BANGALORE: The Special Court hearing the "disproportionate wealth" case against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, and four others on Thursday warned the accused against their continued absence in court and said this could not be condoned in a criminal trial.

Rejecting an application by the fourth accused, K.J. Illavarasi, for adjournment, the Special Judge, A.S. Pachhapure, said that according to a recent judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, the absence of an accused in a criminal trial could not be condoned.

The Special Judge was referring to a judgment by a Bench comprising Justice B. Padmaraj and Justice Kumaraswamy, who were asked to give an opinion on a reference on whether ex parte trial was permissible and whether it could be conducted in the absence of an accused in a criminal case. The Bench had observed: "No criminal trial where the plea of the accused has to be recorded, the evidence has to be taken at the trial stage and the accused if found guilty will have to be convicted and sentenced could be effectively held in the absence of the accused." It said ex parte procedure as prescribed under the civil law is unknown to criminal law. The reference

was to a petition by McCharles (India) Ltd., Bangalore, in a case pertaining to the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Taking exception to an application for exemption being filed during every hearing by all the accused, the Judge said the exemption application from the first accused, Jayalalithaa, is understandable as she was a public servant and Chief Minister but not the applications from the other accused to remain absent during hearing.

He recalled that during the last hearing, counsel for the accused had promised to ensure the presence of their clients during subsequent hearings. He said the law knew how to secure the presence of the accused if they continued to remain absent.

The Judge told junior counsel for Ms. Illavarasi that this would be the last chance he would give to the accused to be present. He said warrants would be issued if she failed to turn up.

The Judge asked the Special Public Prosecutor, B.V. Acharya, whether he had obtained a copy of the judgment by Justice Padmaraj on the presence of the accused during a criminal trial. Mr. Acharya said he would place a copy of the order as soon as he obtained it.

When the Judge sought to know the charges against the first accused (Ms. Jayalalithaa) and the fifth accused (T.T.V. Dinakaran, Rajya Sabha member), Mr. Acharya said two additional charges would have to be framed against them and one charge against Mr. Dinakaran under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Asked about the exact amount involved in the purchase of hotels in London, Mr. Acharya said it was Rs. 39.5 crores at the current exchange rate for pounds sterling. He said the allegation against Mr. Dinakaran was that he had purchased two hotels in London in the name of a company floated by him. The prosecution intended to prove that the actual owner was Ms. Jayalalithaa. The court posted the case to August 2 for orders on charge and granted exemption to the accused.

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