A Delhi court Friday discharged former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy Manish Sisodia, along with 21 others, in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) case in the alleged liquor policy scam. The ruling is a shot in the arm for the Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders, who were named as accused in a separate money laundering probe linked to the excise policy “scam”.An order discharging the accused essentially means that the court has not found enough material to proceed with a full-fledged trial. The court at this stage is essentially limiting itself to assessing whether the prosecution material, taken at face value to be true, actually discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and raises grave suspicion, as distinct from a mere suspicion. It is also an indictment of the investigative agency that brought in the charges.In the 598-page ruling, the CBI’s case fell apart on a number of grounds — from the nature of evidence and how it is presented to how policy decisions are examined when under a cloud of criminality.Also Read | ‘Premeditated, choreographed exercise’: Court throws out CBI case, discharges Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 othersProcedural integrity of policyThe prosecution’s case is that the excise policy was allegedly “manipulated and tweaked” with a preconceived design to extend undue benefit to certain private persons/entities described as the “South Group” and allied intermediaries.The court stated that it found no evidence to support this claim and, on the contrary, said the record establishes that the policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative exercise. The court noted that even though there was no statutory or constitutional mandate to obtain the suggestions of the Lieutenant-Governor, “the file notings unmistakably reflect that such suggestions were nevertheless sought, examined, and incorporated”.“De hors [without] any material indicating manipulation in policy formulation or corruption in implementation, such allegations fail to sustain. Even otherwise, upon independent scrutiny, this Court finds that the entire alleged chain of payments rests predominantly on so-called pauti entries of Angadia firms, documents which are inadmissible in law, and on approver-like statement which remains uncorroborated on material particulars. These infirmities are not peripheral; they strike at the very root of the prosecution case and render it unsustainable even at the threshold stage,” the court said.Bribery allegationsThe CBI’s allegation was that a Rs 100-crore bribe was paid as “upfront money” by the so-called South Group to the “beneficiaries” of the conspiracy. The court found this allegation to be a speculative construct devoid of admissible evidence.Story continues below this adThe allegation that parts of the alleged upfront money was received rests solely on the statement of an approver. However, the court noted that the approver did not directly name the accused in the initial statements and that there is no independent statement or documentary trail showing that the accused received any amount.“The version that he handled cash is wholly uncorroborated. In view of the “inconsistencies in statements” and “lack of corroboration, no inference of conspiracy can be drawn,” the court said. The CBI’s allegations on hawala transactions, the court said, “suffer from contradictions as to dates, amounts and instances.”The CBI had also alleged that the bribe was used for the AAP’s political campaign expenditure, including the Goa election campaign of 2022. The court, however, dismissed this allegation and said that any inquiry into campaign funding is solely the domain of the Election Commission of India. It said that the Prevention of Corruption Act or other stringent legislation cannot be used as a “device to convert political accusations into prosecutable offences.”Also Read | ‘Kejriwal went to jail … did the Gandhis?’: Delhi excise case verdict sparks AAP-Congress spatEvidentiary, procedural failuresThe court effectively junked the “prosecution’s theory (which) rests not on admissible material, but on layered assumptions.” The court criticised the CBI for providing “fragmented circumstances” while relying on the court to “join the dots” by “presumption”.Story continues below this adThe court also heavily criticised the prosecution’s reliance on uncorroborated and shifting statements of approvers and other “accomplice-like” witnesses. It noted that an approver’s statement cannot substitute for foundational facts. The court said that allegations of bribery by vendors/retailers only surfaced belatedly by an approver “only in statement recorded by the probe agency later, and not in the initial statement recorded before a magistrate/confessional statement.” This, the court said, calls for “heightened judicial caution” even at the preliminary stage since it effectively becomes an “improved” version of evidence.“…in the absence of independent corroboration on material particulars, reliance upon mutually reinforcing tainted statements would not satisfy the standard required even for proceeding to trial.”The “pauti” entries from Angadia firms (the alleged hawala transactions) that the CBI used to track the alleged money trail to Goa, were ruled inadmissible because they were loose pencil-written sheets and not part of bound, regularly maintained books of account. The court also said there were no recoveries, documents, or financial trails produced by the CBI to link the political leadership to the cash transfers directly.Also Read | Stand vindicated, Kejriwal dares PM Modi to hold immediate elections in DelhiCriticism of investigationThe court described the investigation as a “pre-meditated and choreographed exercise” where roles were retrospectively assigned by the CBI to fit a preconceived narrative. “What emerges instead is a troubling picture of an investigation steered by a preconceived outcome rather than by objective evaluation of evidence,” it said.Story continues below this adIt also recommended “appropriate departmental proceedings against the erring investigating officer” for “framing A-1 as an accused in the absence of any material against him…” A-1, or the first accused in the case, was Kuldeep Singh, a former excise department official.