Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Aug 06, 2005
Google


UniverCell Subscribe to Frontline

Front Page
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Front Page Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Assets cases against Jayalalithaa stayed

Legal Correspondent

DMK challenges Bangalore special court order clubbing wealth and London Hotel cases


  • First case in an advanced stage of trial
  • Cross-examination of defence witnesses over

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed until further orders all proceedings pending before the Bangalore special court in the disproportionate assets cases against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and four others.

    It was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam general secretary K. Anbazhagan, challenging the Bangalore court order clubbing the disproportionate assets case and the London Hotels case.

    A Bench, comprising Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice A.K. Mathur, issued notice to Ms. Jayalalithaa, N. Sasikalaa, V.N. Sudhakaran, Ilavarasi and T.T.V. Dinakaran.

    Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina said the special court's decision was contrary to the Supreme Court directions in November 2003 when it shifted the cases out of Chennai. Compared to the London Hotels case, the wealth case against Ms. Jayalalithaa was in an advanced stage. The plea for consolidation of the cases was a ploy to protract the trial. After the consolidation, the accused asked for discharge and the special court reserved orders, he said. If further proceedings were not stayed, the entire trial would become a mockery.

    In his SLP against the June 27 order, Mr. Anbazhagan said the special court committed a grave error, ordering the consolidation of the cases. Though the prosecution was permitted to make further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a different offence was made out on the basis of the evidence gathered and materials collected during further probe. Therefore, two first information reports could be filed against the same accused when there were rival versions of the same episode.

    The petitioner said the special court failed to take note of the fact that the application to club the cases was filed only to protract and frustrate the prosecution cases.

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



    Front Page

    News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
    Advts:
    Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |

  • Newyork Life

    Punjab National Bank Clasic Farm Plaza Realties TMB Ltd


    News Update


    The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
    Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

    Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu