With Karnataka High Court all set to give its verdict on May 11 on appeals filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and three others in a disproportionate assets case, prohibitory orders would be clamped around the court area on that day.
City Police Commissioner M.N. Reddi has directed imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC that bars any gathering in a radius of one kilometre around the High Court that comes under Vidana Soudha Police Station limits.
The orders will be in effect from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday as a precautionary step as thousands of Ms. Jayalalithaa’s followers are expected to come to the city from Tamil Nadu for the verdict, Mr. Reddi said.
Police said they suspect that there may be obstruction to public peace as well as to the movement of traffic in the city.
The Special Vacation Single Bench of Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy is scheduled to give the judgement at 11 a.m.
The trial court had sentenced Ms. Jayalalithaa and her close confidante Sasikala and two of her relatives, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran, also AIADMK chief’s disowned foster son, to four years in jail in September 27 last year. It had also imposed a hefty fine of Rs. 100 crore on Jayalalithaa and Rs. 10 crore each on the three others.
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.
