Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court D.H. Waghela on Tuesday recused from hearing DMK leader Anbazhagan's plea on the row over appointment of G Bhavani Singh, special public prosecutor (SPP) in the appeal filed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa against her conviction in the disproportionate assets case.
This was after Mr. Singh's counsel said that the Chief Should not hear the case as he (Chief Justice Waghela) had on the administrative side had on earlier occasion given consent to Karnataka government's decision of removing Mr. Singh from the post of SPP. Later this decision of the Karnataka government was set aside by the Apex Court.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Waghela and Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri was since yesterday hearing Mr. Anbazhagan's appeal against a single judge bench order asking him to approach Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu's action of appointing Mr. Singh as SPP.
Mr. Singh's counsel had filed a memo for recusal of CJ in the morning and CJ recused from hearing in the afternoon when Mr. Singh's counsel insisted that CJ should not hear the plea whereas counsel representing other parties said that they have no object for CJ from hearing the plea.
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.