A division bench of the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday adjourned to Thursday the hearing on DMK leader K. Anbazhagan's appeal questioning jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu government, in appointing G. Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor for the appeal filed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa, against her conviction in the disproportionate assets case.
Mr. Anbazhagan's plea came up before the Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kumar and Justice B. Veerappa after Chief Justice D.H. Waghela recused himself from the case on Thursday.
In his appeal, Mr. Anbazhagan questioned the January 19 order of single judge asking him to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on jurisdiction.
When the plea came up for hearing, the Bench pointed out an error in naming respondents in the appeal filed by Mr. Anbazhagan and adjourned hearing by asking his counsel to rectify the mistake.
Subramanian Swamy's plea
Meanwhile, the Special Bench of Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy heard the arguments of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on his plea to implead in the appeals filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa and others against their conviction in the DA case.
However, the counsel for Ms. Jayalalithaa opposed the plea saying that Dr. Swamy was not a party before the trial court during the trial.
Justice Kumaraswamy said that he would pass orders on Dr. Swamy's plea on Thursday.
Twists and Turns
- › The charges: Conspiracy: As CM, Jayalalithaa conspired with three others to acquire assets to the tune of Rs. 66.65 crore
- › Disproportionate Assets: The assets were disproportionate to her known income
- › Abetment: The other three abetted the offence by acting as benami owners of 32 private firms
- › Prosecution's take: Modus operandi was to deposit cash in benami firms’ accounts
- › Prosecution's take: The firms gave her address as theirs while opening accounts
- › Prosecution's take: Ms. Jayalalithaa spent crores of rupees on renovations and constructions, her foster son’s wedding and possessed huge quantity of jewellery.
- › Counter: Prosecution born and out of malice and vendetta, many illegalities and defects in investigation. She had sufficient income form legal sources. Others were not benamidars.
- › Counter: No material to show sarees, watches and footwear seized were bought during her tenure.
- › Counter: Income-Tax authorities and Tribunals have accepted their returns and valuation of assets.