The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi on Thursday adjourned hearing the challenge filed by CM Arvind Kejriwal against the summons by magistrate court. The court heard both Kejriwal's counsel and ED's counsel at length today and said will continue hearing tomorrow.


The counsel appearing for Kejriwal told the court that the court should exempt him from appearing in the March 16 hearing till the time the Enforcement Directorate (ED) files response to his today's challenge. The counsel said we are requesting for either exemption of petitioner through lawyer or stay or court may be asked to adjourn the matter beyond to the date which this court fixes.


He argued that the complaint has been filed by an investigating officer and not the ED. And the officer has filed a complaint in the personal capacity. Sandeep Kumar Sharma is the complainant and not ED. The court took cogniznace and summoned Kejriwal. 


Counsel for Kejriwal also called these summons by ED a "publicity stunt." He contended that EDs complaint is barred and therefore cognisance taken is bad in law. 


He argued that only two persons can file a complaint. One is public servant concerned or his superior. So, therefore in this case this complaint is barred by section 195.  


ASG SV Raju appearing for ED said that the counsel should not put such allegations. Nothing is being done for publicity. He also said that Kejriwal has moved the court on hypertechnical grounds at the last moment to build pressure on court.


Just two days before the court hearing where Kejriwal was supposed be present in person, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday moved the sessions court challenging summons issued to him by a magisterial court on Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) complaints alleging non compliance of the summons issued to him in the now scrapped liquor policy case.


The Additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra had asked Kejriwal to appear before it on March 16. 


The ACMM court issued summons twice to the Delhi CM in two separate complaints cases filed by the ED. The AAP convenor has challenged both the summons.


The case was heard by a Special Judge Rakesh Syal at the Rouse Avenue Court today.


The ED moved court against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Kejriwal for skipping summons repeatedly. The central agency contends that Kejriwal has no legal right to know whether he is being summoned as a witness or an accused in the alleged scam in Delhi liquor excise policy. 


Kejriwal had earlier written a letter to the ED, calling the summonses issued against him "illegal and politically motivated". He alleged that this was an attempt to prevent him from campaigning in the upcoming Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in the country.


He has so far skipped 8 summons by the ED. On March 7, the central probe agency raised a fresh complaint against him for skipping last four summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 


Earlier, the ED filed a complaint against Kejriwal's for not attending the first three summons issued to him in the money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. The hearing in that case will be held on March 16.


The Delhi CM has called all the ED summons illegal. While skipping the eigth summon Kejriwal informed ED that he could be questioned via a video conferencing link after March 12.


AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, party communications in-charge Vijay Nair and some liquor businessmen have allready been arrested by the ED in this case.


The ED has contended that AAP used proceeds of crime generated from the now scrapped Delhi Liquor policy to the tune of about Rs 45 crore in Goa Assembly Elections.


The Delhi excise policy was scrapped after it came under scanner for granting licences to liquor traders in a way that it allowed cartelisation and favoured certain dealers who had allegedly paid bribes for it. The AAP has refuted these claims.


After the policy was scrapped, the Delhi Lieutenant Governor recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the irregularities in its formulation and implementation. Following which, the ED registered a case under the PMLA.


--With inputs from Manoj Verma