Besides Ms. Sasikala, her nephew Sudhakaran and her sister-in-law Ilavarasi were also present before Special Court Judge John Michael Cunha

Advocate N. Jothi, who was earlier representing Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case, “did not give complete information to the present advocates…,” V.N. Sasikala, an accused in the case, told the Special Court in Bangalore on Monday.

Ms. Sasikala was answering the questions posed to her by the judge of the Special Court on the issue of “suppressing facts” about pendency of certain petitions related to the case before the Madras High Court since 2000.

“Advocates used to keep informing us of the developments of this case… They have also told us about petitions filed by five firms [of which Ms. Jayalalithaa and other accused were directors] claiming seized properties… Present advocates are appearing on record from 2009–10. Prior to it, advocate N. Jothi was representing us…” Ms. Sasikala stated.

“Mr. Jothi joined our political opponent — DMK — headed by M. Karunanadhi. DMK’s Anbazhagan was responsible for transfer of the case to Bangalore. Mr. Jothi, when retired from the [disproportionate assets] case, did not give complete information to the present advocates… Mr. Jothi was terminated during 2008 or 2009,” she said while replying to the court’s queries.

She also gave names of the advocates who represented them before the Madras High Court and the Special Court, while stating that advocate C. Manishankar was representing them now.

While the other accused, Ilavarasi denied having suppressed anything from the court, V.N. Sudhakaran adopted Ms. Sasikala’s statements.

‘Details given to SPP’

Meanwhile, G. Sambandam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Chennai, and in-charge investigating officer at present, told the court that the DVAC had given details of petition pending before the Madras High Court to the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP).

He was responding to the court’s query on “suppression of facts by the DVAC and its officer,” as SPP G. Bhavani Singh had told the court that he was not aware about the pendency of cases before the Madras High Court.

After recording statements of the accused, John Michael Cunha, judge of the Special Court, directed Mr. Sambandam to obtain certified copies of the representations, made on behalf of the accused before the Madras High Court, and produce documents before it within seven days to verify the statements by the accused.