The immediate fate of the 18-year-old disproportionate assets case against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa rests on a Supreme Court Bench led by the same judge who, three years ago, questioned the Tamil Nadu government’s intentions and wondered whether it was trying to make a “mockery” of the trial.
On Tuesday, a three-judge Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra will start hearing a reference on whether Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh exceeded his brief by appearing before the Karnataka HC in appeals filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa and others.
PTI adds:
DMK leader K. Anbazhagan had filed a petition seeking removal of the Special Public Prosecutor from appearing in the appeal filed before the high court.
On October 17, the apex court had granted conditional bail to Ms. Jayalalithaa who was sent to jail by a trial court on September 27.
The 66-year-old Ms. Jayalalithaa, who had moved the Supreme Court for bail on October 9 after being denied by the Karnataka High Court, had submitted that she had been sentenced to only four years jail and was suffering from various ailments as grounds for immediate relief.
The Special Court had held Ms. Jayalalithaa and three others guilty of corruption. The court had also slapped a fine of Rs. 100 crore on the AIADMK chief and Rs. 10 crore fine on each of the three other convicts.
Twists and Turns
- › The charges: Conspiracy: As CM, Jayalalithaa conspired with three others to acquire assets to the tune of Rs. 66.65 crore
- › Disproportionate Assets: The assets were disproportionate to her known income
- › Abetment: The other three abetted the offence by acting as benami owners of 32 private firms
- › Prosecution's take: Modus operandi was to deposit cash in benami firms’ accounts
- › Prosecution's take: The firms gave her address as theirs while opening accounts
- › Prosecution's take: Ms. Jayalalithaa spent crores of rupees on renovations and constructions, her foster son’s wedding and possessed huge quantity of jewellery.
- › Counter: Prosecution born and out of malice and vendetta, many illegalities and defects in investigation. She had sufficient income form legal sources. Others were not benamidars.
- › Counter: No material to show sarees, watches and footwear seized were bought during her tenure.
- › Counter: Income-Tax authorities and Tribunals have accepted their returns and valuation of assets.
Published - April 19, 2015 02:59 pm IST
