Thinking Of Making AAP An Accused In Delhi Liquor Scam Case, ED Tells Supreme Court

In a major development in the Delhi liquor policy scam case, Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju told the Supreme Court that the Directorate of Enforcement is  contemplating making the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) an accused in the money laundering case and invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to probe the aspect of vicarious liability.

"We are contemplating making the Aam Aadmi Party an accused and invoking Section 70 to probe it additionally with respect to vicarious liability,"ASG SV Raju told a bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti which was hearing the bail applications filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the liquor policy scam.

"That will be a separate offence?" Justice Khanna sought more clarity.

"Same offence," ASG replied.

"Be careful with your statement. Will it be a separate or the same offence in the ED case? Answer it tomorrow. In the corruption case, it will certainly be a separate charge. Will it be a separate charge in CBI matter?" Justice Khanna asked.

"Charge may be separate, but offence would be same," ASG replied.  The bench asked the ASG to check up on this and clarify tomorrow. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, said that the ASG's statement was meant for the media.

"The last sentence by my learned friend - Your Lordships will see the effect in tomorrow's papers. That is the purpose," Singh protested. ASG objected to Singhvi's submission.

"If prosecutor tells Your Lordships - after one year of incarceration, when the bail is being argued, with 5 supplementary chargesheets, 500 witnesses, and 50,000 documents - that they now intend to make someone else [an accused]...", Singhvi said.

Justice Khanna clarified that the ASG's statement will not in anyway affect the decision regarding the bail of Sisodia.

"As far as last sentence is concerned, it will not affect our decision for the simple reason that we are dealing with chargesheet as [frozen]. It's not a case where they're saying he's been arrested in anticipation. Therefore, I put that question very clearly on whether it's the same offence or a new one. I'm not answering that because it will open up a..." Justice Khanna said as the bench rose for the day.

Two weeks ago, the bench, while hearing Sisodia's plea, had asked the ED why the AAP(without specifically naming it) was not added as an accused when it is alleged to be the beneficiary.

"As far as PMLA is concerned, your whole case is that it went to a political party. That political party is still not an accused. How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary, the political party is the beneficiary," Justice Khanna had asked then.