New Delhi: In the appeals of Former Chief Minister of State of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa and others three challenging judgment of their conviction in case of disproportionate assets of Rupees 66 crores, honorable Apex Court yesterday, ruled out a fresh hearing.
The decision was taken by honorable Supreme Court’s three- Judges bench in the case of Tamil Nadu’s Former CM, Jayalalithaa and others.
And the date fixed for verdict delivery in the plea of DMK’s leader K. Anbazhagan against the appointment Mr. Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor- SPP, is 27th of this month.
So far as the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh is concerned, Justice Dipak Misra’s led bench of honorable Apex Court, indicated that the same was ‘irregular procedure’, however, said irregularity is itself not warranted a de novo (fresh) hearing of appeals pending in the High Court of Karnataka. It is cleared by Justice Dipak Misra that though Mr. B. Singh’s appointment as SPP was bad and due to same he had no locus standi to argue his case, the same is not necessitating the fresh hearing.
Thus, it can be seen by the present stand of the Apex Court’s Bench being prima facie that the same stood behind the fact of relief for Former CM of Tamil Nadu, Ms. Jayalalithaa and a victory for DMK’s Leader, Mr. Anbazhagan.
It was permitted by the Bench of SC comprising Justice Misra that both the accused and DMK’s leader Mr. Anbazhagan can file any written submissions further before the judges of the High Court on this Monday, which will have to be scanned carefully by that Court.
The argument for DMK’s leader, Mr. Anbazhagan, that the Government of Tamil Nadu was not having any authority to make an appointment of Mr. Bhawani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor, was vindicated by the said Three- judges Bench of honorable Apex Court.
As observed by the Bench led by Justice Misra, no necessity was found for the honorable SC to go into any allegations put forwarded in the case and also even Justice Misra observed that there was no necessity for the Apex Court to examine the delay seen in the case and how for entire eighteen years the proceedings were dragged on by the prosecution.
by Faim Khalilkhan Pathan.