Can Karnataka recover Rs 100 crore in Jaya DA case? SC to decide today

An order of abatement cannot be passed when the accused person was alive at the time the matter was reserved for orders.

The Supreme Court will on Wednesday decide whether Karnataka can recover the Rs 100 crore fine amount from former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case. A division bench comprising Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy will hear a review plea filed by Karnataka against the abatement of Jayalalithaa in the case.

As a result of the abatement, Karnataka is in no position to collect the Rs 100 crore fine that had been imposed on her by the trial court. The Supreme Court had convicted Sasikala Natarajan and two others and even upheld the fine imposed on them by the trial court.

In the review petition, Karnataka said that if a party dies after the conclusion of arguments and the judgment is reserved, an order of abatement cannot be passed. The judgment subsequently pronounced shall have the same force and effect as if the same was pronounced before the death took place, Karnataka has contended.

It has been contended that there is no provision in the Constitution or the SC rules for such an abatement of appeal. It was also pointed out that as per the 2013 rules of the SC in both civil appeals and election petitions there shall be no abatement if the death takes place after the conclusion of the hearing.

There cannot be an order of sentence since it is infructuous in the event of her death. However, the SC should have ordered that the fine of Rs 100 crore which was levied by the trial court must be paid. The fine should be recovered from her estate, Karnataka has also contended.

Even though the question of A 1 (Jayalalithaa) undergoing further imprisonment does not arise, sentence to pay fine is legally sustainable which has to be recovered from the estate. This is particularly so where the offence alleged is of illegally acquiring disproportionate assets. Therefore, the finding that the appeal has abated is not correct, it was further argued.

Karnataka also pointed out that a criminal appeal involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stand on a slightly different footing where the allegation is of acquisition of disproportionate assets by a public servant. In the circumstances, though the death of the accused no 1 [Jayalalithaa] renders sentence of imprisonment infructuous, the question whether any fine is liable to be imposed as also confiscation of illegally acquired property will survive for consideration.

OneIndia News