ASG: 8 months have been spent on all this...asking for legible copies of documents etc.
J Viswanathan: Have you challenged the orders which directed grant of these documents?
J Gavai: Court directed all these applications to be taken on record. None was rejected on ground of being vexatious
ASG: I am saying it was done to delay trial. Stage was to apply for discharge. They insisted on unrelied documents
ASG: He gave an application for inspection of non-relied documents...supply of missing documents and legible copies...
J Gavai: You supplied only when they made application
ASG: Order dt. 05.01.2023...they asked for hard copies, even though they were given soft copies
ASG points to order in relation to co-accused
J Gavai: We are concerned with this accused (Sisodia)
J Viswanathan: The word 'frivolous' was not used in any order by the trial Court. Show us any order where the applications were said to be vexatious...intended to delay or take advantage
ASG answers
J Gavai: Only 40 applications were filed
ASG: Now it's 118
J Gavai: You can't argue something that's contrary to your counter
ASG refers to ED's counter-affidavit to show applications filed by Sisodia
J Viswanathan: Most of the applications were allowed
Bench: Show any order where it was said that applications were frivolous or intended to protract trial
ASG: They did not prefer discharge application...they gave applications mainly on unrelied documents. Those documents were not relevant for discharge
ASG: As far as delay, it has nothing to do with trial proceeding. Trial could have proceeded irrespective of whether there was further investigation. They prevented starting of trial. Chargesheet was filed on 4 May, 2023. Cognizance was taken.
ASG: Let me recapitulate. As far as merits, J Khanna's judgment is in my favor. They have accepted that merits have been dealt with by J Khanna. They have pleaded and submitted before courts that matter has to be heard only on delay