Logo

Logo

Delhi excise case: Hyderabad businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai sent to judicial custody till April 3

Pillai was arrested on March 6, following his day-long questioning by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in the case.

Delhi excise case: Hyderabad businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai sent to judicial custody till April 3

(Representational Photo)

Delhi Court on Monday sent Hydrabad-based businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai to judicial custody till April 3 in connection with its ongoing probe in Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 money laundering case.

Pillai was arrested on March 6, following his day-long questioning by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in the case. The agency has so far arrested 11 persons in the case.

After Pillai’s arrest, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was also arrested by ED in the same case. Sisodia is presently on the ED remand.
ED last year filed its first chargesheet before Delhi Court in the excise policy money laundering case naming liquor businessman Sameer Mahandru as one of the accused.

Advertisement

The agency said it has so far undertaken nearly 200 search operations in this case after filing FIR after taking cognisance of a CBI case which was registered on the recommendation of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor.

The CBI inquiry was recommended on the findings of the Delhi chief secretary’s report filed in July showing prima facie violations of the GNCTD Act 1991, Transaction of Business Rules (ToBR)-1993, Delhi Excise Act-2009, and Delhi Excise Rules-2010, officials had said.

In October last, the ED had raided nearly three dozen locations in Delhi and Punjab following the arrest of Sameer Mahendru, Managing Director of Delhi’s Jor Bagh-based liquor distributor Indospirit Group, in the case and arrested later.

The ED and the CBI had alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Excise Policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority’s approval.

The beneficiaries diverted “illegal” gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection.

Advertisement