<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as to why the political party, which is alleged to be a beneficiary in the Delhi liquor policy scam, has not been made an accused in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).</p><p>The top court posed this query while hearing bail pleas of AAP leader and former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who is facing charges of money laundering and corruption for alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.</p><p>A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED and CBI, as far as PMLA is concerned, the whole case is that the money went to a political party and that the political party is still not an accused. </p><p>“How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary; the political party is the beneficiary," the bench asked Raju.</p><p>The bench said that the question was put as this was not a point which Sisodia's lawyer had raised directly. </p><p>"If, according to you, the party is the beneficiary of the scam, why it has not been made an accused," the bench asked Raju.</p>.Will deal with issue of immunity of lawmakers if criminality attached to acts: Supreme Court.<p>The bench also asked Raju how far the Cabinet notes can be triable, scrutinised by the court.</p><p>The court asked Raju to answer the questions on Thursday.</p><p>Arguing for Sisodia, senior advocate A M Singhvi submitted that not a single money trail has been found against his client and being a sitting MLA, he is not a flight risk. </p><p>"Everybody else has got bail. Unfortunately, in public life, there are some high value targets and they won't get bail," he submitted.</p><p>The ED has claimed a conspiracy, coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with the 'South Group', was hatched to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers. It was alleged that Nair was Sisodia's close associate.</p><p>Singhvi argued that there is no material to prove he was Sisodia’s agent and there is also no specific individual allegation against Sisodia. Rather, there's a vague allegation is that he assisted in the proceeds of crime but there is no money trail, the lawyer said. </p><p>The apex court was informed that in both cases by the CBI and ED, chargesheets have been filed.</p><p>During the hearing, the bench noted that as far as a policy decision is concerned, Prevention of Corruption Act will apply only if there is an element of bribery or quid pro quo. </p><p>The hearing in the matter would resume on Thursday.</p><p>Sisodia challenged the decisions of the Delhi High Court, rejecting his plea for bail in the cases being investigated by the CBI and the ED.</p><p>Sisodia was arrested on February 26, 2023. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as to why the political party, which is alleged to be a beneficiary in the Delhi liquor policy scam, has not been made an accused in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).</p><p>The top court posed this query while hearing bail pleas of AAP leader and former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who is facing charges of money laundering and corruption for alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.</p><p>A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED and CBI, as far as PMLA is concerned, the whole case is that the money went to a political party and that the political party is still not an accused. </p><p>“How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary; the political party is the beneficiary," the bench asked Raju.</p><p>The bench said that the question was put as this was not a point which Sisodia's lawyer had raised directly. </p><p>"If, according to you, the party is the beneficiary of the scam, why it has not been made an accused," the bench asked Raju.</p>.Will deal with issue of immunity of lawmakers if criminality attached to acts: Supreme Court.<p>The bench also asked Raju how far the Cabinet notes can be triable, scrutinised by the court.</p><p>The court asked Raju to answer the questions on Thursday.</p><p>Arguing for Sisodia, senior advocate A M Singhvi submitted that not a single money trail has been found against his client and being a sitting MLA, he is not a flight risk. </p><p>"Everybody else has got bail. Unfortunately, in public life, there are some high value targets and they won't get bail," he submitted.</p><p>The ED has claimed a conspiracy, coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with the 'South Group', was hatched to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers. It was alleged that Nair was Sisodia's close associate.</p><p>Singhvi argued that there is no material to prove he was Sisodia’s agent and there is also no specific individual allegation against Sisodia. Rather, there's a vague allegation is that he assisted in the proceeds of crime but there is no money trail, the lawyer said. </p><p>The apex court was informed that in both cases by the CBI and ED, chargesheets have been filed.</p><p>During the hearing, the bench noted that as far as a policy decision is concerned, Prevention of Corruption Act will apply only if there is an element of bribery or quid pro quo. </p><p>The hearing in the matter would resume on Thursday.</p><p>Sisodia challenged the decisions of the Delhi High Court, rejecting his plea for bail in the cases being investigated by the CBI and the ED.</p><p>Sisodia was arrested on February 26, 2023. </p>
