In the written submissions to be filed before the High Court at 4 pm, it states that the accused have not made the state of Karnataka a party.
The contention raised is when the case is held in Karnataka and the prosecutor also appointed by the state, the accused persons in the appeal should have made the state a party.
Karnataka should have been party in the appeal
The contention advanced by the state of Karnataka is that they needed a right of hearing in this case.
Ever since the case was transferred to Karnataka the judge and the prosecutor were all appointed by the state. [Deliver Jayalalithaa verdict, Supreme Court tells Karnataka High Court]
When the matter came up for appeal before the High Court, the accused persons had not made the state of Karnataka a party.
The state feels that it should have been party to the proceedings and given a right of hearing.
Apart from this the state has also mentioned about the disproportionate assets in the case.
The accused persons had questioned the assets shown by the prosecution and had stated even during the appeal that they were not disproportionate in nature.
However, the state of Karnataka in its submissions seeks to make it clear that these were in fact disproportionate assets and the trial court has rightly concluded the same before handing out the punishment.