The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought AAP national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s response on two pleas moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against his acquittal by a trial court in criminal cases pertaining to skipping the agency’s summons in the liquor excise policy case.

Kejriwal’s legal representatives remained absent before the court despite prior service of ED’s pleas. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice, to which Kejriwal has to reply by the next date of hearing on April 29, following brief submissions by ED.

ED’s counsel Zoheb Hossain argued before the HC that the trial court “committed a grave error” in acquitting Kejriwal, given the fact that the summons were received and responded to by Kejriwal is not in dispute.

He further argued that there are various judgments in which it has been held that when a document is not disputed, there is no requirement of proving it as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.

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 the ED with powers to launch criminal proceedings under IPC Section 174 for intentionally disobeying summons.

On January 22, a Delhi trial court acquitted Kejriwal of the charge of disobeying a public servant’s order for skipping six ED summons.

The ED has since filed two petitions against Kejriwal’s acquittal in relation to the two criminal cases it had registered for skipping the summons.

The trial court, in two orders, one dealing with three summons issued by ED in 2023 and another with three summons in 2024, all served via email, ruled that “mere non-appearance (following the summons) is not intentional disobedience”.

It further 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 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), with CrPC provisions mandating physical service of summons.

Kejriwal had cited reasons including elections to state Assemblies and the Rajya Sabha, and his obligation to perform duties as Delhi Chief Minister at the time, as reasons for skipping the ED summons.