Inspite Of No Material Aravind Kejriwal And Kavitha Portrayed As Principal Actors In Scam: Delhi Court
The court noted that the allegations were largely speculative and unsupported by material evidence to show that Kejriwal and Kavitha had attended any meeting in Delhi or in Hyderabad
Hyderabad: The Rouse Avenue courts at Delhi, while exonerating Telangana Jagruthi chief K. Kavitha in the alleged Delhi liquor scam case, held that the prosecution failed to establish even prima facie evidence that she had met either Arvind Kejriwal or Manish Sisodia, then heading the Delhi government, when the liquor police was being framed.
The court pointed out that the CBI, notwithstanding the absence of further material, had arrayed Kejriwal and Kavitha as principal actors operating through intermediaries. The only material that it had was the statement of Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy (Witness No. 225). According to him, when he met Kejriwal he was told that Kavitha would call him — “Thereafter, he (Kejriwal) told me that K. Kavitha, daughter of K. Chandrashekar Rao, the then chief minister of Telangana, would be contacting me in this regard', Sreenivasulu Reddy said, according to the CBI. Reddy is a liquor baron and currently the Ongole MP from the Telugu Desam.
The court pointed out that beyond this assertion, no circumstance, meeting, communication, or overt act was attributed to them jointly.
The court noted that the allegations were largely speculative and unsupported by material evidence to show that Kejriwal and Kavitha had attended any meeting in Delhi or in Hyderabad. The court said the prosecution lacked material to show that Kavitha met Sisodia during the relevant period.
The prosecution version was that Sreenivasulu Reddy visited the residence of Kavitha in March, where she allegedly stated that she had to arrange Rs 100 crore as “upfront money.” The court observed that the manner in which this allegation was presented suggested that, even before the alleged June meeting of co-conspirators, the arrangement stood settled. This would mean that one person had already anticipated a collective decision that was yet to take place, the court said.
The court observed that instead of strengthening the case by the prosecution, the introduction of Sreenivasulu Reddy and his son Raghav Magunta rendered the theory internally strained.
According to the prosecution, Kavitha played a central role in a criminal conspiracy and alleged that she acted as a political conduit for the so-called ‘South Group’ of liquor businessmen and demanded Rs 100 crore as “upfront money” to secure favourable policy provisions, including enhanced wholesale margins and relaxed eligibility criteria for L-1 licenses.
The prosecution relied heavily on the statements of Sreenivasulu Reddy and Raghav Magunta, who turned approver, and another approver Dinesh Arora, to assert that Rs 25 crore was paid in cash in two tranches at her instance through associates.
It was further alleged that her associates influenced policy drafting, including increasing the wholesaler margin from 5 per cent to 12 per cent. WhatsApp chats allegedly recovered from her associate were cited as evidence of policy “tweaking.”
The prosecution also alleged that Kavitha indirectly held a 32.5 per cent stake in M/s Indospirit through Arun Ramchandra Pillai, projected as her proxy. Additionally, two financial transactions were cited as instances of “recoupment” of bribe money. One of them was a Rs 14-crore land deal with an Aurobindo-linked entity, alleged to be a sham transaction. Another was a Rs 80-lakh CSR contribution made to Telangana Jagruthi, which was claimed to be disguised illegal gratification.
The court held that prima facie demand and payment linked to an official act were lacking in the allegations. On examining the record, the court found that no such foundational linkage existed.
The court found that the alleged Rs 14-crore land deal was never consummated; the agreement to sell did not result in transfer of property, and the advance amount was refunded. There was no evidence showing the funds were used unlawfully or connected to policy decisions. The court described the prosecution’s theory as conjectural.
Regarding the Rs 80-lakh CSR contribution, the court noted that it was made through regular banking channels, properly recorded in statutory books, and unsupported by evidence of demand, concealment, or personal benefit. It could not be treated as illegal gratification in the absence of corrupt intent.