New Delhi: The former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has justified in the Supreme Court the clubbing of the two disproportionate assets cases against her and four others by a Karnataka special court.

In her response filed on Friday to DMK general secretary K. Anbazhagan's petition, she pointed out that the special court gave the direction for merging the cases for joint trial after holding that the charge sheet was filed in contravention of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ms. Jayalalithaa filed her response following an order passed by Registrar B. Sudheendra Kumar on Thursday that the matter be listed before a regular Bench after one week as service of notice (through newspaper publication and pasting of notice at the residence of Sasikalaa, one of the accused) had been completed. The others are yet to file their response.

Acting on Mr. Anbazhagan's petition, the apex court in August 2005 stayed the special court order clubbing the disproportionate assets and London Hotel cases against Ms. Jayalalithaa, Ms. Sasikalaa, V.N. Sudhagaran, Ilavarasi and T.T.V. Dinakaran and issued notice to them.

"Ploy to protract trial"

The petitioner contended that the clubbing of the cases was contrary to the directions issued by the apex court in November 2003, when it shifted them out of Chennai. He said the first wealth case against Ms. Jayalalithaa was in an advanced stage of trial compared to the London Hotel case. The plea by the accused for consolidation of the cases was a definite ploy to protract the trial.

After the consolidation, the accused asked for discharge from the case and the special court reserved ruling, the petitioner said and sought quashing of its June 27, 2005 order.

"Meddling at every stage"

Ms. Jayalalithaa said Mr. Anbazhagan's petition was actuated by oblique motives/mala fides and political vendetta. The special court passed the order for joint trial as it found that the check period of the two cases was the same and that both raised common questions arising out of the same transaction. The apex court should not entertain a petition at the instance of a political opponent, who, she alleged, was seeking to meddle in the proceedings at every stage.

Seeking dismissal of the petition, she said the facts would clearly establish a virtual mockery of the due process by the prosecution and undue pressure exerted by the powers that be at the material time to harass and embarrass her by registering a second First Information Report (in the London Hotel case) clandestinely and filing the second charge sheet based on the same in a different court.

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