The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Karnataka High Court to put on hold its verdict on appeals filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and her co-accused in a Rs. 66.65-crore disproportionate assets case till April 15.
A Bench led by Justice Madan B. Lokur requested the Karnataka High Court to refrain from delivering the judgment until the apex court gave a final decision on a plea by DMK leader K. Anbazhagan for removal of Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh in the case.
Reserving Mr. Anbazhagan’s plea for final orders, Justice Lokur said his Bench would give its decision by April 15. The Karnataka High Court had reserved the appeals for final orders on March 11.
Mr. Anbazhagan, represented by senior advocate T.R. Andhyarujina and advocate V.G. Pragasam, had moved the Supreme Court on February 20 challenging two separate orders passed by the High Court.
In the first order on February 5, the High Court dismissed Mr. Anbazhagan’s plea to help the prosecution in the appeals while observing that he is a “political opponent” and has no statutory right.
On February 11, the High Court rejected his challenge against Mr. Singh’s authority as Special Public Prosecutor.
In his petition, Mr. Anbazhagan contended that the original notification of February 2, 2013 on appointment of Mr. Singh as prosecutor was limited to the trial stage and it cannot be “stretched” to include the appellate stage also.
Mr. Anbazhagan denied that his view was coloured by “political vendetta.”
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.
