Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging quashing of gift case against Jayalalithaa

Bench says the investigation and trial have taken several years

July 10, 2019 01:45 am | Updated 07:50 am IST - NEW DELHI

Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a Madras High Court judgment setting aside the “three lakh U.S. dollars gift case” against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and two others on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay at the investigation and trial stages.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi orally observed that several years have passed in the investigation and trial of the case.

In 2012, the Supreme Court issued notice to Jayalalithaa after the CBI said the High Court committed a serious error in not considering the various aspects in accordance with law. Besides Jayalalithaa, former Agriculture Minister K.A. Sengottaiyan and former Minister Azhagu Thirunavukkarasu, who were cited as accused for abetment, were issued notice.

Jayalalithaa, who passed away in December 2016, moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the proceedings mainly on grounds of delay in registering the FIR and filing the charge sheet. She also challenged an order of the Principal Judge for CBI cases dismissing her petition seeking discharge from the case.

Mr. Sengottaiyan and Mr. Thirunavukkarasu filed petitions in the High Court against the dismissal of their discharge applications by the trial court.

The CBI’s appeal is against the common judgment dated September 30, 2011. Its allegation against Jayalalithaa was that she received a remittance of $300,000 by way of a demand draft dated December 23, 1991, issued by Bankers Trust Company, New York, drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, St. Halia, Jersey.

The CBI contended that the issue came to the notice of the Income Tax department only in 1996 and was duly communicated to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary for taking action.

As such there was no delay. It contended that the High Court ought to have seen that as per the allegation in the FIR, a detailed investigation was to be conducted in the U.S., the U.K. and the UAE, and this exercise consumed considerable time for finalising the investigation.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.