose out of a report submitted by Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar to Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena in July 2022, pointing to alleged procedural lapses in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The policy came into force in November 2021, but was scrapped in July 2022. The report said “arbitrary and unilateral decisions” taken by Sisodia in his capacity as Excise Minister had resulted in “financial losses to the exchequer” estimated at more than Rs 580 crore. Following the report, the LG recommended a CBI probe. Two parallel investigations started after this- 1) CBI case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, examining alleged abuse of official position and criminal conspiracy, and 2) an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) into whether alleged illegal gains constituted proceeds of crime.
The high court has stayed the observations made against the investigating officer including the direction recommending departmental action against him.
"the observations limited only qua the Investigating Officer are stayed, till the next date of hearing, including the direction recommending departmental action against him," the order read.
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the trial court's remarks on the investigating officer of the case are prima facie foundationally misconceived.
"this Court takes note of the fact that such scathing remarks recorded in the impugned order, and the reasons given for passing such remarks including, concluding that the investigating officer has abused his official position to conduct unfair investigation, are prima facie foundationally misconceived especially when made at the stage of charge itself," the order read.
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the remarks made on the investigating officer of the case are prima facie foundationally misconceived.
"this Court takes note of the fact that such scathing remarks recorded in the impugned order, and the reasons given for passing such remarks including, concluding that the investigating officer has abused his official position to conduct unfair investigation, are prima facie foundationally misconceived especially when made at the stage of charge itself," the order read.
CBI has submitted that the trial court:
a) conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charges;
b) discarded relevant evidence like statements of approvers and witnesses under section 164 CrPC by declaring them unreliable or uncorroborated;
c) impermissibly questioned the credibility of witness testimonies at this stage;
d) departed from the settled principle that prosecution material must be taken as true at the stage of faming of charge;
e) erroneously held that absence of direct evidence of meetings/cash transactions negates conspiracy, contrary to settled position of law that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and can be inferred by surrounding facts and circumstances
f) noted various pieces of incriminating evidence but consistently adopted interpretations favorable to accused.
The Judge had said there was an attempt to “stitch together disparate fragments so as to create an impression of a vast and complex conspiracy, unsupported by legally admissible material”. He called the investigation “steered by a preconceived outcome rather than by objective evaluation of evidence”.
Earlier, the trial court had observed that the manner in which the investigating agency has proceeded, by repeatedly recording the statements of the approver without justification and over a prolonged duration, reflected an exercise of discretion that could not be characterised as fair or reasonable.
The case arose out of a report submitted by Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar to Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena in July 2022, pointing to alleged procedural lapses in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The policy came into force in November 2021, but was scrapped in July 2022. The report said “arbitrary and unilateral decisions” taken by Sisodia in his capacity as Excise Minister had resulted in “financial losses to the exchequer” estimated at more than Rs 580 crore.
The next hearing in the case will take place on next Monday (March 16)
Aam Aadmi Party's president Saurabh Bharadwaj's tweet earlier today
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsBreaking News
— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) March 9, 2026
In high Court today , there has been NO STAY on the Rouse Avenue court order discharging all the accused persons including Mr @ArvindKejriwal.
The three main directions sought by the CBI in its plea is to-
a) Set aside the discharge order dated Feb 27;
b) Direct framing of charges against all accused persons under Sections 120-B, 420, 477-A IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other applicable offences;
c) Direct the trial court to proceed with trial in accordance with law.
The trial judge, in several instances, slammed the CBI over its conduct, the nature of its investigation, and its presentation of evidence. He described the investigation as a “pre-meditated and choreographed exercise, wherein roles appear to have been retrospectively assigned to suit a preconceived narrative”.
Noting that there ‘was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy’, a Delhi court on February 27 had discharged Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the case.
CBI has said that the material, taken cumulatively and at face value as required by law, undeniably establishes grave suspicion of a systematic criminal conspiracy involving public servants and private individuals to manipulate the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 for illegal gratification, followed by money laundering and utilization of proceeds for election expenditure of AAP.
The key highlights of the order passed today by the high court were:
a) Notice issued to all accused persons;
b) Trial court asked to defer ED case;
c) Stayed remarks made by the trial court against CBI and its officer.
On the approver statements, the CBI has submitted that the evidentiary value of statements is a matter of trial.
"Law does not mandate any such distinction. On the contrary, such pardon can be granted without any such statement being recorded. An approver, after pardon, is a witness. His status can only be changed at the stage of trial once the prosecutor certifies that the said approver has not made full and true disclosures, which is then adjudicated by the court. The improvements, if any, can only be seen at the stage of trial, where again, the use of previous statements is limited for the purposes of confrontation," CBI said in its written submissions.
“The discharge order repeatedly speaks of lack of “independent corroboration” for approver statements failing to consider that corroboration is not the requirement for framing charges and that the requirement of corroboration for approver evidence applies at stage of conviction, not at stage of framing charges,” the written submissions filed by the CBI read.
CBI contended that the impugned order fails to consider evidences which provide corroboration to the approver’s testimony and renders the impugned order perverse.
The CBI has submitted that at the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
CBI has contended that the Special Judge committed grave error of law by discarding the approver’s testimony at the stage of framing of charge/discharge and thereby turned criminal jurisprudence on its head.
In its written submission before the high court, CBI has said that the Special judge misapplied the law governing criminal conspiracy.
CBI has submitted that the trial court:
a) conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charges;
b) discarded relevant evidence like statements of approvers and witnesses under section 164 CrPC by declaring them unreliable or uncorroborated;
c) impermissibly questioned the credibility of witness testimonies at this stage;
d) departed from the settled principle that prosecution material must be taken as true at the stage of faming of charge;
e) erroneously held that absence of direct evidence of meetings/cash transactions negates conspiracy, contrary to settled position of law that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and can be inferred by surrounding facts and circumstances
f) noted various pieces of incriminating evidence but consistently adopted interpretations favorable to accused.
In its written submissions filed before the Delhi High Court, CBI has submitted that the trial court has conducted a mini trial by analysing the testimonies of 300 witnesses, and traversed beyond the scope of examination contemplated at the stage of considering framing of charges.
Hearing concludes. The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 16
Court: Issue notice. Replies to be filed
Court: I will pass an order of stay with regard to whatever remarks and statements are made against the investigating agency and officer.
Court begins to dictate order
Mehta: I have given accused wise role. All accused discharged. Case closed.
Mehta: Court weighs one evidence against the other at the time of framing the charge
Mehta: The court, author of the judgment, seems to be more conversant with constitutional law than criminal law
Mehta: 164 doesn't give you a pardon, pardon is when you become approver. 164 gives credence to your statement and 164 statement is generally by the witnesses
Mehta: One finding is that one of the main accused didn't handle cash… so one has to literally take bribe.
Mehta urges court to see the chart he has prepared
Mehta: I have given each finding and how that finding is perverse factually wrong and contrary to record
Mehta: The bribe giver says we are working out the liquor policy
Mehta: All these people who participated in the meeting.. Dinesh Arora (approver), says he was in the meeting
Mehta: What happened inside hotel room, is a matter of trial
Mehta: One of the ground raised by opposite party was that there was no independent witness at ITC Kohinoor. Examination will have to take place during trial, you can’t say nobody has been examined.
Mehta: During peak of covid, when private aircraft was not operating, bribe givers came by private aircraft
Mehta: Change in policy found verbatim in the government record
Mehta: Something which is found from the statement of the bribe giver, same thing found from the government computer system.
Mehta: All these notes were found in the mobile phones of the accused. No finding on that…how these came in your account. 107 phones were destroyed
Mehta: I have given witness after witness — witnesses and approver witnesses
Mehta: I am respectfully urging that discharge is not the stage of seeking corroboration, but because the judgement repeatedly talks about the lack of corroboration, there was corroboration
Mehta: Discharge is not a stage seeking corroboration
Mehta: PW 20 and hotel records
Court: You just read there is no independent witnesses. Who are the independent witnesses
Mehta: Selective approach of considering prosecution evidence
Mehta: This is turning criminal law into its head. Approver statement doesn’t require corroboration
Mehta: speedy justice should be come, but can’t result in miscarriage
Mehta: Somehow we couldn't convince, but after my learned friend completed submissions, within 10 or 12 days, 600 page judgments came
Mehta: Several documents collected, several witnesses examined.
Mehta: From my limited experience, I haven’t seen meticulous evidence collected from any agency
Mehta: Clear case of corruption, bribe being given, utilised
Mehta: I have prepared summary of submissions
Mehta: It’s an order of acquittal without trial
Mehta: Discharge is not the stage where you see the collaboration of evidence
Mehta: There is one person called Vijay Nair, communication in charge of this political party and there are two politicians. Ill show their culpability
Money transferred through hawala. In a matter of this nature one party would allege illegal, motivated investigation. I will take the ladyship through all witnesses. 164 statements is qualitatively different from 161 statements
Investigation each and every aspect of criminal conspiracy shown by filing chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets
Mehta: This is a petition challenging the discharge, biggest scam in the history, national shame
Hearing commences
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing CBI
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will hear the matter shortly.
