According to the court, the evidence chain has not been fully established
During the deliberation of the bail petition submitted on behalf of the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Mr. Manish Sisodia, in the legal matter concerning the liquor policy, the Supreme Court has eloquently remarked that the continuity and comprehensiveness of the evidentiary trail have not been incontrovertibly established. Furthermore, the court has sought clarification as to the substantiation of allegations against Mr. Sisodia, apart from relying solely on the testimony of the businessman, Mr. Dinesh Arora, who himself stands accused in this intricate legal imbroglio.
Mr. Arora, having transitioned from an accused to an approver in the case, was granted the privilege of bail in a relatively recent judicial development.
In the course of Thursday’s legal proceedings, the bench, composed of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti, inquired about the assertion put forth by the investigative agencies. They posited that funds had been transmitted to Mr. Manish Sisodia and sought elucidation regarding the intricate path by which these monetary resources had traversed from the purported consortium associated with the liquor industry.
“You have cited two sums, one amounting to ₹100 crore and another to ₹30 crore. Who were the sources of these disbursements? Multiple individuals could have contributed these funds, and their origins need not be exclusively tied to the liquor sector. What substantiates this claim? Mr. Dinesh Arora himself stands as the recipient of these funds. Where is the corroborative evidence? Apart from Mr. Arora’s testimony, is there any alternative substantiating evidence?” Justice Khanna inquired.
The bench astutely remarked that the continuum of evidence has yet to attain a state of comprehensive establishment.
The court opined that the financial transactions must demonstrably originate from the liquor industry’s influential group and conceded the formidable challenge in tracing this intricate flow due to the covert nature in which these transactions were conducted.
“But this is where your adeptness and proficiency are brought into play,” Justice Khanna noted, alluding to the capabilities of the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Laundering Case
In explicit reference to the financial transactions and the allegations levied against the AAP leader by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the aegis of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Justice Khanna inquired, “Manish Sisodia’s involvement in these matters appears to be absent. While Vijay Nair, another accused, is connected, Manish Sisodia’s association with this facet remains nebulous. How do you intend to implicate him under the provisions of the money laundering legislation?”
“The funds are not being directed towards him. In the event that there is an entity with which he maintains an association, then the concept of vicarious liability comes into play. In the absence of such a connection, the prosecution encounters impediments. Money laundering constitutes an entirely distinct offense,” articulated the judge. Highlighting the agency’s assertion that the case pertains not to an attempt but rather to definite involvement, Justice Khanna remarked, “What constitutes the operation intertwined with the ill-gotten gains? This is not about the initial generation of funds. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) pertains to the process or undertaking associated with the gains from unlawful activities. Consequently, until the ill-gotten proceeds materialize, the PMLA case remains in abeyance.”
The legal proceedings have been postponed and are scheduled to resume in the ensuing week.
Clarified
Mr. Sisodia faced apprehension by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the month of February, followed by subsequent detainment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the subsequent month.
Earlier during the day, the court provided elucidation that its statement issued on Wednesday concerning the potential inclusion of the AAP as a ‘defendant’ in the liquor policy case was not intended to ensnare any political organization. It was merely a legal query raised for consideration.
On Wednesday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also apprehended Mr. Sanjay Singh, a Member of the Rajya Sabha representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in connection with the aforementioned case.
Click for more updates and latest Entertainment, Llifestyle, Sports Gadgets. Also get latest news at Classic Square Newsline.
