The Hindu : New Delhi News : Final hearing on pleas opposing clubbing of wealth cases on July 29

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 03, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

Final hearing on pleas opposing clubbing of wealth cases on July 29

J. Venkatesan

Bench informed that pleadings had been completed
Petitions filed by DMK general secretary
K. Anbazhagan

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday posted for July 29, final hearing on petitions filed by DMK general secretary K. Anbazhagan opposing clubbing of two disproportionate assets cases against former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and four others by a trial court in Bangalore.

A Bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice G.S. Singhvi took the decision on being informed that pleadings had been completed. Besides Ms. Jayalalithaa, the accused in the cases are her aide Sasikala, Ilavarasi, T.T.V. Dinakaran and V.N. Sudakaran.

Senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, appearing for Mr. Anbazhagan, said the matter was pending for more than three years after the Supreme Court ordered that the trial be shifted from a Chennai court to Bangalore.

Urgent consideration

It required urgent consideration and could be heard in July. Additional Solicitor-General Vikas Singh, appearing for Tamil Nadu, sought permission to file additional documents.

No locus standi

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Ms. Jayalalithaa, submitted that Mr. Anbazhagan had no locus standi to file the petitions and that he wanted to derive political mileage by filing these petitions.

Senior counsel Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Ms. Sasikala, pointed out that the appeals were filed directly against the trial court’s order, bypassing the High Court.

Acting on a petition from Mr. Anbazhagan, the Supreme Court, in August 2005, stayed the operation of an order passed by the Bangalore special court clubbing the disproportionate assets and London Hotel cases against Ms. Jayalalithaa and others.

In her counter, Ms. Jayalalithaa justified the clubbing of the cases for joint trial.

The special court, she said, had ordered that the cases be merged after holding that the filing of the charge sheet was done in contravention of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

She said the special court had passed the order for joint trial since it found that the check period of the cases was the same, and that both raised common questions stemming from the same transaction. The Supreme 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.

Mockery

Seeking dismissal of Mr. Anbazhagan’s petition, she said the facts would establish how the prosecution had made a mockery of the due process and how the powers that be had exerted pressure to harass and embarrass her by clandestinely registering a second First Information Report (in the London Hotel case), and by filing the second charge sheet based on the same facts in a different court.

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

New Delhi