New Delhi [India], January 23 (ANI): After a Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday pronounced in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), acquitting former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in two cases where the ED failed to prove that the summons was served properly, AAP National Media Incharge Anurag Dhanda expressed that Kejriwal is 'proven right'.

Anurag Dhanda expressed, 'Once again, Arvind Kejriwal has proven to be right. Once again, ED and the BJP have proven to be wrong. ED's lies have been exposed. The Delhi Court has acquitted Arvind Kejriwal in two cases of ED. This clearly shows that what Arvind Kejriwal had said, that summons were wrongfully issued and it is politically motivated, stands correct. When the ED arrested Arvind Kejriwal, they had said that the arrest was made because Arvind Kejriwal was not appearing before them upon being summoned. Will the BJP apologise for its dirty political conspiracy?'

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was acquitted on Thursday in two cases linked to the alleged non-compliance with summons issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise policy case. The court refused to consider email service a valid or legal method of serving Summons.

The court held that the ED failed to prove that the summons was served properly. It also failed to show that Kejriwal intentionally avoided the summons.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal acquitted Kejriwal after considering the evidence and submissions of counsel.

The court also acquitted Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in one such case and discharged him in another similar matter linked with the investigation of the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case.

ED had filed four complaints against Kejriwal and Amanatullah Khan in 2024, alleging that they avoided the summons issued to them to join the investigation in the respective cases.

The court said that the complainant (ED) has failed to prove due service of summons against the accused in the absence of a supporting affidavit under the Evidence Act.

The court also said that the complainant had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There are procedural, legal, and factual challenges to the complainant's case, which do not allow this court to arrive at a conclusion of culpability of the accused. (ANI)