DMK general secretary K. Anbazhagan filed a petition in the Supreme Court on Tuesday seeking monitoring of the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, V.K. Sasikala and others on a day-to-day basis.
He alleged that the accused were bent upon derailing the trial.
A vacation Bench, while refusing to stay the trial in a Bangalore court, had issued notice to the State on a special leave petition filed by Ms. Sasikala seeking certain documents from the prosecution to enable her to reply questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The case is listed for further hearing on July 17.
Mr. Anbazhagan, on whose petition the Supreme Court transferred the case to Bangalore in November 2003, had filed the present application for impleadment in this case through advocate V.G. Pragasam. He said the proceedings in the trial court had reached the final stage. He apprehended that all attempts were now being made by Ms. Sasikala and the investigating agency to subvert the trial. He said that her prayer for perusal of court records 15 years after the proceedings commenced was frivolous and vexatious. Such an inspection and roving enquiry could not be granted in law.
A mere reading of Ms. Sasikala’s petition clearly showed the ulterior motive behind the prayer – to protract the proceedings, “which warrants summary dismissal”.
He said “free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but should be seen to have been done. The criminal trial should be free and fair. The applicant states that judicial fairness in the criminal justice system is at stake shaking the confidence of the public. The circumstances as recited are such as to create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public at large in general and the applicant in particular that there is every likelihood of failure of justice.”
Mr. Anbazhagan, expressing concern over the inordinate delay, said in November 2003 the Supreme Court, while transferring the case to Bangalore, had directed expeditious trial. But after the first accused Ms. Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister every attempt was being made to delay the trial and frustrate the order of this court.
“In view of the above conduct of the accused it is a fit case for monitoring of the trial by this court and conduct of day to day proceedings before the trial court, which has already been directed by this court in the transfer order dated November 18, 2003.”
In her petition, Ms. Sasikala had stated that she had already answered 599 questions by the prosecution and 1,000 more were expected. She said in order to answer these 1,000-odd questions, the defence needed certain documents which were part of the case, but were not being granted to the accused.
Mr. Anbazhagan pointed out that Ms. Sasikala had not cited the special public prosecutor B.V. Acharya who was appointed by the Supreme Court as a necessary respondent in the case. He wanted a direction that the SPP should also be heard in the matter.
