New Delhi, March 3 -- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in its appeal challenging the decision to discharge all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy probe, including former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, has claimed that the judge Jitendra Singh conducted a "mini trial" and passed an order based on selective reading of the agency's case. CBI has asserted that the judge lacked basic understanding of the prosecution's case as a whole and the corresponding law at the stage of charge. It has termed the adverse remarks by Singh against the agency and its investigating officer in his February 27 order as "unwarranted and incomprehensible". Singh, last Friday, cleared Kejriwal, his then deputy Manish Sisodia, and 21 others of any wrongdoing in planning and executing the now-repealed 2021-22 excise policy. He observed in his judgement that the CBI material did not even disclose a prima facie case, let alone a grave suspicion. CBI moved the Delhi high court the same day challenging the decision. In the 974-page appeal, reviewed by HT, the agency has argued that the policy-level changes in the liquor policy in Delhi were not mere administrative decisions but were foundational acts in furtherance of "a pre-arranged quid pro quo", facilitated by the top leaders of the Delhi government and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). "There is unimpeachable evidence of senior bureaucrats to show the preconceived intent of Manish Sisodia and Arvind Kejriwal to formulate a tailor-made policy. These include privatisation of the wholesale mode, the incorporation of manufactured and procured comments in the form of public opinions, the non-inclusion of legal opinions asking for a status quo. There is ample digital evidence to support the same," the CBI appeal states. To be sure, Singh's judgement was clear that there was no evidence. "This court has no hesitation in holding that the material placed on record does not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion, against any of the accused persons. Accordingly, Accused Nos 1-23 are discharged of all the offences alleged against them in the present case," he had said. "Due to the absence of any admissible evidence, the prosecution case is rendered legally infirm, unsustainable and unfit to proceed any further in law," Singh had added. His order also rubbished notions of a conspiracy: "... the theory of an overarching conspiracy, so emphatically projected, stands completely dismantled when tested against the evidentiary record." But the CBI appeal claims Singh neither understood the case, nor followed the process. "While passing the impugned order, the special judge has essentially conducted a mini-trial dealing with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation. He has passed the order on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused," CBI claimed , while adding the decision is "patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face". "Not only does it fail to appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective, such failure on the part of the special judge has further led to passing of adverse remarks against the investigating agency, as well as the investigating officer, all of which are unwarranted and incomprehensible, to say the least," the agency added. The federal agency also alleged that the judge lacked understanding of its case. ".....special judge has completely ignored the basis of the conspiracy but has evaluated in detail small contradictions which is not even the case as laid out by the prosecution. In effect, the judge has formulated his own understanding of the individual roles of the accused in a completely different perspective. The observations in the impugned order bear testimony to the fact that the special judge lacks the basic understanding of the prosecution case as a whole and the corresponding law at the stage of charge". CBI has further argued that its case, "read as a whole, discloses a single, continuing criminal conspiracy beginning at the stage of formulation of the policy and culminating in the generation and utilisation of the kickbacks for Goa elections". But Singh said CBI's attempt to link its allegations to the Goa election rested more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material. In its appeal, CBI alleged "the conspiracy was conceived at the highest political level, where the policy framework was deliberately altered to create a private wholesale regime with an enhanced 12% margin from the existing 5% and also relaxed the turnover criteria, despite expert recommendations to the contrary." "The policy-level changes were not mere administrative decisions but were foundational acts in furtherance of a pre-arranged quid pro quo, facilitated by the top leaders of the Delhi government and AAP," it added. The Delhi high court will hear the CBI appeal on March 9....