Courts have to send out a “strong message” that there is “no culture of a laid back approach” in responding to corruption and money laundering cases, the Delhi High Court has said while dismissing two bail pleas by former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in two such cases filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam.
A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation in its 106-page judgment on Tuesday (May 21, uploaded on Wednesday).
“If money is used to influence and dominate policy decisions by politicians for the purpose of putting bribe at the disposal of such public figures, courts in such cases, have to ensure that the trust of the public still survives in its ability to bring the alleged accused within the fold of law and treat the offence as serious,” the HC said.
It further said that corruption with the tendency of stealing legitimate resources of “poor ordinary people” and giving it to the rich is one of the worst forms.
“Small and medium-sized enterprises, which are managed by common people and are the backbone of economic growth and job creation, are particularly vulnerable to the detrimental impacts of corruption, which is prima facie, visible in the formulation of the new excise policy which eradicated the common and small-time businesses and gave the entire playing field in the liquor business to those who had money, power and created a cartel on the basis of financial gains to those formulating a policy, which adds to the seriousness of the offence at this stage,” the HC underscored.
Justice Sharma also said that the non-recovery of any amount of cash cannot be a proof “prima facie that no corruption” took place since the “offender’s mind uses new technology to commit offences” without leaving traces of its commission.
The court further rejected the argument over the non-recovery of cash in view of statements of certain hawala dealers and other witnesses recorded during the investigation. “The courts of law may be considered as constant thorns in the way of free-flowing corruption, and even if that be so and are termed as thorns, it scores the victory for the masses,” the HC emphasised.
The court also said that the alleged corruption originated from Sisodia’s desire to create a liquor policy that would benefit selected individuals in return for substantial amounts of advanced kickbacks, part of which were allegedly used for the Goa elections, “as per new material collected by the prosecution”.
“This was one of the steps towards ensuring that it was portrayed to the general people that the new excise policy reflected and was based on the will of the Delhi people, whereas in fact, it was purely based on the will of Sh Manish Sisodia and the co-accused persons who were part of the alleged conspiracy,” the HC said.
On the allegation that Sisodia had “orchestrated a scheme” where “pre-drafted emails” were sent under the guise of public feedback when it was allegedly manufactured, the HC said that “public reposes its faith in the government that if suggestions are being called from them, they will be considered too”. “The dissemination of false opinions, particularly when presented as genuine feedback, also constitutes a form of corruption. In the eyes of the court, the distinction between manufacturing public opinion and gathering genuine public feedback is stark,” the HC said.
On the issue of delay, the HC said that “prima facie”, the accused including Sisodia have delayed the pre-charge proceedings in the case by taking “three months time” (from October 19, 2023 to January 19, 2024) for the inspection of unrelied documents “despite repeated directions” from the trial court, to conclude it expeditiously. On the trial court’s observation on a “concerted effort” by the accused to delay the trial, the HC opined that while the accused “may be perceived as acting collectively”, it is essential to acknowledge their “distinct roles and rights as individuals” before the court.
“In legal proceedings involving multiple accused persons, it is not uncommon for their legal strategies to align or for similar applications to be filed by their respective legal counsels. However, the mere similarity in legal approach adopted by different counsels for the accused persons may not be a concerted effort as each accused is entitled to pursue his defence independently,” Justice Sharma emphasised.
While it may be difficult to mathematically assess the causes of delay as attributable to a person, the HC, however, listed certain causes to which the delay could be attributed to. These are inherent time requirements due to complexity of the case; multiple applications moved by multiple accused under different sections of law, the accused demanding hard copies of the record in addition to digitised copies.
Noting that there have been delays in cases which were “procedural requirements”, the HC said that the trial court had taken “meaningful steps” at every hearing to dispose of the applications the same day — given that they could be disposed of without waiting for a reply. It also said that the trial court had expeditiously adjudicated by disposing of the applications filed by multiple accused for the supply of copies. “Thus, this court cannot hold that the pre-trial proceedings before the learned trial court have proceeded at snail’s pace,” the HC underscored.
