A special court in Delhi, which has taken cognisance of money laundering charges against Sameer Mahendru, one of the “kingpins” of the Delhi excise policy case registered and being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), hinted at a detailed probe into the role of many others, including Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader and chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao’s daughter Kalvakuntla Kavitha.
On the basis of oral and documentary evidence presented before him by the ED authorities, special judge of Delhi court M K Nagpal observed that the five accused — Sameer Mahandru, M/s Khao Gali Restaurants Pvt Ltd, M/s Bubbly Beverages Pvt Ltd, Indo Spirits and M/s Indo Spirit Distribution Ltd — were either directly or indirectly involved in the generation, concealment or possession of the proceeds of crime alleged in the case.
“Since sufficient grounds exist for proceeding further in the matter against all the above five accused, they are directed to be summoned to appear and face trial before this court for the above said offence,” the judge said.
He also observed that some further investigation with regard to the other persons/entities involved in the case and to trace out the balance proceeds of crime is still pending.
The court was hearing a prosecution complaint filed by the ED on November 26 that contained money laundering charges against the five accused.
In its charge sheet filed before the special court, the ED named Kavitha at least 28 times, as an associate of the prime accused in the case and how the team got monetary benefit from the case.
If the special court is convinced of her role, the ED might begin questioning of Kavitha and finally include her name in the charge sheet, sources said.
The CBI has already questioned her as a witness in the case and has proposed to question her again based on the documentary evidence.
The case details revealed that kickbacks through hawala channels were reportedly paid by a few persons in the liquor business from “South India” to some public servants of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and that of Delhi’s excise department to achieve the objectives of “monopoly and cartelisation” among liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers by violating its provisions.
The kickbacks were reportedly going to be returned to the “persons from South” either out of profit margins of the wholesalers or through credit notes issued by the wholesalers to the retail vends owned or controlled by those from the southern part of India.