Excise Policy case: Delhi HC stays trial court order to supply "unrelied documents" to Businessman Sameer Mahendru

New Delhi [India], March 1 : The Delhi High court on Wednesday stayed the Rouse Avenue Court order directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to supply unrelied documents to businessman Sameer Mahendru, accused in the excise policy scam.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma on Wednesday issued notice on ED's plea challenging the trial court order and listed the matter for hearing in April month.
On Tuesday, granting interim bail to Mahendru on medical grounds, the trial Court said, "Sameer Mahandru is granted interim bail of 30 days from the date of his release for undertaking surgery for removal of his gallbladder stone and also for undergoing MRI and other diagnostic tests and treatment for his back pain and other ailments."
The trial Court on Tuesday also granted bail to Mahendru in the CBI case and noted that he was never arrested by the investigating agency in the present excise case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
On December 20, 2022, the trial court took cognizance of a prosecution complaint (chargesheet) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case revolving around an excise policy case.
The Chargesheet was filed against Sameer Mahendru and four firms.
The court took cognizance of the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 r/w section 70 of the PMLA and has made it punishable under section 4 of the said Act hereby taken by this court and since sufficient grounds exist for proceeding further in the matter against all the five accused, they are directed to be summoned to appear and face trial before this court for the above said offence, though some further investigation with regard to the other persons or entities involved in the case and to trace out the balance proceeds of crime is still stated to be pending.
Court noted that it was alleged in the said case that huge kickbacks through hawala channels were paid by a few persons in the liquor business from South India to some public servants of the ruling AAP and of the Excise Department of the GNCTD to achieve the objectives of monopoly and cartelization between three components of the said policy, i.e. liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, by violating provisions and breaking the spirit of the said policy and these kickbacks were to be returned back to the above persons from South, either out of profit margins of the wholesalers or through credit notes issued by the wholesalers to the retail vends owned or controlled by such persons from the south.
"It has been alleged that the profit margin of the wholesalers was initially kept high at 12 per cent to ensure payment of around 6 per cent portion thereof to achieve the above illegal objective and even records and books of accounts of the licensees were falsified for the said purpose," the court noted.
The present complaint has been filed by ED through Jogender, who is an Assistant Director of ED and the same has been filed by him in his official capacity of a public servant.
"As per provisions contained in the amended Section 44 (1) (a) of the PMLA, an offence punishable under Section 4 of the above said Act and any scheduled offence connected to that offence are triable by the Special Court constituted under the Act for the area in which the offence has been committed," the Court further said.
Further, as per amended Section 44 (1) (c) of the PMLA, if the cognizance of the scheduled offence has been taken by some other court than the court of Special Judge constituted under the Act, then on an application moved in this regard by the concerned person authorized to file a complaint under PMLA, the other court is required to commit the case pertaining to scheduled offence to the Special Court so that the same can be dealt with by the
Special Court under the PMLA and thus, both cases are required to be tried by one and the same special court.
The court further said that as already discussed, the CBI case pertaining to the commission of scheduled offences of this case is also pending before this court and a chargesheet against some of the accused persons in the said case also stands filed now and cognizance of the offences alleged therein has been taken by the court and the concerned accused persons have been directed to be summoned to face trial for the alleged offences, though even in that case some further investigation is still going on.
According to the ED, among the accused public servants are Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, the then Excise Commissioner Arva Gopi Krishna, Deputy Commissioner Anand Tiwari and Assistant Commissioner Pankaj Bhatnagar.
Other accused are Manoj Rai, a former employee of Pernod Ricard; Amandeep Dhal, director of Brindco Sales; director of Buddy Retail Amit Arora, and Dinesh Arora; authorised signatories of Mahadev Liquors Sunny Marwah, Arun Ramchandra Pillai and Arjun Pandey.
The ED and the CBI have alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Excise Policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and the L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority's approval.
The beneficiaries diverted "illegal" gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection.
The FIR in the case was instituted on a reference from the Union Home Ministry following a recommendation from Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.