Bengaluru, May 11: The J Jayalalithaa verdict has come as a surprise to many and joy to several others. The Karnataka High Court acquitted J Jayalalithaa and three others in the disproportionate assets case which paved the way for her to become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu once again [Follow live updates here]
B V Acharya, the Special Public Prosecutor in the case is clearly unhappy with the verdict and says according to him this was not a case which mandated any interference.
In this interview with OneIndia, Acharya says that the prosecution had given enough material against Jayalalithaa and others, but would be able to comment on the High Court order only after he reads the full copy.
Sir, your thoughts on the verdict?
According to me any sort of interference was not needed in this case. We had given enough material to prove the charges against Jayalalithaa and others. The trial court has discussed the case in detail and ordered the conviction.
What do you think was the reason for the High Court to overturn the order of the trial court?
How the High Court has come to this conclusion, I will be able to tell you only after reading the full judgment copy. The entire order copy is not with me as of now. After reading it, I will be able to comment on it.
Have the principles of natural justice been met?
I was wondering why the Supreme Court while striking down the appointment of the SPP gave the state of Karnataka just one day to file arguments. I felt that we should have been given an opportunity to make oral submissions.
If oral submissions were made we would have been able to argue and also clarify if there were any doubts in the mind of the judge. There is very little that can be said in written arguments.
You had submitted that Karnataka was not heard during the appeal.
Yes we have submitted that. Principles of natural justice demand that Karnataka be given an opportunity to be heard in this case. After the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of SPP, Bhavani Singh, it should have given us more time to put forth our arguments.
We were denied that chance. Moreover I do not know how the court did not consider that an appeal cannot be heard without Karnataka being made a party in it. The prosecution has been denied an opportunity is all I can say now.
In my written submissions, I have raised the objection that the appeals were not maintainable. How the judge got over this, I have no idea.
The appeals were incompetent without state of Karnataka being a party. The entire appeal went on without a validly appointed prosecutor.