Key Takeaways
- Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal has been summoned by a local court on a complaint from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over the alleged liquor policy scam.
- The court has ordered the examination of Kejriwal to unearth his role in the alleged crime, as also that of others involved in the case.
- Despite multiple summons, Kejriwal has failed to appear before the investigating officer.
New Delhi: A local court on Wednesday issued summons to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on a complaint from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that he was not complying to summons from the central agency in a case related to the alleged liquor policy scam.
After hearing the ED complaint, the judge took cognisance of it and passed the order for issuance of summons against Kejriwal, the National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The ED filed the complaint against Kejriwal for non-compliance of the summons issued under the provisions of Prevention Money Laundering Act(PMLA) in the case related to the alleged scam.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Divya Malhotra after hearing the complaint said, “From the contents of the complaint and the material placed on record, prima facie offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out and there are sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973” against Kejriwal.
The Court observed, “As per the complaint, the investigation carried out so far has revealed that the (Delhi Excise Policy) was formulated as a part of a criminal conspiracy by the leaders of Aam Aadmi Party with deliberate loopholes to generate and channelise illegal funds unto themselves as well as to AAP”.
The court said while some arrests have been made in the case, the ED has said Kejriwal needed to be examined to unearth his role, as also that of others in the alleged crime.
The court said despite multiple summons Kejriwal had failed to appear before the investigating officer. “By virtue of Section 50(3) of the (PML) Act, the respondent of the summonses i.e. the proposed accused was legally bound to attend in person in pursuance of the same but purportedly he failed to do so.”
