Wednesday, Aug 25, 2004
Wednesday, Aug 25, 2004 |
| National | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | National
By J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI, AUG. 24. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, has filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to recall the earlier orders shifting the two wealth cases against her and four others from a Chennai special court to a special court in Bangalore. While praying for the dismissal of the transfer petition (after the orders were recalled) filed by the DMK general secretary, K. Anbazhagan, she sought a stay of all further proceedings before the Bangalore special court till the apex court disposed of her curative petition. On a petition from Mr. Anbazhagan, the Supreme Court on November 18, 2003 directed the transfer of the two cases to Bangalore. However, Ms. Jayalalithaa filed an application seeking modification of the order and it was dismissed on February 17. Again she filed a petition seeking review of the order and this was also dismissed on April 28. It was only on Monday that the Supreme Court directed the Chennai special court to hand over the records and documents to the special court in Bangalore. The curative petition was filed the same day. Normally, curative petitions are heard by a five-Judge Bench.
`Miscarriage of justice'
In her petition, she said the transfer of the cases to Bangalore was unjustified and it would result in grave miscarriage of justice. She said allegations made by Mr. Anbazhagan were against the Public Prosecutor for not discharging his duties properly since as many as 76 witnesses were recalled and examined and 64 of them turned hostile and no effort was made by the Public Prosecutor to treat them as hostile. She said there was not a single allegation against the special judge who was conducting the trial. Further, to transfer the entire case from one State to another having a different language, particularly when most of the documents and depositions running to over 2,500 pages were in Tamil and when the 64 witnesses would be deposing before a special judge who did not know Tamil would be a serious miscarriage of justice. The special judge, Rajamanickam, who was conducting the trial in Chennai had retired and a new special judge had been appointed in his place. In such a situation, the ends of justice would be fully met if the court appointed a new Public Prosecutor and allowed the trial to be conducted in Chennai itself, she said. Since the points raised by her in the curative petition required to be argued at length, she might be granted oral hearing, otherwise grave prejudice would be caused to her, she said and prayed for an interim stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the petition.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
