New Delhi: Former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia Thursday urged Delhi High Court to dismiss CBI’s revision petition against their discharge in the liquor policy case, arguing that the same was filed with “unprecedented haste” and in the “most unserious manner”.In separate applications, the AAP founders have questioned if the CBI plea was even maintainable as it failed to show any “perversity” in the trial court’s verdict, instead seeking to “re-examine” evidence.Arguing that in a revision plea, the court has limited scope to interfere, they called the agency’s case against them as “bare-shell” and “non-specific” in the revision plea. “The present revision petition was filed only within four hours of passing of the order of discharge, which manifestly shows non-appreciation of the findings of the special judge in the discharge judgment running into more than 500 pages,” the application highlights.“That due to filing of such bare-shell, omnibus and non-specific petition — a grave prejudice is caused to the respondent,” they said.Justice Manoj Jain is scheduled to hear on Aug 17 and 18 CBI’s petition assailing the trial court’s Feb 27 decision. On the last date of hearing, Justice Jain had granted a final opportunity to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, another AAP functionary, to respond to the plea within two weeks.Kejriwal and Sisodia asserted that the trial court discharged all accused after hearing the matter in detail for more than three months, but CBI had not pointed out any specific finding that was “perverse” or showed any irregularity, and merely pointed out “self-serving facts”.Kejriwal and Sisodia also emphasised, “The revision petition seeks re-narration and re-examination of evidence… The said exercise cannot be done in the revisional jurisdiction.”On Feb 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, ruling that the case was unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. In its nearly 1,000-page revision petition, CBI contended that the trial court had conducted a “mini-trial” at the stage of framing of charges and passed the discharge order on a “selective reading of the prosecution case”.
