New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday informed the Rouse Avenue Court that it will file a fresh supplementary charge sheet as the investigation is still ongoing and a report will be filed after its completion, in alleged excise policy scam involving former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others.
The CBI responded to a query of special Judge MK Nagpal, where he asked the CBI whether the matter should be fixed for arguments on framing of charges.
Later, the Court adjourned the matter for September 20 and directed the CBI to give copies of the documents related to the charge sheet to all the accused.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Manish Sisodia was produced before the court physically to attend the proceedings,
Meanwhile, the Court allowed Manish Sisodia's application in regard to releasing money from the MLA fund for some development in his constituency. Manish Sisodia's application was not opposed by the CBI.
According to the CBI, Sisodia had played the most important and vital role in the criminal conspiracy and he had been deeply involved in the formulation as well as the implementation of the said policy to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the said conspiracy.
The payment of advance kickbacks of around Rs 90-100 crores was meant 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 are found 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, stated CBI.
Sisodia was arrested by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in an ongoing investigation of a case related to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the GNCTD.
Earlier, the trial court noted that the accused had joined the investigation of this case on two earlier occasions, 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. (ANI)
