Delhi court acquits Arvind Kejriwal in two ED cases over summons

While giving Kejriwal a clean chit in the criminal cases, the court held that ED had failed to prove the emails through which the summons had been sent, and that such a mode of service was not envisaged under the CrPC or PMLA.

The CrPC, it said, mandates physical service of summons with procedure to record that summons have been served. It said when the PMLA does not specifically stipulate the appropriate way of serving summons, the “ED cannot devise its own way” and must adhere to the law laid down under CrPC.

The court also acquitted AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan of a similar charge for skipping three summons in connection with the probe into an alleged money laundering case relating to the Delhi Waqf Board, and discharged him in another case over three other summons. The ED case stemmed from two FIRs: one filed by the CBI concerning alleged irregularities in Waqf Board appointments; and another by the Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) regarding an alleged case of disproportionate assets.

Kejriwal, while skipping the ED summons, had cited various elections, including those to state assemblies and Rajya Sabha and his obligation to perform his duties as Chief Minister of Delhi.

He was arrested on March 21, 2024, by the ED in an alleged money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy. On June 25, 2024, the Delhi High Court stayed a trial court order granting him bail in the ED case. He was subsequently granted interim bail on July 12, 2024 by the Supreme Court which has continued since.

In two orders, one dealing with three summons issued in 2023, and another dealing with three other summons in 2024, all served via email, ACJM Dalal said “the entire process is antithetical to the rule of law”. He said “no such mode of service is envisaged under the PMLA or CrPC”.

The court ruled that the emails furnished as evidence by the witnesses from the ED’s side had not adhered to the requirements under the Evidence Act, such as providing the message ID, creation date, day and time, etc. It said these “were critical to the prosecution’s case”.

Kejriwal, represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, had submitted before the magistrate that there was no wilful disobedience on his part, and all the summons by way of email, which were otherwise invalid, do not adhere to the provisions and rules of PMLA. He had also said that he had given valid and justifiable reasons for non-appearance in response to each of the summons and that these were issued with an intention “to humiliate him politically, only to insist on his personal appearance at the ED office”.

It was also pointed out that the summons were leaked to the media before it was emailed to him, and that “hostile political parties sought to draw political mileage from it”.

The court said: “It must be understood by the investigating officer that he is summoning a witness, suspect/accused who otherwise is ‘innocent until proven guilty’…The accused cannot be convicted on mere probabilities or presumptions.”