Southern States - Tamil Nadu   

Only 4 cases remain before special court-I

By K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI MARCH 13. With one more case, relating to the ``fire service scam'', reaching the final arguments stage, only three other cases, including the relatively less known second ``disproportionate wealth case'' against Jayalalithaa, remain to be disposed of by special court-I.

On February 28, the apex court granted a stay in both the ``Rs.66.65-crore disproportionate wealth case'' against Ms. Jayalalithaa and the one pertaining to the London hotels, on a petition by the DMK general secretary, K. Anbazhagan, seeking transfer of the former outside Tamil Nadu for a fair trial.

The court has to adjudicate, besides these two cases, on the case relating to the ``SPIC disinvestment scam'', in which Ms. Jayalalithaa, the former Industries Secretary, C. Ramachandran, and the SPIC president and vice-chairman, A. C. Muthiah, have been cited as accused.

The question whether the wealth cases against Ms. Jayalalithaa should be combined and conducted as a single case or as two separate cases has not yet been decided. The charge sheet in the London hotels case was filed in the court of the Principal Sessions Judge by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption as early as on March 23, 2001. On a petition by the investigating agency, the court allowed the prosecution to conduct further investigation, though the progress was not known.

Meanwhile, when the court issued summons to the accused for their appearance, defence filed a petition before the High Court seeking to quash the summons and also transfer the case to the designated court for trial. In January last year, the High Court ordered the transfer of the case from the PSJ court to the special court and also said the case should be heard on a day-to-day basis and the trial completed within six months.

After the records relating to the case reached the special court, defence filed a petition, seeking copies of the documents in Tamil, which was allowed. On the plea that some copies furnished were not legible, defence moved the High Court. Though the charge sheet was filed nearly two years ago, no Special Public Prosecutor was appointed for the case.

One possible reason was the court had not decided whether the case, which had not been numbered by the special court yet, should be treated separately or clubbed with the other wealth case.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Cooperative mills going private
• DMK surprised at BJP conciliatory moves
• Quota for ex-servicemen in group B posts under TN study
• Vexed TV subscribers won't put up with cartels
• Left divided on attitude to DMK
• Charging flat rate only option
• Only 4 cases remain before special court-I
• Why amplify prayers, asks High Court
• Don't nag DMK, Naidu tells partymen
• Declare Tamil official language, CM tells Centre
• Palani women students still under `threat'

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu