Jayalalithaa appeal: Prosecutor appointment wrong, but case won't be reheard, observes SC

Chennai, April 22: A three judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that that there is no need for a fresh hearing on the J Jayalalithaa appeal relating to the disproportionate assets case.

The bench which has reserved its verdict for Monday however observed that the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor in the case is bad and he has no authority to represent the prosecution. [Disproportionate assets case: Jayalalithaa's bail extended till May 12]

The Supreme Court also observed that a procedural irregularity does not warrant a fresh hearing of the case. Further the court also observed that the Karnataka High Court will scan the evidence and fresh submissions made by DMK leader Anbazaghan and only then write the verdict.

The three judge bench of the Supreme Court however would pronounce its verdict on Monday.

The appointment of prosecutor was not right

The three judge Bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a petition challenging the appointment of Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor to argue the case before the High Court. The Bench observed that the appointment was bad in law.

Tamil Nadu had no authority to appoint the prosecutor. The petition challenging the appointment had stated that it was Karnataka which had to appoint the Special Public Prosecutor in the case and TN had no jurisdiction to do so.

Further it was also argued that when the matter was transferred to Karnataka it was the Karnataka government which had issued a notification appointing the Special Prosecutor before the trial court.

The same ought to have been applicable in the High Court too when Jayalalithaa preferred an appeal challenging her conviction. However it was the Tamil Nadu government which made the appointment the petitioner also argued.

Take into account submission

The Supreme Court also observed that the submission made by Anbazahgan should be taken into consideration before the Karnataka High Court delivers its verdict.

The High Court while hearing the appeal had refused to permit the DMK leader to make submissions and also present fresh evidence.

The Supreme Court observed that the DMK leader must be allowed to make the submission and the verdict of the High Court should be delivered after that.

Case history

The appointment of the Special Prosecutor was challenged by the DMK leader. However with the High Court refusing to entertain the argument, the matter went up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court which heard the matter delivered a divergent verdict.

While one judge maintained that the appointment was right the other termed it as bad in law. This led to the Supreme Court constituting a three judge bench to hear the case. The three judge bench commenced hearing on the matter on Tuesday.

The three judge bench which observed that the appointment of the prosecutor was not right as it was done by TN and not Karnataka however said that it did not mandate a fresh hearing into the case. It is a procedural irregularity and does not warrant a fresh hearing the Bench observed.

OneIndia News