New Delhi: The Delhi High Court will on Monday hear the CBI's petition challenging a trial court order discharging AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the Delhi excise policy case.
Justice Manoj Jain is also expected to hear applications filed by Kejriwal and Sisodia seeking dismissal of the CBI's revision petition on grounds that it is not maintainable.
Kejriwal and Sisodia, who had earlier boycotted proceedings in the case before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, have claimed that the CBI filed its petition with "unprecedented haste" and in the "most unserious manner".
They have also argued that they have been unable to discern the agency's case against them from what they described as a "bare-shell" and "non-specific" petition.
"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," their application stated.
On the previous occasion, Justice Jain had granted a final opportunity to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak to respond to the CBI's plea within two weeks.
In their latest applications, Kejriwal and Sisodia have asserted that the trial court discharged all the accused after hearing the matter in detail for more than three months. They argued that the CBI has not identified any specific finding that was "perverse" or reflected an irregularity.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case, ruling that the prosecution's case was unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
In its revision petition, the CBI has described the discharge order as "patently illegal" and "perverse", alleging that it contained errors apparent on the face of the record.
The agency has contended that the trial court conducted a mini-trial at the stage of framing charges and passed the discharge order based on a "selective reading of the prosecution case".
The CBI has further alleged that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and made unwarranted adverse remarks against the investigating agency and the investigating officer.
