The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Attachment of properties: DMK seeks stay on proceedings

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Attachment of properties: DMK seeks stay on proceedings

Special Correspondent

"Properties in question concerns the disproportionate wealth cases against Ms. Jayalalithaa, others"

CHENNAI: The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has sought a stay on all further proceedings in a small causes court, which is hearing petitions from Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and others seeking to lift the attachment of their properties.

Party general secretary K. Anbazhagan in his criminal original petition in the Madras High Court, said the properties in question had something to do with the disproportionate wealth cases against Ms. Jayalalithaa, N. Sasikalaa, V.N. Sudhagaran and J. Elavarasi. The properties were attached in February 1997.

In November 2003, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the wealth cases to a Special Court in Bangalore, the DMK leader said, adding that the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court here had no jurisdiction to proceed with the latest petitions from Ms. Jayalalithaa and others.

"The main reason for the transfer was that there was strong indication that the process of justice was subverted and the Public Prosecutor appointed by the present Government in Tamil Nadu was hand-in-glove with the accused, thereby creating a reasonable apprehension of the likelihood of failure of justice in the minds of the public at large," Mr. Anbazhagan said.

After that order, no law officer appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu, in whatever capacity, is competent to represent the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in any court in connection with this case, he contended.

Beyond jurisdiction

Referring to the pending petitions, the DMK leader said: "the proceeding pending before the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court in Chennai is totally beyond his jurisdiction as only the Special Court in Bangalore is competent to hear any petition under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance after the offence has been taken cognisance of."

According to him, no law officer, except the Special Public Prosecutor, is competent to represent the DVAC in any connected proceedings. He further contended that the proceedings in the Small Causes Court were taking place without any consultation with the Special Public Prosecutor. "The DVAC is colluding with the accused by avoiding consultation with the Special Public Prosecutor," he alleged.

"Grave prejudice"

Apprehending that "grave prejudice and irreparable loss will be caused if the proceedings continued before the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court," Mr. Anbazhagan prayed for an interim stay of all further proceedings in the matter.

He also submitted that it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

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