DMK general secretary K. Anbazhagan on Tuesday filed a petition before a special bench of the Karnataka High Court, seeking removal of Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh from the hearing on an appeal filed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa challenging her conviction in the disproportionate assets case.
As soon as the court began its second day of the day-to-day hearing, Mr. Anbazhagan’s counsel sought removal of Mr. Singh from presenting arguments as he alleged that the SPP was “sailing” with the accused and not presenting the facts properly.
“I plead before the court to take a step in replacing the SPP with some other prosecutor because he has not been presenting the facts relating to the case properly and is ’sailing’ with the accused (in this case Jayalalithaa and her aides),” Mr. Anbazhagan’s counsel submitted before Justice C.R. Kumraswamy in Bengaluru.
On Monday, Justice Kumaraswamy had directed Mr. Singh to file a counter in the next two days to the petition filed by Mr. Anbazhagan who sought permission before the special bench to intervene as party respondent to assist him in the case.
Mr. Singh had said that when complainant Subramanian Swamy presents his arguments in the case, there is no role for Mr. Anbazhagan and without him the courts had earlier passed orders.
Mr. Anbazhagan had also submitted that he had intervened before the appropriate courts at all stages of the trial “to ensure that justice is not derailed by powerful persons” who were tried for serious corruption charges.
Presenting arguments before the court, Jayalalithaa’s senior counsel B. Kumar submitted that the prosecution has inflated the value of luxurious properties, jewellery and money spent on her estranged foster son Vand co-convict V. N. Sudhakaran’s marriage ceremony.
All you need to about the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case:
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.