|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Tuesday, October 16, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Southern States
| Previous
| Next
Benefit of procedural violations should go to Sasikalaa: counsel
By Our Special Correspondent
CHENNAI, OCT. 15. There were several procedural violations in the
prosecution of those accused in the TANSI land deal-Sasi
Enterprises case and the benefit of the violation should accrue
to the accused, counsel for Ms. Sasikalaa argued here today.
Placing his arguments before Mr. Justice N. Dinakar in the Madras
High Court, in appeals against the TANSI case conviction, counsel
Mr. N. Jothi noted that 47 documents which had been marked
exhibits by the (then) prosecution were xerox copies. These would
amount only to secondary evidence. The prosecution had not
explained how these documents came into its possession. The
investigating officer had not done this as per Section 91 of the
Cr.P.C. This was a procedural violation.
The prosecution must have discharged its onus under Section 65 of
the Evidence Act, explaining the grounds for replacing primary
evidence (originals of the exhibit documents) with secondary
evidence. Not doing so was another violation.
As per a 7-member Supreme Court judgment in the ``A.R. Antulay
case'', procedural violation would amount to a substantial
violation. This affected the liberty of the accused and thus her
fundamental right. Since the fundamental right was violated, no
further prejudice was needed to be shown by the accused, counsel
said.
Also, the trial judge stated all offences against Ms. Sasikalaa
had been proved only on the ground that she lived with A-1 (Ms.
Jayalalithaa) and that their firm had purchased the TANSI
Enamelled Wires property. This was not in consonance with the
established law and the finding of the judge was incorrect, as
there was no discussion on this point.
'Sasi Enterprises, highest bidder'
Earlier, Mr. V. A. Bobde, appearing for Ms. Jayalalithaa, argued
that the so-called meeting at which the decision to sell the
TANSI property to Sasi Enterprises was supposedly taken was held
on October 14, 1991, while the tenders were called even four days
earlier.
There were three tenderers including Sasi Enterprises, which
quoted the highest price, Rs.53 lakhs-plus for the land alone at
Rs.4.63 lakhs a ground. The building, plant, machinery and
materials within were all quoted at Rs. 10,25,000. This price was
later revised to Rs.10,25,400.
Mr. Bobde noted that the trial judge had stated the amount was
revised only to get the tender. Even assuming that the amount had
not been revised, Sasi Enterprises was still the highest bidder
for the TANSI property.
Later, counsel for all the other defendants confined themselves
to brief statements.
With the defence counsel closing their arguments, the Special
Prosecutor, Mr. K. V. Venkatapathy, will commence his arguments
on Wednesday.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Southern States Previous : Cyclone may cross coast today Next : Cold war brewing in AIADMK: Elangovan | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyright © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|