Jayalalitha questions special court jurisdiction in SPIC case

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, MARCH 19. Trial in the `Rs. 28.29 crore-SPIC disinvestment case' did not commence today following petitions by the former Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalitha, and industrialist, Mr. A. C. Muthiah, cited as accused, questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Judge-I.

The former Chief Minister prayed to the court of the Special Judge, Mr. A. C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, that the issue of jurisdiction be referred to the High Court.

Ms. Jayalalitha contended that as per the G.O. of April 30, 1997, constituting the three Special Courts, the courts were intended only for cases investigated by State Government agencies-DVAC and CB-CID, Chennai. There was no mention of the CBI in the notification. One aspect was that whether the final report by the CBI could be filed before a court which was not constituted for trying cases probed by that agency. Except by the due process of law, no court could have any jurisdiction, nor anyone, however high, vest jurisdiction in a court. Section 190 Cr.P.C. (cognisance of offences by magistrates) was clear in stating that cognisance of any offence could be taken by a court only if it was empowered in this matter.

The orders of the Supreme Court last month (which gave the go- ahead for the trial in the case) did not state that these questions could not be gone into by the trial court, she submitted.

Mr. Muthiah also submitted that the State Government's notification was issued only in respect of cases investigated by the DVAC and CB-CID. The court should decide whether it had the jurisdiction to try the CBI case. Until the jurisdiction issue was resolved, any progress in the trial would amount to illegality.

During arguments, Ms. Jayalalitha's counsel submitted that there were separate courts to try cases filed by the CBI and State Government agencies. No notification had been issued empowering the Special Court-I to try CBI cases. The selection of the court by the I.O. in the case was not authorised under the law. The Special Court-I taking cognisance of the case was improper, he said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : TMC, Cong. will also participate in stir
Next     : AIFB warning to partymen