In a historic decision that has reverberated throughout Delhi’s legal and political spheres, a special court on February 27 cleared all 23 accused in the high-stakes CBI excise policy case, including prominent politicians and private company owners. The prosecution’s story of a “pre-planned conspiracy” was successfully demolished by the 600-page ruling, which was a rare pre-trial win for the defence in a complicated white-collar criminal investigation.In an exclusive interview with The Indian Express, Advocate Dhruv Gupta, who successfully represented the owner of the Indo Spirits Group, breaks down the court’s decision to “debunk” the testimony of the star witnesses of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He explains why this discharge is more than a mere technicality, why it serves as an “honourable exoneration” for his client, and the inevitable domino effect this ruling will have on the parallel money laundering probe being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Edited excerpts:Tell us about the case. What did the CBI allege against the accused, in particular your client, and what has the court held?Dhruv Gupta: The base allegation set up by the CBI in this case was that this Delhi Excise Policy or liquor policy of 2021-22 was fraught with mala fide.The policy was framed at the behest of certain private players, who allegedly paid advance bribes to the public servants — the then chief minister (Arvind Kejriwal) and the deputy chief minister (Manish Sisodia). In lieu of the advance money to the tune of Rs 9,200 crore, the policy was alleged to be tweaked and formulated in a manner that ultimately raised the profit margins of the players, who were granted licence to operate as wholesalers, from 5 per cent to 12 per cent. The escalated price would ultimately go to the kitty of these private players in lieu of the advanced kickbacks allegedly paid by them to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).Also Read | ‘No overarching conspiracy, criminal intent’: Delhi court discharges AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, Sisodia in excise policy ‘corruption’ caseTherefore, the allegation was over this entire formulation of policy, this entire modus operandi, the final licenses being granted to certain players and the ultimate routing of those benefits, (and that) the profit margins were used in the Goa political campaign.It was alleged to be a figment of conspiracy between the accused persons and therefore, they all had been roped in, and there were around 23 people in the CBI case and stemming out of the CBI case, there was a consequent ED prosecution as well. That money laundering case is a separate matter.Story continues below this adThere were a lot of common people and companies involved as accused persons. So this CBI case, which we call as the scheduled offence – the predicated offence on the basis of which the ED case was registered – this was at the stage of (framing) charges. At this stage, the court decides whether a case is liable to go to trial or not.In case the court comes to a conclusion that no case is made prima facie, it has to discharge all the accused persons and say no case for trial is made.Could you tell us how a discharge differs from an acquittal? What are the key findings of the court?Dhruv Gupta: Discharge happens before the trial. Fundamentally, the consequences of discharge vis-a-vis acquittal is the same. In layman’s language we can say, “I’ve been let off” in the case. But in a discharge, the stage is prior to trial. If nobody is discharged, charges are framed. Then we go for the trial, and ultimately, if after the trial, the testimonies are recorded and the court comes to a conclusion that no case is made, the person is acquitted.Story continues below this adAcquittal comes after the testimonies are required at the final stage. Discharge comes at the stage of pre-trial stage — whether the case is even liable to be sent to trial, where the witnesses would be called to prove their alleged statements in the court of law.Also Read | Excise Policy Case: Why Delhi court slammed CBI over approver statements while discharging Arvind Kejriwal and othersThen, ultimately at the final stage, the court would determine whether a case is made or not, and an acquittal or a conviction will happen. At the stage of discharge, the court has to see a prima facie view on the basis of the documents presented by the prosecuting agency. The defence version cannot be seen at this stage of the charge, and the window is quite limited vis-à-vis the stage of acquittal, where everything is evaluated to the hilt and even the defence version and everything else is taken into consideration.We were at this stage of charge and the court was of the opinion that this case is not liable to be sent even for a trial, let alone anything else.What are the key findings?Dhruv Gupta: The backbone of the CBI case was the testimonies of their two star witnesses – even the court used their terminology.Story continues below this adIn fact, I had used that terminology in my arguments as well. Two star witnesses, PW 20 and PW 226. There was one main chargesheet, and four supplementary chargesheets filed by the CBI in the case. So five chargesheets filed against 23 accused persons, and 374 relied upon documents of the CBI, which ran into about 40,000 pages.I call them star witnesses because, as per the case of CBI, they were the approvers.One of the excerpts, which the special court read out while pronouncing the judgment, was related to the approver’s testimony. The approver is like a friend of the accused. The law on approver-ship is that he admits his guilt, and at the same time, he shows the involvement of others.So courts often rely on the statements of approvers at the stage of final arguments to see whether a person is to be convicted or acquitted.Story continues below this ad Advocate Dhruv Gupta pointed out that the court debunked the CBI’s allegation that the liquor policy’s formulation was an alleged conspiracy between the accused persons and the public servants.The special judge in the present case held that even the versions given by the approvers, the two star witnesses cited by the CBI, did not hold the test of admissibility under law.The court said that their versions, which were allegedly implicating their role as well as the role of other accused persons, do not stand the scrutiny of law, and therefore, it could debunk their versions, given in their testimonies.The court said it will not go by the versions given in those testimonies. And this was one of the strong grounds, which of course breaks the backbone of the case set up by the prosecution.Secondly, the very allegation of the CBI, that this entire policy and their entire formulation was a mala fide act, an alleged conspiracy between accused persons and the public servants and the party, has been debunked by the court.Story continues below this adThe court categorically concluded that this whole policy was in accordance with law and documents filed by CBI do not show that this is a part of conspiracy. It only shows that this is a part of the process of repeated deliberations on the part of the person’s concerned, and there has been a policy shift from the old policy at that point of time.There were political heavyweights and private individuals, including your client, in the case. How did the CBI connect the political heavyweights with private individuals?Dhruv Gupta: I represented the owner of Indo Spirits Group (Sameer Mahendru), who was an accused in this case.The CBI alleged that the Indo Spirit group was given the licence to operate as an “L1″, which is a wholesaler in this Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22, for the reason that ‘advanced kickbacks’ had been given by this group as well as the other alleged conspirators of this group to the extent that “we pay you some advanced money, you get us the wholesale licence and then we recoup that money from the escalation of profit margin from 5% to 12%, and the advance which was given by the alleged conspirators initially to the public servants and other people, that was allegedly used by the party in the Goa campaign election.Story continues below this adExplained | Case against Kejriwal and Sisodia, now discharged in alleged Delhi liquor policy scamThat’s how they connected all the political people with the private players — the very policy being at the best of these private players, like Indo Spirits.The court held that in fact, the licenses of the retailers were given by a bidding process. There was an auction, and when the auction is not in dispute, how can you say that manufacturers were controlling the bidding process for retailers, and therefore, it was in violation of the policy?The case led to a huge political shift. Does the discharge exonerate the accused persons, including politicians, completely? What challenges do you foresee?Dhruv Gupta: This is a discharge on merits. It is not a discharge on a technical ground. The court wrote a judgment running into 600 pages.Story continues below this adI will definitely call it an honourable exoneration of each and every accused because the court, in fact, said repeatedly that it dealt independently with each and every allegation against each accused facing the trial in this case.Once the court has come to a conclusion that no case is made against anybody, the CBI, of course, has the option of challenging it in the higher court. Going with my past experience, usually the prosecuting agencies always throw a challenge before the higher courts.ICYMI | Six key faces in Delhi liquor scam case: Charges and clean chitIn this case, it has to be the Delhi High Court, where the territorial jurisdiction lies. Once they go up in challenge, we will have that option of arguing there as well.It is for the agency to take a call. But yes, going with my past experiences in white-collar crimes, that is something usually adopted.What happens to the ED case now?Dhruv Gupta: It is a fairly settled law starting from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which is what we call the ‘Bible’ of PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) matters. It governs the field as far as money laundering cases are concerned. The Supreme Court judgment is very clear, which has now been reiterated in a number of subsequent judgments all over the country by different high courts.It says once somebody is acquitted or discharged in the predicated offence, which is the CBI case in the present case, also called the scheduled offence, that person has to be absolved of the charges of money laundering as well. That is a settled principle of law.Now, of course, once we have been discharged in the predicate offence, it is bound to have repercussions on the money laundering case. It is a matter of time before we take this plea before the money laundering court, because that also happens before the same court. These CBI and money laundering cases are usually tried before the same special judge, and in this case, too, it is being tried by the same special judge.When that matter is taken up or somebody files a plea seeking discharge in the PMLA case, now in view of this present development, then it has to have some bearing, unless the verdict is reversed in the present case or to that extent some order to the contrary is passed.