The Hindu : Karnataka News : Court urged to reject plea to club wealth and hotels cases

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, May 29, 2005

Karnataka

Karnataka

Court urged to reject plea to club wealth and hotels cases

B.S. Ramesh

BANGALORE: The prosecution on Saturday urged the Special Court, which is hearing the disproportionate wealth cases against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, and other accused, to reject the application for clubbing the Rs. 66.65-crore wealth case and the London Hotels case.

The Special Public Prosecutor, B.V. Acharya, submitted that the application for clubbing had not been seriously perused by the accused, but had been virtually given up.

He said the application for clubbing the two cases was filed on February 11, 2002. But, till November 18, 2003 when the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the cases to Bangalore, it was never perused although Special CC. No. 7 of 1997 (Rs. 66.65-crore case) came up before the designated Chennai court on 95 occasions.

He said not only did the accused not press the application but had gone on with the trial in case, called 87 prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, examined two defence witnesses and argued the case for two days. The accused thus had waived the claim for clubbing and accepted that Special CC No. 2 of 2001 had to be tried as a separate case.

Even in the transfer petition before the Supreme Court, the accused never sought for clubbing the two cases, he said. Besides, the Supreme Court had treated the cases as distinct and separate. If they were to be clubbed now, it would not only violate the Supreme Court order but also wipe out all earlier proceedings, including examination of witnesses.

He said even on merit there was no justification for clubbing as the material on record had disclosed distinct and separate conspiracy. Evidences and witnesses in both the cases were different. Moreover, the second accused in the hotels case was not an accused in the first case.

It was only when the cases were transferred to Bangalore that the application was sought to be revived.

He said the debate on the issue was unnecessary as the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court had indicated that there were two cases. They had said there was no need for clubbing if there was progress in one case. He said the court could go into the issue of clubbing only at the stage of trial and not during pre-trial proceedings.

On the allegation that the prosecution had abused the law by filing a second First Information Report (FIR) in another court, Mr. Acharya said the Investigation Officer had done so as new FIRs could not be filled in courts designated to try special cases.

However, the Madras High Court on January 10, 2002 transferred the second FIR to the designated court, which was hearing the first case. However, it had not found fault with the second FIR.

He said another contention that the prosecution had violated the undertaking it had given to the court while obtaining Letters Rogatorio (LR) was untenable.

The undertaking that "it would be used in the case" meant cases relating to the disproportionate wealth cases involving Ms. Jayalalithaa. Since both the cases relate to the said evidence, there was no question of violating the undertaking.

Mr. Acharya said that he would rather go with the January 10, 2002 judgment of the Madras High Court rather than the opinion of the Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu.

Mr. Acharya was reacting to the remarks on Friday by N. Jothi, counsel for one of the accused, that the special public prosecutor was bound by the averments of the Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor of Tamil Nadu when they appeared for prosecution before the High Court.

Mr. Jothi had charged Mr. Acharya with impropriety and said the special public prosecutor should argue on the lines of his predecessors.

The special public prosecutor cannot advance new arguments on clubbing of the two cases as the Advocate General and the public prosecutor of Tamil Nadu had conceded it.

Moreover, they had agreed that the undertaking given to courts while obtaining Letters of Rogatorio (LR) could not be violated.

The Special Judge, A.S. Pachhapure, adjourned further hearing of the case to Saturday.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Karnataka