The Karnataka High Court on Thursday ordered issue of notice to the Karnataka government on a petition seeking a direction to restrain advocate G. Bhavani Singh from appearing on behalf of the Prosecution in the appeal filed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa questioning her conviction in the disproportionate assets case.
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer passed the order on the petition filed by DMK leader K. Anbazhagan. The Court also ordered issue of notice to Mr. Singh, who was the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the assets case before the trial court during 2013-14.
Arguing for the petitioner, senior counsel C.V. Nagesh said that Mr. Singh “is no more SPP” as his role was restricted to trial of the case.
The authorisation given by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), Chennai, to Mr. Singh to represent it in the appeals, filed by the convicted persons, is illegal as the DVAC’s right to appointment a SPP or an advocate in the case was taken away the Supreme Court and the High Court on transfer of the case to Karnataka, he contended. “Only the State of Karnataka can appoint a SPP as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to represent the DVAC,” Mr. Nagesh claimed.
He pointed out that trial was transferred to Karnataka as the then AIADMK government-appointed SPP in Chennai was found in “collusion” with the accused, and the present authorisation to Mr. Singh also amounts to “collusion” as the present AIADMK government in Tamil Nadu is being run “under the guidance of Ms. Jayalalithaa.”
Meanwhile, it has been claimed in the petition that Mr. Singh did not actively conduct the trial as the trial court itself had observed in its verdict that “the learned Special P.P. merely read out the chief examination of the prosecution witnesses and summed up his arguments.”
It has been alleged in the petition that “at every possible opportunity he [Mr. Singh] acted in favour of the accused persons…”
Pointing out that the trial court had made several adverse remarks against Mr. Singh’s conduct as SPP, the petitioner said that the trial court refused to believe some claims made by Mr. Singh while terming them as “far from truth and unbelievable.”
The petitioner also stated that the trial court had imposed a fine of Rs. 65,000 on Mr. Singh for “purposefully delaying the trial” on medical reason.
