NEW DELHI, Mar 15 : Delhi Sessions Court on Friday refused to stay the summons issued to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court which directed him to appear before the court on Saturday.
The ACMM Court issued summons to the Delhi Chief Minister on the complaint of Enforcement Directorate (ED) over non-compliance of summons in the money laundering case under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
CBI Special Judge Rakesh Syal after hearing arguments on behalf of Counsel for ED and Defence Counsel passed an order that request for staying the proceedings before the Learned Trial court is declined”.
Kejriwal had moved two criminal revisions petitions —Cr Rev/4/2024 and Cr Rev/5/2024 against the summoning order of ACMM court before the Sessions Court at Rouse Avenue, New Delhi.
Counsel for Kejriwal submitted that since the next date fixed before the Ld.Trial Court is 16.03.2024, the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court may be stayed till the disposal of these revision petitions.
The Sessions Court after hearing the plea on behalf of Kejriwal seeking personal appearance before the court said that the same can be filed before the ACMM court.
Counsel for Kejriwal submitted before the court that he has given the reasons against the summons for his absence because having responsibility as a CM in all these days. But ED didn’t consider this.
He submitted that it is a summoning trial case and maximum punishment is one month jail term/fine. So requested to court allow the personal exemption of Kejriwal through counsel.
Counsel for ED opposed the plea of Defence Counsel. Can he be allowed to make excuses like this? Will a common man be allowed to make such excuses while he claims to represent Aam Aadmi, the ED Consel said.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra after taking cognizance of Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint issued summons to Kejriwal for his appearance on March 16.
Government counsel submitted that as per the mandate of Section 50(3) of the Act, the respondent/ proposed accused was legally bound to comply with the summons but allegedly he failed to do so.
He submitted that every non-compliance of the summons issued by a public servant would tantamount to a separate offence.
In this matter, Enforcement Directorate has alleged that the Excise Policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies.
ED has alleged that the accused were in touch with Kejriwal regarding the preparation of the Excise policy for 2021-22. (UNI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
