Delhi Court Acquits Kejriwal and Sisodia in Excise Policy Case Amid CBI Challenges
CBI to Challenge Court's Ruling on Excise Policy Case
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is set to contest the recent ruling from the Rouse Avenue Court that cleared Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other defendants in the Delhi Excise Policy case, sources revealed on Friday. This decision follows the court's refusal to acknowledge the CBI's charge sheet and its subsequent acquittal of all 23 accused. The court cited significant deficiencies in the investigation and a lack of evidence necessary to substantiate the case.
The court pointed out various shortcomings in the charge sheet, indicating that the evidence presented was insufficient. The CBI is investigating alleged corruption related to the formulation and implementation of the now-repealed excise policy by the previous AAP government.
Court's Acquittal of Kejriwal and Sisodia
On Friday, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his ex-deputy Manish Sisodia were acquitted in the excise policy case. The court criticized the CBI for its lack of credible evidence to support its claims. It stated that allegations of a grand conspiracy and criminal intent did not hold up under judicial scrutiny, suggesting that the material on record pointed more towards administrative decision-making.
Kejriwal reacted emotionally to the verdict, labeling the case as 'the biggest political conspiracy in free India,' allegedly orchestrated by the BJP to oust the Aam Aadmi Party from power in Delhi. He emphasized that no one should manipulate the country and its constitution for political gain.
The court highlighted the absence of evidence against Kejriwal, stressing the need for substantial material to support serious allegations, as proving a central conspiratorial role without evidence is untenable. It warned that if the prosecution's claims lack material support, public trust in the office diminishes.
Court's Findings on Sisodia's Case
In Sisodia's acquittal, the court noted that the prosecution's case did not withstand judicial examination, and no evidence of criminal intent was found against him. The court remarked that when the documents were analyzed alongside the statements on record, they reflected administrative reasoning rather than any wrongdoing.