Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya on Thursday recommended to the Karnataka government that an appeal be filed in the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court’s verdict acquitting AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa and three others in the disproportionate assets case.
“I have given my opinion to the government after going through the verdict. I have said that it is fit to appeal to the apex court,” Mr. Acharya said, refusing to divulge details of his legal opinion.
Tamil Nadu Bureau reports: Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, the original complainant, also said he would move the Supreme Court next month against the acquittal, if the Karnataka government did not do so by June 1.
The Karnataka High Court on May 11 had acquitted Ms. Jayalalithaa and three others for lack of evidence to prove charges that they had possessed disproportionate assets, to the value of Rs. 53.6 crore as held by a Special Court, which in its September 27, 2014 verdict had convicted and sentenced them to four-year imprisonment.
“The percentage of disproportionate assets is 8.12 per cent. It is relatively small. In the instant case, the disproportionate asset is less than 10 p.c. and it is within permissible limit.
“Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal,” Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy of the High Court had held in his verdict.
In response to a query on ‘the “glaring arithmetical error” committed by the High Court in its verdict, Mr. Acharya said the judge, who delivered the verdict, can’t “alter or review” it in view of the bar imposed under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 362 states that “…no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
“The High Court, going by the facts of this case, cannot have a relook into the verdict in the DA case,” Mr. Acharya said when asked about possibilities of the High Court correcting the “error” in computing loans, obtained by Ms. Jayalalithaa, her three aides, and their firms, from the nationalised banks that the High Court had treated as their “income.”
“Verdict can’t be altered or reviewed in view of the bar imposed under Sec.362 of the Cr.PC”
