The special court trying the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has said that it is “shocking to note that even the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Chennai, and its officials had joined hands with the accused in misleading the court and suppressing material facts.”
“It amounts to a clear case of fraud on the court,” the special court said while recording its “strong disapproval.”
The DVAC, being a complainant, should have disclosed to the court the pendency before the Madras High Court of an appeal related to an order passed by a court in Chennai in 2000 attaching some property seized from the accused, John Michael Cunha, Judge of the Special Court, said. It was the DVAC’s duty “to keep the Special Public Prosecutor informed of the pendency of the appeal in the Madras High Court. But, unfortunately the DVAC appeared to have joined hands with the accused in keeping the Special Public Prosecutor and the special court in the dark about these developments.”
The judge was passing orders on pleas filed by the accused for postponing final arguments.
The special court noted that the DVAC had violated a direction of the Karnataka High Court, which had specifically said it was the Special Public Prosecutor who had to represent it before the court in the assets case. Instead, a prosecutor appointed by the Tamil Nadu government had represented the DVAC before the Madras High Court. The High Court on April 2, 2014, set aside an order of attachment passed by a court in Chennai in 2000, while directing the special court in Bangalore to reconsider the pleas of some firms [of which Ms. Jayalalithaa and the other accused were directors then].
The DVAC and its officials also failed to adhere to the special court’s direction to produce copies of representations filed on behalf of the accused before the Madras High Court, the judge said. This inaction “reinforces the conclusion that the DVAC and its officials concerned are guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty, for which legal action will be taken against them along with the accused at the time of the final judgment.”
