New Delhi: Criticising the special CBI court order discharging former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case, CBI has argued that the verdict is “patently illegal” and based “on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused”.Due to this, there was “piecemeal appreciation of evidence”, the agency has said in its appeal running into 974 pages filed in Delhi High Court. It is likely to be taken up next week.CBI has claimed the special judge conducted a “mini-trial” and “spent four months reading only the file of the case”, which showed appreciation of the evidence by the judge, which “otherwise is not permitted at this stage”. The agency goes on to contend that the observations in the order show the judge “lacks basic understanding of the prosecution case as a whole and the corresponding law at the stage of charge”.Stressing that at the “stage of charge, (a) mini trial is not what is envisaged in law”, the plea says “singular facts or facts limited in their scope cannot be assessed at this stage.”It claims the “case, read as a whole, discloses a single, continuing criminal conspiracy beginning from the formulation of the policy and culminating in the generation and utilisation of the kickbacks for Goa elections, as well as the conduct of the accused post the registration of the case”.CBI further says the trial court dealt with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation rather than assessing the actions of the accused cumulatively, adding that the order is “perverse”.It says, “Not only does the order fail to appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective, such failure on the part of the judge has further led to passing of adverse remarks against the agency, as well as the investigating officer, all of which are unwarranted and incomprehensible”.CBI argues that the conspiracy revolved around the facts, which individually “may not be per se indicative” of the role played by various accused, but when examined together, the conspiracy to monetise the excise policy becomes clear. “However, the judge has completely ignored the basis of the conspiracy but has evaluated in detail small contradictions, which is not even the case as laid out by the prosecution. In effect, the judge has formulated his own understanding of the individual roles of the accused in a completely different perspective,” it says. CBI alleges that, in substance, a case of rampant corruption, emanating from the highest levels of executive, resulted in a discharge owing to incorrect conclusions being drawn to impute aspersions on the investigating agency, when the record of the case, which is to be treated as uncontroverted at this stage, speaks otherwise.The agency alleges that the special court “erred gravely in evaluating the evidence in such great detail without the evidence being tested on the witness stand”, which made the evaluation “partial and incorrect”, whereas at the charge stage, the court was to take evidence at face value.“Many observations made by the court are unduly harsh on the prosecuting agency, especially when the same are made on incorrect understanding of law and incorrect facts,” it said.The agency also questions the “self-contradictory” order, arguing that while the court highlights the limited scope of review of matters of policy, on the other hand, it enters into an exercise of evaluating the material leading to the formulation of the policy, also critically analysing the expert committee report, which is the genesis of the conspiracy, without any evidence.
