![]() |
VOOZH | about |
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the acquittal of AAP convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by a trial court in January for skipping summons by the agency during the probe into the alleged liquor policy scam.
The ED had filed two criminal cases against Kejriwal – in February and March 2024 – under IPC Section 174 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant). Provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provide ED with powers of launching criminal proceedings under IPC Section 174 for intentionally disobeying summons.
ED has now filed two petitions against Kejriwal’s acquittal, in relation to the two criminal cases it had registered, for skipping the summons. The cases are due to be heard on Wednesday by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
On January 22, a Delhi trial court had acquitted Kejriwal of the charge of disobeying a public servant’s order for skipping six ED summons.
The trial court, in two orders — one dealing with three summons issued in 2023 and another with three summons in 2024, all served via email — had ruled that “mere non-appearance (following the summons) is not intentional disobedience”, and observed that the ED had failed to prove the emails through which the summons had been sent, and that such a mode of service was not envisaged under the CrPC or the PMLA, with CrPC provisions mandating physical service of summons.
Kejriwal, while skipping the ED summons, had cited various elections, including those to state Assemblies and Rajya Sabha, and his obligation to perform his duties as the chief minister.
Notably, on January 22, the trial court had also acquitted AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan of a similar charge levelled by ED for skipping three summons in connection with the probe into an alleged case of money laundering, relating to “irregularities” in Delhi Waqf Board appointments, and discharged him in another case over three other summons. The ED, however, has not challenged this in the high court yet.