The former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Wednesday argued that DMK leader K. Anbazhagan’s petition to remove Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor in the appeal on the Rs.66.65 crore disproportionate case is not a “genuine plea.”
In a hearing before a Special Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and R. Banumathi, senior counsel Fali Nariman contended that Mr. Singh was no “intruder” in the case and he had in his favour a notification issued by the Karnataka government appointing him as Special Public Prosecutor. “No one can appoint or remove the SPP except Karnataka, and Karnataka has not made any move to withdraw the notification,” Mr. Nariman said.
The senior advocate argued that Mr. Singh’s appointment was in the “case” and not just the trial. “A criminal ‘case’ does not conclude with acquittal or conviction. The case includes the whole gamut – including appeal,” Mr. Nariman submitted.
He contended that the Karnataka government could have appointed someone else in Mr. Singh’s place, but did not do so. In fact, no questions were raised about his “eligibility or credibility,” he said.
Mr. Nariman contended that with no new appointment made and time running out fast with the Supreme Court's deadline to finish the appeal hearing in the Karnataka High Court by April 13, 2015 looming ahead, someone had to appear for the prosecuting agency and Mr. Singh did the job.
The apex court will continue to hear the case on April 7.
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.
Published - April 02, 2015 12:29 am IST
