முதலில் தமிழக ஷேக்ஸ்பியரின் இந்த ஸ்டேட்மெண்ட்டை வாசியுங்கள்.. அடுத்து கமெண்ட் களாக எனது வாதங்களையும் இதில் இருக்கும் ஓட்டைகளையும் ஒவ்வொன்றாக வைக்கிறேன். Kalaignar Karunanidhi Statement about Disproportionate Assets case against #Jayalalitha. I am aware of the consequences of this statement. I have a firm faith that Justice will always prevail. The trial in the Disproportionate Assets Case against Jayalalithaa and others is going on in the Bangalore Special Court. In this case, Thiru Bhavani Singh was the Special Public Prosecutor. Before him, Thiru B.V. Acharya was the Special Public Prosecutor. A number of allegations were raised against Thiru B.V. Acharya by Jayalalithaa and others. When B.J.P. was in power in Karnataka State, a powerful group from Chennai started camping in Bangalore and worked against Thiru B.V. Acharya. As a consequence, Thiru B.V. Acharya resigned from the post of Special Public Prosecutor with a heavy heart. When the Resignation Letter of Thiru B.V. Acharya was sent to the then Chief Justice of the Katnataka High Court, Thiru Vikramjit Sen, he did not accept the resignation but instead persuaded Thiru Acharya to continue. After Thiru Vikramjit Sen went to the Supreme Court on elevation, the resignation of Thiru B.V. Acharya was readily accepted by then Acting Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Thiru Sridhar Rao. After the acceptance of resignation of Thiru B.V. Acharya from the post of Public Prosecutor, Thiru Bhavani Singh was posted in his place. 2 But his conduct was in support of the accused. After the close of examination of the defence witnesses, the Special Public Prose cutor should have put forth his arguments. On the contrary, Thiru B. Kumar, appearing for Jayalalithaa started putting forth his arguments which was not objected to by the Special Public Prosecutor. This strange procedure is not contemplated anywhere in the Criminal Procedure Code. When the case filed by accused Jayalalithaa was taken up for hearing in the Supreme Court, Senior Counsel Thiru Vahanavati, appearing for the Karnataka Government, informed the Supreme Court that Thiru Bhavani Singh was not at all recommended by the Karnataka Government for the post of Special Public Prosecutor and in fact the Karnataka Government had sent a panel of four senior lawyers so that the Chief Justice could choose one from the Panel. It was the Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court who had readily accepted the resignation of Thiru B.V. Acharya. But the same Acting Chief Justice appointed Thiru Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor at his own will and pleasure ignoring the panel recommended by the Karnataka Government. Thiru Nallama Naidu was originally the Investigating Officer in this case. Subsequently, Thiru Sambandam, Dy.S.P., took over charge as the Investigating Officer and deposed in the Special Court in support of the accused as a Defence Witness No. 99. This was not taken note of by the SPP Thiru Bhavani Singh. It is only the Court which can permit an Investigating Officer to depose as a Witness in the same case by summoning. Even this minimum requirement has been given a go-by and Thiru Sambandam Dy.S.P., was made to depose. Thiru Sambandam, an Officer of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was examined as a defence witness and made to mark documents in favour of the accused. To depose before the Court as a Defence Witness, Thiru Sambandam had not obtained permission from his higher-ups. The SPP who should have raised objection to this illegal procedure did not object and no cross-examination was conducted. The Judge of the Special Court had also permitted the examination. It was the same Mr. Sambandam who, bypassing the Special Public Prosecutor, filed an application before the Special Court seeking permission for further investigation of this case, after the change of Government in Tamil Nadu. The Karnataka High Court, on hearing the above issue, quashed the letter of further investigation to the Dy.S.P., who was working under the accused Jayalalithaa and the High Court also condemned the act of the Dy.S.P. in the pending trial. Thiru Bhavani Singh filed an application in the Special Court on 28-2-2013 seeking two months time to peruse the already examined 259 prosecution witnesses and thousands of documents, already marked. But till date no order has been passed on this application and no time as sought by SPP was given. Yet the SPP has not taken any efforts to go on appeal to the High Court. After witnessing all these unusual and strange developments in the Trial-Court, the General Secretary of the D.M.K. filed an application seeking permission to argue the case. But the TrialCourt Judge, Thiru Balakrishna, refused to allow for oral arguments but only permitted to submit written arguments. So far no order has been passed by the Trial Court on our prayer that Thiru Nallama Naidu, Original Investigating Officer should be recalled for examination. Quite Interestingly the gold ornaments which were seized from the accused are still kept in the Treasury of Chennai Reserve Bank. When trial in a Disproportionate Assets Case is taken up for hearing, the properties seized during investigation should be in the custody of the trial court. But so far the properties seized have not been secured and kept under the custody of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has also not passed any order in regard to securing the ornaments seized. The Judge of the Special Court seems to be in a hurry to deliver judgement in this case before the ornaments are brought to the Special Court. Probably, he may like to deliver the Judgement before his retirement. But it is not proper to deliver Judgement in this case before the ornaments are brought to the Court and inspected. On 23-8-2013, D.M.K. General Secretary, Prof: K. Anbazhagan filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court pleading for the change of SPP Thiru Bhavani Singh, on which Justice Bopanna ordered Notice to Law Department of the Karnataka High Court. The spirit of Supreme Court order transfering the Disproportionate Assets Case to Bangalore Special Court, was to ensure fair trial of this Case by the Karnataka High Court. Only because of such order, Karnataka High Court sent Notice to the Katnataka Government. On the same day, Karnataka State Government ordered change of Thiru Bhavani Singh. Although Karnataka Government issued order on 26th changing Bhavani Singh, he appeared in the Special Court on the 27th. As the Judge came to know of Karnataka Government changing him from the post of SPP., even as he was arguing the case, the Judge stopped the proceedings abruptly and left to his Chamber. Then Bhavani Singh exited from the Court and had consultations with the Lawyers of the accused. Look at this wonderful event! Is it not similar to the story of Tiger and Deer drinking water together in the same pond? Similarly the comedy of lawyers for accused and the Lawyer who has to argue against them having joint consultations was staged in the Bangalore Special Court. Had not the Karnataka Government changed Bhavani Singh, on 27th itself, he would have told the Court that he had completed argument of the Prosecution and the Judge also would have announced the date for prnouncing Judgement. The accused who had been dragging on this case by filing petition after petition ever since the case was transferred to Karnataka, took all efforts to complete the case expeditiously after Thiru Balakrishna was appointed as the new Special Court Judge. It may be inferred that only to deliver the Judgement before September 30, the day of his retirement, two months time sought by the SPP was not granted. The accused asked for examining 133 witnesses on their side. But after examining 99 witnesses, they suddenly reduced the number of witnesses. Even while the 99 witnesses were examined, SPP, Bhavani Singh did not make proper cross-examination. Though the accused side submitted only Xerox Copies of important documents, the Special Court Judge accepted them without any objection. This is violative of the rule that original documents should be submitted. The SPP who had to object the acceptance of Xerox Copies also did not bother about it. Even as Thiru Bhavani Singh announced on 28th, his intention to challenge the Karnataka Government’s order of removing him as SPP in the Supreme Court, the accused Jayalalithaa alone filed petition in the Supreme Court that the removal of SPP was unfair. What a fun! Jayalalithaa side went to the Supreme Court saying the change of the opposite side was wrong. It seems Senior Lawyers in the Supreme Court were laughing among themselves on witnessing the wonder of the accused filing case in the Supreme Court opposing the change of opposite side Lawyer. The Supreme Court ordered taking up the petition of Jayalalithaa for hearing on 30th itself. Accepting the plea of Jayalalithaa for stay of Karnataka Government Order, removing SPP Bhavani Singh, besides ruling that the new SPP should not be appointed in the place and sent notice directing Karnataka Government to file their counter on that Petition. When this case came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on 6-9-2013, the Counsel for Karnataka Government submitted that the decision to withdraw Thiru Bhavani Singh was taken because his appointment itself was not correct and they were prepared to appoint a new SPP in consultation with the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. Accepting the submission, the Judge ordered to appoint new SPP in consultation with the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. On10-9-2013, the Law Secretary on behalf of the Karnataka Government sends a letter to Bhavani Singh. In that Letter, it was informed , “As the Government of Karnataka was of the view that your appointment was not made in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in that the requirement of consultation has not been complied with, the Government withdrew your appointment..... In the circumstances the Government is of the view that it would be appropriate that pending consideration of the matter by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, you do not insist upon appearing before the Court in the aforesaid case as Special Public Prosecutor”. After Karnataka Government on 10th firmly told this, instead of Bhavani Singh deciding about further course of action, Jayalalithaa decided it. Again, Jayalalithaa filed petition in the Supreme Court on 13-9-2013 pleading for stay of the Karnataka Government Letter that Bhavani Singh should not appear in this case. Bhavani Singh is a Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government to argue against Jayalalithaa. Why should she be keen that he should continue in this case? The Supreme Court also accepted the plea of Jayalalithaa and ordered Stay for the Letter written by the Karnataka Government to Bhavani Singh. What was the argument for that advanced by Jayalalithaa side? I will write later about all those things. As a result of the interim stay of the Supreme Court, this case is due for hearing in the Special Court on 17th. In the meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court is to take up for hearing on 16th the petition filed on behalf of the D.M.K. against Bhavani Singh appearing in this case. Somehow, the Karnataka Special Court Judge, Thiru Balakrishna is to retire on 30th of this month, and therefore the accused desire that the Judgement should be delivered in this case before that date. The Judge also is keen on delivering judgement in this case before his retirement. In between there is a conflict! According to the birth-day of the Special Court Judge, he retired on 12th of this month but due to Government’s concession that if a person has to retire in the middle of a month, he could continue to serve till the last day of that month to enable him to receive pension, Judge Balakrishna can serve upto September 30th. But though he continues to serve till 30th of this month after his natural retirement day of 12th, he should not deliver important judgements is the Judicial norm. According to it, even though he continues to be the Judge till September 30th, the truth is that he cannot hereafter deliver Judgements in this case. Whether the Special Court Judge will abide by this norm and conduct this case is a question mark. Perarigner Anna wrote the famous Play “Needhi Devan Mayakkam” in which he himself acted. Accordingly whether Lord of Justice will swoon or stand-up? Even if the Lord of Justice swoons, I place the conditions in the final stage of this case before the people of the Nation, the True Judges.
Posted on: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 14:29:18 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015