The case of Manish Sisodia versus CBI and DoE is not just a legal battle but also a matter of significant public interest.

Contents
Plus+

2023 (11) TMI 63 - Supreme Court

The case of Manish Sisodia versus the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) involves several key legal issues and allegations. Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, is appealing for bail in cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The CBI has filed two chargesheets against Sisodia under various sections of these acts.

Key Issues and Submissions

Constitutional Protection and Ministerial Decisions: The scope and protection under Articles 74 and 163 of the Constitution regarding decisions made by the Council of Ministers were questioned.
Interpretation of PML Act: The interpretation of Section 3 of the PML Act, particularly concerning the generation of proceeds of crime, and its legal implications under various legal frameworks, was a significant issue.
Prosecution Under PML Act: The question was raised whether a person can be prosecuted under the PML Act only if there is evidence of involvement in money laundering distinct from the scheduled offence.

Submissions by Manish Sisodia

Manish Sisodia's defense included the following points:

Sisodia has been in custody since February and March 2023 under different cases.
Large volumes of documents and witnesses are involved, indicating a lengthy trial process.
The new excise policy, central to the case, was adopted for public interest and involved significant changes from the old policy, including higher license fees and different operational zones for liquor sales.
Allegations of kickbacks for funding the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and election campaigns in Goa were labeled as unsupported and false.
Statements from co-accused and witnesses were claimed to be extracted under duress and thus unreliable.

Submissions by CBI and DoE

The prosecution argued:

The new excise policy led to significant profits for wholesale distributors, allegedly due to a conspiracy involving kickbacks and bribes.
The policy favored certain large distributors, leading to accusations of cartelization and undue profits.
Allegations of kickbacks involving significant sums were made, with claims that these funds were used for political purposes.
The prosecution contended that Sisodia was in constructive possession of the proceeds of crime and was integral to creating a system for generating and concealing these proceeds.

Court's Analysis

The court referred to specific legal provisions concerning bail under the PML Act , emphasizing that the findings for bail purposes are tentative and do not prejudice the trial's outcome. The court also noted the need to examine the allegations and legal positions to form an opinion.

Conclusion

The court recognized a clear ground in the complaint filed under the PML Act , supported by material and evidence. This involved the alleged proceeds of crime generated from the differential in wholesale profit margins and licensing fees under the new excise policy. The charge-sheet under the PoC Act included offences related to unlawful gains at the expense of the public exchequer.

The court finally stated that, "The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years.

In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months. If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment. Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant – Manish Sisodia may also file an application for interim bail in case of illhealth and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such application would be also examined on its own merits.

Recording the aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed."

Impact and Implications

The case's implications are significant, touching upon the integrity of public office, the efficacy of anti-corruption laws, and the accountability of high-ranking officials. The decision in this case could set a precedent for how corruption and money laundering allegations involving public policy and high-level officials are handled in the Indian legal system.

Full Text:

2023 (11) TMI 63 - Supreme Court