DMK leader K. Anbazhagan’s counsel on Wednesday alleged before the Karnataka High Court that G. Bhavani Singh has no authority in law to appear as the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the appeal filed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa against her conviction in the disproportionate assets case.
A submission in this regard was made before Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy, who has been specially assigned to hear the appeals filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa and three of her associates.
It claimed by Mr. Anbazhagan’s counsel that Mr. Singh was appointed as a SPP only for conduct of the trial by the Karnataka Government based on the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. However, the Karnataka Government has not appointed him as SPP as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) to represent the prosecution - Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
When Justice Kumaraswamy told the counsel that he (Mr. Anbazhagan) should take up the issue with the State government, the counsel replied that the representation given in this regard was not considered by the State.
When the judge asked Mr. Singh about his status, he said he was appointed as SPP by Karnataka Government to conduct the trial and after the trial was over the Tamil Nadu government has now authorised him to represent the DVAC in the appeals.
However, the Court said that the Special Bench was constituted to hear only the appeals arising out of trial court’s order of convicting Ms. Jayalalithaa and others, and told Mr. Anbazhagan’s counsel to approach the appropriate forum for airing their grievances.
Mr. Anbazhagan has already filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State to appoint a Senior Advocate as SPP to represent DVAC in place of Mr. Singh.
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 - January 07, 2015 06:46 pm IST
