Citing the latest attempts made by Jayalalitha and others to drag the Disproportionate Assets case against them, DMK President Kalaignar asked just as the saying ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ would not justice delayed amount to justice deterred (prevented).
In his epistle to party cadre on June 8, Kalaignar said that he was not generally accustomed to criticising courts and judgements delivered by judges. But it was not only himself but the whole country was witnessing to what extent Jayalalitha side was respecting courts and how they manipulated judicial process and rules of law to fulfil their selfish motives.
If even after the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice S. N. Variava and Justice H. K. Sema on 18.11.2003 observing in their judgement, “It is clear to what extent the public prosecutor has functioned in collusion with the accused ..it appears that process of justice is being subverted... The circumstances are such that it would create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public, at large, in general, and the petitioner, in particular, that there is every likelihood of failure of justice. Justice is being diverted and subverted. The trial should be conducted on day-to-day basis,” the trial has not come to an end, it shows to what extent the accused made limitless attempts to drag and delay the trial for their escape and to a great extent achieved their objective.
Though the present judge of the special court John Michael D Cunha fuctioned with duty consciousness to expeditiously complete the trial, deliver judgement and protect legal norms, so many efforts were being made to indefinitely postpone final judgement.
With his explaining how they were getting adjournments after adjournments to escape in this case, in this epistle Kalaignar said he was giving details of their attempts to postpone judgement in the final stage.
After keeping quite all these 15 years, the firm Lex Properties Development Private Limited moved the Bangalore special court in March last when the trial was about to be completed and judgement was to be delivered, to relieve them from this case and till their petition was heard and disposed the trial in the main case should be stayed. That is there demand was that not only releasing their properties attached but also the trial against Jayalalitha should be stayed!
The judge accepted their petition demand for releasing the attached properties bur dismissed the plea for stay on trial. On their appeal against this order in the Karnataka High Court, the judge Justice Sathyanarayanan observed in his order that it was only for expeditiously complete the trial that the special court was set up vide Supreme Court guidelines which also insisted on trial on daily basis. But several petitions were being filed with the intention of dragging the trial. The demand for release of attached properties was not acceptable and hence dismissed. Moreover the fine of Rs.10,000 imposed by the special court for wasting the time of the court was insufficient and hence it was increased to Rs.One lakh which should be remitted within 15 days.
The same company had earlier moved the court for relieving them from the case which was dismissed. But even after the special court and the Karnataka High Court dismissed their plea for stay of the trial in the main case, the company moved the Supreme Court which was dismissed May 8 by a bench consisting of Justices B.S.Chauhan, J. Chellameswar and M.Y. Iqbal and pulled up the firm for working to stall the trial.
To further drag the trial Jayalalitha’s lawyer P.Kumar filed a petition in the special court and argued that the petition regarding the firms should be taken up first on the basis of Madras High Court judge Aruna Jagadeesan on April 2 directing the trial court to give preference to the plea of companies included in the case for relieving them staying the trial in the main case till they were disposed, and only after the ownership of these companies were ascertained they (Jayalalitha’s side) could prove against the charges framed against them.
In his order on this petition on May 7, the special court judge Cunha clarified that ‘their petition had already been admitted. But the plea for stay of the trial in the main case till the disposal of this petition could not be accepted. Both cases will be heard simultaneously and before delivering judgement in the main case, order on this petition will be passed”.
But despite this, a director of the company filed a petition in the Supreme Court against attachment of properties of Lex Properties and demanded stay of the main case till it was disposed. The bench consisting of Justices B.S.Chauhan and A.K. Sikri on May 13 refused to order interim stay for the main case and posted hearing on May 26. But the same bench on June 26 ordered interim stay on the trial in assets case and ordered the DVAP DGP to file counter affidavit on Jayalalitha’s petition.
“Don’t we know what sort of counter affidavit the DVAP under the control of the Tamil Nadu government will file? But the DVAP without filing the counter on the due date of June 6 had sought more time in the Supreme Court.
In the meanwhile, DMK General Secretary Prof K. Anbazhagan filed a petition against the interim stay for the trial of the case, and during the hearing on the petition on June 6, senior counsel Shanmugasundaram submitted that it was not correct to order stay without hearing the Special Public Prosecutor. But the DVAP, which should have opposed the interim stay, pressed for further postponement of the trial. The SC judges refused to post the case for four more weeks, directed Jayalalitha side to file counter to the petition of Prof K. Anbazhagan before June 13 and again postponed the trial in the case till June 16. “On witnessing this, if people are reminded of the saying “f§ifæny Kis¤jhY« ngŒ¢ Riu¡fhŒ ešy Riu¡fhŒ MfhJ” (Even if sprouted in Ganges river, the devil bottle-gourd will not become good bottle-gourd”), I am not responsible for it”, Kalaignar said.
Somehow, the trial in the assets case has been adjourned by the Supreme Court for ten more days, resented Kalaignar.
As the accused were delaying their final arguments despite the court directing them to do so and as they didn’t come forward to begin their final arguments on May 26, judge Cunha pulled up them and posted the hearing at 3 pm on the day ordering the accused Sasikala and Ilavarasi to stand in the accused box in the court till then.
About this ‘The Times of India’ daily published a lengthy news analysis on May 26 under the caption “Wealth case casts shadow over Jaya’s power surge”, Kalaignar noted.
In another news analysis in “India Today’ (Tamil) June 4 issue under the heading ‘Nearing verdict day’ it was reported that the verdict in this case was expected to be delivered before the end of this year.
In the meanwhile, in another petition the Jayalalitha side had contended that it was wrong for the investigation officer Nallamma Naidu to attach properties. Judge Cunha dismissed the petition on June 4 and in his order said, “The argument of the accused that the investigation officer had no power to attach properties is not acceptable; moreover, having filed over hundred petitions from 1999 till now, did the accused were reminded only now that the investigating officer has now powers for attaching properties? It is very clear that this is an attempt to drag the case”.
“I hope all these will provide good explanations to show how the trial in the disproportionate assets case is being dragged. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is the saying. Will not delayed justice amount to deterred (prevented).
In his epistle to party cadre on June 8, Kalaignar said that he was not generally accustomed to criticising courts and judgements delivered by judges. But it was not only himself but the whole country was witnessing to what extent Jayalalitha side was respecting courts and how they manipulated judicial process and rules of law to fulfil their selfish motives.
If even after the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice S. N. Variava and Justice H. K. Sema on 18.11.2003 observing in their judgement, “It is clear to what extent the public prosecutor has functioned in collusion with the accused ..it appears that process of justice is being subverted... The circumstances are such that it would create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public, at large, in general, and the petitioner, in particular, that there is every likelihood of failure of justice. Justice is being diverted and subverted. The trial should be conducted on day-to-day basis,” the trial has not come to an end, it shows to what extent the accused made limitless attempts to drag and delay the trial for their escape and to a great extent achieved their objective.
Though the present judge of the special court John Michael D Cunha fuctioned with duty consciousness to expeditiously complete the trial, deliver judgement and protect legal norms, so many efforts were being made to indefinitely postpone final judgement.
With his explaining how they were getting adjournments after adjournments to escape in this case, in this epistle Kalaignar said he was giving details of their attempts to postpone judgement in the final stage.
After keeping quite all these 15 years, the firm Lex Properties Development Private Limited moved the Bangalore special court in March last when the trial was about to be completed and judgement was to be delivered, to relieve them from this case and till their petition was heard and disposed the trial in the main case should be stayed. That is there demand was that not only releasing their properties attached but also the trial against Jayalalitha should be stayed!
The judge accepted their petition demand for releasing the attached properties bur dismissed the plea for stay on trial. On their appeal against this order in the Karnataka High Court, the judge Justice Sathyanarayanan observed in his order that it was only for expeditiously complete the trial that the special court was set up vide Supreme Court guidelines which also insisted on trial on daily basis. But several petitions were being filed with the intention of dragging the trial. The demand for release of attached properties was not acceptable and hence dismissed. Moreover the fine of Rs.10,000 imposed by the special court for wasting the time of the court was insufficient and hence it was increased to Rs.One lakh which should be remitted within 15 days.
The same company had earlier moved the court for relieving them from the case which was dismissed. But even after the special court and the Karnataka High Court dismissed their plea for stay of the trial in the main case, the company moved the Supreme Court which was dismissed May 8 by a bench consisting of Justices B.S.Chauhan, J. Chellameswar and M.Y. Iqbal and pulled up the firm for working to stall the trial.
To further drag the trial Jayalalitha’s lawyer P.Kumar filed a petition in the special court and argued that the petition regarding the firms should be taken up first on the basis of Madras High Court judge Aruna Jagadeesan on April 2 directing the trial court to give preference to the plea of companies included in the case for relieving them staying the trial in the main case till they were disposed, and only after the ownership of these companies were ascertained they (Jayalalitha’s side) could prove against the charges framed against them.
In his order on this petition on May 7, the special court judge Cunha clarified that ‘their petition had already been admitted. But the plea for stay of the trial in the main case till the disposal of this petition could not be accepted. Both cases will be heard simultaneously and before delivering judgement in the main case, order on this petition will be passed”.
But despite this, a director of the company filed a petition in the Supreme Court against attachment of properties of Lex Properties and demanded stay of the main case till it was disposed. The bench consisting of Justices B.S.Chauhan and A.K. Sikri on May 13 refused to order interim stay for the main case and posted hearing on May 26. But the same bench on June 26 ordered interim stay on the trial in assets case and ordered the DVAP DGP to file counter affidavit on Jayalalitha’s petition.
“Don’t we know what sort of counter affidavit the DVAP under the control of the Tamil Nadu government will file? But the DVAP without filing the counter on the due date of June 6 had sought more time in the Supreme Court.
In the meanwhile, DMK General Secretary Prof K. Anbazhagan filed a petition against the interim stay for the trial of the case, and during the hearing on the petition on June 6, senior counsel Shanmugasundaram submitted that it was not correct to order stay without hearing the Special Public Prosecutor. But the DVAP, which should have opposed the interim stay, pressed for further postponement of the trial. The SC judges refused to post the case for four more weeks, directed Jayalalitha side to file counter to the petition of Prof K. Anbazhagan before June 13 and again postponed the trial in the case till June 16. “On witnessing this, if people are reminded of the saying “f§ifæny Kis¤jhY« ngŒ¢ Riu¡fhŒ ešy Riu¡fhŒ MfhJ” (Even if sprouted in Ganges river, the devil bottle-gourd will not become good bottle-gourd”), I am not responsible for it”, Kalaignar said.
Somehow, the trial in the assets case has been adjourned by the Supreme Court for ten more days, resented Kalaignar.
As the accused were delaying their final arguments despite the court directing them to do so and as they didn’t come forward to begin their final arguments on May 26, judge Cunha pulled up them and posted the hearing at 3 pm on the day ordering the accused Sasikala and Ilavarasi to stand in the accused box in the court till then.
About this ‘The Times of India’ daily published a lengthy news analysis on May 26 under the caption “Wealth case casts shadow over Jaya’s power surge”, Kalaignar noted.
In another news analysis in “India Today’ (Tamil) June 4 issue under the heading ‘Nearing verdict day’ it was reported that the verdict in this case was expected to be delivered before the end of this year.
In the meanwhile, in another petition the Jayalalitha side had contended that it was wrong for the investigation officer Nallamma Naidu to attach properties. Judge Cunha dismissed the petition on June 4 and in his order said, “The argument of the accused that the investigation officer had no power to attach properties is not acceptable; moreover, having filed over hundred petitions from 1999 till now, did the accused were reminded only now that the investigating officer has now powers for attaching properties? It is very clear that this is an attempt to drag the case”.
“I hope all these will provide good explanations to show how the trial in the disproportionate assets case is being dragged. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is the saying. Will not delayed justice amount to deterred (prevented).
No comments:
Post a Comment