Why Political Party Not Named In PMLA: SC Asked ED In Delhi Liquor Scam Case 

Delhi/Hyderabad, Oct 4 (Hydnow):  The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V Raju representing the Enforcement Directorate 9ED) in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, on why the political party was not an accused yet.  the court asked the ED to reply to the query on October 5, Thursday. 

The political party in question here is Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).  a bench headed by justices Sanjiv Khanna and SNV Bhatti heard Sisodia’s bail plea in two petitions concerning the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED.  

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Sisodia’s bail petitions in the apex court, made extensive arguments in his favour on Wednesday.  Singhvi told the bench that the now-scrapped excise policy is an institutional and collective decision spread over multiple levels.  He cited seven meetings by a group of ministers that preceded the policy decision.  Singhvi explained to the court that due to the cartelization of private manufacturers, the profit margin went up to 70 percent following the old policy.

The new policy was based on the Ravin Dhavan committee’s suggested reforms.  In the new policy manufacturers were not linked as retailers, however in the old policy, manufacturers could be retailers, Singhvi told the court.  Singhvi further added that there is one main charge sheet two supplementary charge sheets 31,423 documents and in total 294 witnesses in the CBI case.

While hearing the petitions filed by Sisodia, Justice Khanna remarked that given the fact that the court is not going into the wisdom of the policy, it becomes a question of quid-pro-quo.  so, the question on which the bench will decide if the policy was causing loss to the government or benefit to the third party.  Justice Khana asked Singhvi to argue on these points.  

Singhvi also argued on the credibility of approvers and said that it actually deserves an inquiry as to how their statements were obtained.  “The Court has held that the statement by an approver should not be given much credence.  An approver is the most untrustworthy witness, he said.  The bench will continue hearing the case on Thursday.  (Hydnow) 

Next Story :

Now you can get the latest stories from Hydnow every day. Click the link to subscribe. Click to follow Hydnow’s Facebook page and Twitter and Instagram