Delhi excise case: CBI to file fresh supplementary charge sheet soon
Delhi excise case: CBI informed the Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday that the investigation into the alleged excise policy scam involving former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others is still ongoing and that a fresh supplementary charge sheet will be filed once it is completed.
The CBI responded to a question from special Judge MK Nagpal, who inquired whether the matter should be set for arguments on charge framing.
Later, the Court adjourned the case until September 20 and instructed the CBI to provide all of the accused with copies of the documents relating to the charge sheet.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Manish Sisodia was physically brought before the court to attend the proceedings. Meanwhile, the Court granted Manish Sisodia's application to release money from the MLA fund for some projects in his area. The CBI did not object to Manish Sisodia's application.
According to the CBI, Sisodia played the most crucial part in the criminal conspiracy, and he was deeply involved in both the development and implementation of the aforementioned policy to assure the achievement of the conspiracy's objectives.
According to CBI, the payment of advance kickbacks of around Rs 90-100 crores was intended for him and his other colleagues in the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and Rs 20-30 crores out of the above were discovered to have been routed through the co-accused Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally and approver Dinesh Arora and in turn, certain provisions of the excise policy were permitted to be tweaked and manipulated by the applicant to protect and preserve the interests of South liquor lobby and to ensure repayment of the kickbacks to the said lobby.
The CBI and the Enforcement Directorate arrested Sisodia as part of an ongoing probe into suspected irregularities in the development and implementation of the GNCTD's excise policy.
Previously, the trial court noted that the accused had previously participated in the investigation of this case, but he had failed to provide satisfactory answers to most of the questions put to him during his examination and interrogation, thus failing to legitimately explain the incriminating evidence which allegedly surfaced against him during the investigation.