In separate applications, the former Delhi chief minister and his deputy assailed the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition, and said they have been unable to discern the agency’s case against them in the “bare-shell” and “non-specific” petition.
Read more: After Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia to also boycott Justice Sharma’s court
“The CBI has preferred the present revision petition with unprecedented haste and in the most unserious manner. The present revision petition was filed only within four hours of passing of the order of discharge by the Ld. Special Judge, which manifestly shows non-appreciation of the findings of the Ld. Special Judge in the discharge judgement running into more than 500 pages,” the application stated.
“Thus, if such a petition is held to be maintainable, a grave prejudice will be caused to the respondent herein,” it added.
Justice Manoj Jain is scheduled to hear on August 17 and 18 the CBI’s petition assailing the trial court’s February 27 decision.
On the last occasion, Justice Jain had granted a final opportunity to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak to respond to the plea within two weeks.Read more: Will Kejriwal seek Punjab govt’s resignation, BJP asks after High Court stay on pharma officers’ recruitment
In the latest applications, Kejriwal and Sisodia asserted that the trial court discharged all accused persons after hearing the matter in detail for more than three months, but the CBI has not pointed out any specific finding that is “perverse” or shows any irregularity.
Claiming that the agency has merely pointed out “self-serving facts”, they also claimed that the petition does not specifically state how the discharge of each accused was done without appreciating the evidence.
“The present petition is incomplete as it is without the material being relied upon and the specific averments in the order of discharge- hence it is liable to be dismissed in its present form..It is clear from the present petition filed by the CBI that not a single paragraph out of 1133 paragraphs of the discharge judgment is referred by CBI to suggest the perversity in the order,” the application stated.
Kejriwal and Sisodia also emphasised that jurisdiction of the high court in the present case was limited and could be exercised cautiously, only in cases of grave perversity.
“The revision petition seeks to re-narrating and re-examination of evidence. This is being stated solely for the reason that the Revisionist/CBI has failed to plead any such specific instances, hence, it cannot assume that this Hon’ble Court would re-appreciate/re-examine the entire evidence on record. The said exercise cannot be done in the Revisional Jurisdiction,” the application stated.
On February 27, the trial court discharged former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, ruling that it was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
In its revision petition, the CBI has said that the discharge order was patently illegal, perverse and suffered from errors apparent on the face.
The petition has contended that the trial court conducted a “mini-trial” at the stage of framing of charges and passed the discharge order on a “selective reading of the prosecution case”.
Not only did the trial court fail to appreciate the facts of the case but it also passed unwarranted adverse remarks against the investigating agency and the investigating officer, the plea has claimed.
