New Delhi [India], The Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday granted time to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to file a reply filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on his two amendments against the summons issued to him. Summons Kejriwal on two complaints filed by ED, Special Judge Rakesh Sayal, after hearing the arguments of the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal, gave two weeks' time to file reply and argue the amendments, posted the matters for further hearing on 14 June. May has been listed, lawyers Rajeev Mohan, Mudit Jain, Mohd. Irshad appeared for Arvind Kejriwal, along with ED special public prosecutors NK Matta and Simon Benjamin. The lawyers said they could not get instructions from Kejriwal as he has been arrested in the Delhi Excise Policy case. They need two weeks' time to file their rejoinder and make arguments. The ED has already filed replies to two amendments challenging the issuance of summons on complaints filed by the agency in the Delhi Excise Policy case.Arvind Kejriwal has been arrested by ED on 21 March. He is in custody till May 7. The Rouse Avenue court had on March 15 refused to stay the summons issued to CM Arvind Kejriwal on complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Kejriwal has challenged the summons issued by the court after taking cognizance. In the first of the two complaints filed by the ED to evade the summons issued to him, Kejriwal's counsel senior advocate Ramesh Gupta had submitted that there was no defiance by Arvind Kejriwal.While a person can be summoned only if his non-appearance is deliberate, he responded to each summons and informed that he could not come due to responsibility as chief minister, the senior Gupta had argued. Senior counsel also argued that the revisionist was not served a show cause notice by the ED before filing these complaints. He is a public servant hence prior sanction was required to prosecute him which was not obtained, the senior advocate argued “I (Kejriwal) have not failed, I have mentioned the reasons for not appearing. I went to the CBI office in 2023. The purpose and reasons for calling me personally were not made clear by the ED,” the senior lawyer submitted.He also submitted that the summons were sent deliberately for the dates. On which he was busy in public works like budget preparation. The trial court did not consider my reply to the ED that "I cannot come due to public events like Budget. Can it be said to be deliberate?" Advocate Rajeev Mohan argued on the second revision moved by Kejriwal. This submission Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that the summons were issued by the lower court on the same day after taking cognizance.He also did not consider Kejriwal's replies to the summons issued by the ED. Kejriwal said there must be disobedience and intention to prosecute him under 174 CrPC. The trial court did not consider the aspect that I was being made a person and passed the order. The counsel argued confidentially. He further said that the trial court considered the version of the complainant as the gospel truth and ordered the summons without It was passed after careful consideration and with a judicial mind. The lawyer said that the word personal is not used for issuing summons as prescribed by the legislature. This form cannot be interpolated, "due to failure of justice an ordinary citizen is an accused before the court, judicial mind was not exercised by the court," Rajeev Mohan argued that there was an interpolation in the form, Which included the word personally. He said that a person cannot be called personally to present evidence.On the other hand, ASG SV Raju opposed the arguments of the lawyers of the accused and said whether the disobedience was deliberate or not is a matter for trial. This amendment is against the order of summoning, he said, adding that the ASG submitted that AD, DD and JD have the right to legally summon any person to produce evidence. If the evidence sought is not given, it amounts to willful disobedience, submitted ASG Raju. The summons were in compliance with the law. The ASG said that under PMLA any person can be summoned personally, this was deliberate disobedience as he had appeared in the CBI office in 2023 but did not want to appear in the ED office.He can travel to different states for campaigning but cannot come to the ED office for a day, he said. The ASG also argued that it does not matter whether you (Kejriwal) are called as a witness or an accused. I went. He said there was clear disobedience on the part of the revisionist, Kejriwal had challenged the summons in the sessions court saying there was no willful disobedience on his part and he had always given reasons which have not been disputed or found wrong till date . Kejriwal, through the petition, had sought direction to the sessions court to initiate proceedings before the trial court. The Enforcement Directorate had said that a second complaint has been filed against Arvind Kejriwal under section 190 (1) (A) CrPC r/w. 200 CrPC 197 r/w Section 174 IPC, 1860 r/w Section 63(4) PMLA, 2002 for non-appearance and non-compliance of Section 50, PMLA, 2002 In the first ED complaint, Rouse on February 7, 2024 Avenue Court Delhi Liquor Policy The Delhi Liquor Policy has also taken cognizance of the recent complaint of the Enforcement Directorate against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for not complying with the summons issued by the central probe agency in the money laundering case.According to ED, the agency wants to record Kejriwal's statement. Lieutenant Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena's move to order a probe into alleged irregularities in governance over issues such as the formulation of the policy, the meetings held before finalizing it and bribery allegations led to the cancellation of the policy. AAP has accused Saxena's predecessor Anil Baijal of botching the move by making some last-minute changes, resulting in lower than expected revenues. Manish Sisodia, who was the then Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the CBI on February 26.After several rounds of interrogation.