New Delhi, March 7 (IANS): A Delhi court on Thursday issued fresh summons to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on ED's complaint.
This is ED's second complaint over non-compliance with the agency's summons issued to him in connection with a money laundering case related to the now-scrapped excise policy case.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra of Rouse Avenue Court put up the matter for hearing on March 16, when she is set to hear the ED's first complaint over the same matter as well.
The ACMM on February 17 granted a day's exemption from physical appearance to CM Kejriwal in connection with the first complaint filed by the ED over the same issue.
The fresh complaint pertains to "Kejriwal not abiding by the summons number 4 to 8", a source said.
The AAP convenor had requested the financial probe agency for a date after March 12 for questioning on the excise policy matter.
His response came after the ED issued summons to CM Kejriwal for the eighth time on February 27 and asked him to appear before it on March 4.
ACMM Malhotra had taken cognisance of the first complaint on February 7." The judge had then said, ".. summons are being issued to him to appear on February 17".
The ED, on January 31, issued summons to CM Kejriwal for the fifth time, and he was told to appear before it on February 2. The financial probe agency's complaint alleged that the CM intentionally did not want to obey the summons and kept on giving "lame excuses".
"If a high-ranking public functionary like him disobeyed the law, it would set a wrong example for the common man," the agency had said.
The ED had issued summons for the fourth time to CM Kejriwal on January 13, asking him to appear before it on January 18. On February 2, AAP said that CM Kejriwal did not appear before the ED for questioning, and also targeted the Central government. "Delhi CM and AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal will not appear before ED today either. The party calls the summons 'unlawful'. We will comply with the lawful summons," AAP had said.