Jayalalithaa case: SC will hear issue relating to SPP on April 21
A bench of justices comprising M.B. Lakur and R. Bhanumati gave a split verdict on April 15.
The
Supreme Court will hear on April 21 afresh the issue relating to the
removal of special public prosecutor, who is arguing before Karnataka
High Court the matter relating to the appeal of AIADMK chief Jayalalitha
in the disproportionate assets case.
A new bench
comprising justices Deepak Mishra, R.K. Aggarwal and P.C. Pant has been
set up after another bench of justices M.B. Lokur and R. Bhanumati gave
split verdict on April 15.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment