New Delhi, March 10 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking expunging of certain adverse observations made against it by a trial court while discharging all accused, including AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the excise policy case.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the top AAP leaders and other respondents to file their responses to the ED’s petition, and indicated that the matter would be heard along with the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea challenging the discharge order passed by the Rouse Avenue Court.

“I will issue notice in this matter and keep it on the same day as the other case. When I decide that case, I will be reading the entire judgment,” Justice Sharma said during the hearing.

Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju submitted that the trial court had made sweeping remarks against the federal anti-money laundering agency despite the fact that the proceedings before it concerned only the CBI case.

“PMLA is not before the judge. It is a CBI case. Proceeds of crime was not before the judge. He (Kejriwal) was not arrested for money laundering in the CBI case,” ASG Raju argued.

He contended that the ED had been criticised without being given an opportunity to present its case. “In a matter where ED has no concern, the judge could have made such observations only after hearing us. This affects us. ED has been condemned without hearing,” the Centre’s law officer submitted.

At this, Justice Sharma orally remarked, “These are general observations. I am sure this has nothing to do with the case in question,” adding that the Delhi High Court would examine whether such observations could have been made.

When ASG Raju insisted that even general observations could prejudice the ED in future proceedings, the Delhi HC said the entire trial court judgment was already under challenge before it.

“This entire judgment anyway is under challenge. When I decide that case, I will be reading this,” Justice Sharma said.

On Monday, the Delhi High Court had issued notice on the CBI’s criminal revision petition assailing the trial court’s decision to discharge all 23 accused in the case relating to the now-scrapped excise policy introduced by the then AAP-led Delhi government.

It had also stayed the trial court’s direction ordering departmental action against a CBI officer who had investigated the case and said the remarks made against the investigating agency and the officer would remain stayed.

In its petition, the ED has sought deletion of several paragraphs from the February 27 order passed by the Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts, contending that the remarks were “extraneous to the subject matter” of the proceedings and were recorded despite the federal anti-money laundering agency not being a party to the case.

The plea states that the impugned observations “would cause grave prejudice” to the ED’s ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice since the agency was not heard before the comments were made.

During the hearing, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing for one of the respondents on advance notice, submitted that the observations were made in the context of the merits of the case and were not directed personally against the ED.

Senior advocate N. Hariharan, also appearing for the respondents, argued that the federal anti-money laundering agency had taken portions of the judgment out of context.

“They have taken one paragraph from here and another from there. The entire judgment has to be seen in context,” the senior counsel said.

When ASG Raju urged the Delhi High Court to clarify that the trial court’s remarks should not be relied upon in future proceedings, counsel for the respondents opposed any interim order.

However, Justice Sharma said that no order had yet been passed in other proceedings and added that the Delhi High Court would decide the issue after hearing all parties.

“Nobody can stop me from passing an order. No one can dictate to me what order to pass. I will pass an order that I think is right,” the judge remarked. The matter will now be taken up for further hearing on March 19.

–IANS

pds/rad