‘Email not valid’: Arvind Kejriwal acquitted in ED summons case; what Delhi court said | Delhi News
NEW DELHI: Issuing summons by email is not valid or legal under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), a Delhi court said on Thursday as it acquitted former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal for skipping multiple Enforcement Directorate (ED) summonses asking him to join its probe in the excise policy case.The court said the agency failed to prove that Kejriwal had intentionally disobeyed the summonses, while noting that he was a serving chief minister at that time and “he too enjoyed his fundamental right of movement”. Additional chief judicial magistrate Paras Dalal said, “Neither the service of summons through emails has been proved by ED… nor the process of issuing summons to any person under Section 50(2) of PMLA via email has been proved to be in accordance with the law.” In all, nine summonses were issued to Kejriwal, according to the agency. It alleged that he had raised frivolous objections and deliberately created grounds for not joining the investigation.The probe stems from a case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022 on a complaint of lieutenant governor V K Saxena in connection with alleged irregularities in the excise policy, which was ultimately scrapped. Last week, a CBI court heard arguments about the case. Noting that the directorate “definitely missed the opportunity” to guide its officers on how the summonses should have been served, Dalal said that even if “for the sake of argument, these summonses are admitted to be proved, the entire process is antithetical to the rule of law”. Dalal underlined that the summonses were neither served personally on the accused nor through “extended” or “substituted” modes by observing due diligence. Hence, he held that the accused was not legally bound to appear before the directorate, with no question of “disobedience” arising. The magistrate also drew a clear distinction between “non-appearance” and “intentional non-appearance”, reiterating that mere absence “doesn’t amount to wilful disobedience”. There was no effort on the part of the directorate to verify why Kejriwal didn’t appear before it, Dalal said. Kejriwal’s counsel said that at most, his “conduct” could attract a fine under PMLA.In a connected but separate order relating to co-accused Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan also skipping ED summons, the court similarly held that they were not served according to due procedure and that issuing them in haste — without even granting him 24 hours to appear before it — was “improper”, especially when he had already approached Delhi High Court.
