Home > News > PTI
Jayalalithaa assets case hearing adjourned
August 10, 2005 16:20 IST
The special court in Bangalore adjourned on Wenesday, the Rs 66.65 crore disproportionate assets case hearing against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa to August 26 in the wake of the Supreme Court order staying the joint trial.
The apex court, in its August 5 order, had stayed further proceedings in the case on a petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader K Anbazhagan, challenging the June 27 order of the special court clubbing the London Hotel case with the main assets case for a joint trial.
Special judge A S Pachhapure queried with the public prosecutor B V Acharya whether the Supreme Court order staying the trial had been communicated to him. Acharya replied that the Director of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Chennai had communicated to him in writing about the Supreme Court stay, but had not received the orders.
Jayalalithaa's counsel N Joyti said he had learnt about the stay through media reports. The Judge, on August 2, had reserved orders for Wednesday on applications filed by Jayalalithaa, Ilavarasi and T T V Dinkaran, seeking their discharge from the case and also on the plea of the prosecution for framing of additional charges following the consolidation of both the cases for joint trial.
Joyti filed replies to the memorandum filed by Acharya to the effect that the defence counsel had suppressed facts on a Madras high court order which had dismissed Jayalalithaa's petition challenging the sanction orders issued by the Governor to prosecute her.
Joyti, in his replies, alleged that the prosecution had filed the memo to "denigrate" the defence counsel. He maintained that the sanction to prosecute Jayalalithaa was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act since the petitioner is a public servant on the date of taking cognisance of the further additional facts (in the London Hotel case).
The Judge adjourned the hearing to August 26 after accepting applications moved by defence counsel seeking exemption from personal appearance of all the five accused.