Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Google



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

New Delhi Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Jayalalithaa moves apex court against High Court order in wealth case

J. Venkatesan


Jayalalithaa says the case has been transferred at the instance of her political opponent

She alleges that the proceedings were a tool of harassment against her


New Delhi: AIADMK general secretary J. Jayalalithaa on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Karnataka High Court's order declining to quash the proceedings in the disproportionate assets case.

She assailed the March 10 order rejecting her plea for quashing the trial even as the trial court had issued directions for recall and examination of 42 witnesses by the prosecution between March 18 and 27.

She said she was innocent and had not committed the offences alleged against her and the charge sheet did not make out any case. The special judge, Chennai, had mechanically taken cognisance of the charge sheet on June 5, 1997 without application of mind, she said.

Ms. Jayalalithaa pointed out that the case had been transferred at the instance of her political opponent (DMK Minister K. Anbazhagan) from Tamil Nadu. The illegality of the order passed by the special judge in June 1997 was an inherent defect which could be raised at any time.

She pointed out that the conclusions of the High Court was unsustainable as it had not squarely addressed the specific issue raised by her, viz while charge sheet mentioned three distinct offences, the special judge's order taking cognisance only the charges in respect of conspiracy and abetment. It was thus patent and obvious that the charge in respect of alleged possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act was not taken cognisance.

She said that she could not be compelled to go through a trial based on a patently wrong order. She alleged that the entire proceedings were a tool of harassment against her. She said directions had been issued by the trial court to examine 42 witnesses and it was essential that the proceedings be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

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



New Delhi

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


News Update



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

Copyright © 2010, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu