Dear Editor,
The Delhi High Court has rightly held in the case of Manish Sisodia that non-recovery of cash is not prima facie proof for graft not having taken place. The court has pointed out to the statements of hawala dealers and other witnesses recorded during the course of the probe. The court has found that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case of commission of money laundering under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act against Sisodia. HC says the form of corruption which has the tendency of stealing legitimate resources of the poor ordinary people and giving it to the rich can be one of the worst. It is direct indictment of Sisodia when the court says that the new excise policy has “eradicated” the common and small-time businesses and gave the entire playing field in the liquor business to those who had “money, power and had created a cartel” on the basis of financial gains to those formulating a policy, which adds to the seriousness of the offence. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma desires the court to be called the thorns in the way of free-flowing corruption. Further, she says that it is a victory for the masses. If the liquor policy framed earlier had been correct, there would have been no need and hurry for Sisodia to backtrack and change it. Corrupt leaders know how to protect their illegally earned money. Now-a-days nobody is stupid to keep all the moneys at home. Past experience shows that the moneys hoarded in toilet and placed inside the bed have been recovered by the investigating agencies. Moneys made through unfair means are safely kept in the houses of their reliable relatives and friends. The cloths they choose to wear would not be as grand as a middle class family people wear. Technologies are coming to the support of people in possession of illegal wealth. The law must be allowed to take its own course. Just because Sisodia has been denied bail, no aspersion should be cast on the courts. If the court has been consistently denying bail to Sisodia, there is more to see than meets the eye. The CBI has sees conspiracy by Sisdodia. The court has observed that the liquor policy case involves commission of serious offence of corruption in public office and laundering which strikes at the heart of economic and social systems undermining the rule of law and eroding public trust in the institutions. The Supreme Court is also of the view that the transfer of money to the tune of Rs. 338 crore has been established. That is the reason for denial of bail. With so many minus points on the side of Sisodia, the AAP has been playing victim card. No party can take undue advantage of the situation unless there is some substance in the cases made out. The AAP has to blame itself for a situation of this kind it has landed in.
K.V. Seetharamaiah