New Delhi: Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeals filed by Karntaka government and the DMK general secretary K. Anbazhagan challenging her acquittal in the Rs 66 crore disproportionate assets case.
In her written submissions of the issues in the appeals she asserted that since Mr Anbazhagan was neither a victim nor a complainant, he has no locus standi to file the appeal. Similarly the BJP leader Subramanian Swami has no locus to file appeal when the state is the prosecuting agency.
She said when the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corr-uption Act were committed in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka has no jurisdiction to file the appeal and only the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption in the state will have the right to file appeal.
By mere transfer of the trial from Tamil Nadu to a court in Bengalaluru, the State of Karnataka acts only as a prosecutor and there is no direction from the Supreme Court to Karn-ataka to file an appeal against the acquittal.
Listing the issues, Ms Jayalalithaa as also Ms Sasikala, Mr Sudha-garan and Ms Ilavarasi, who were also acquitted, said whether by filing the appeal by Karnataka mounted to an interference in the internal affairs of Tamil nadu and therefore violative of the federal scheme as well as Articles 162 (legislative power) and 245 of the Constitution; whether TN has exclusive jurisdiction to file the appeal when Ms Jayalalithaa being a public servant only the state police will have the powers to prosecute her.
She maintained that when Karnataka has no legislative power in respect of affairs of TN, it has no power to prosecute offences alleged to have been committed in Tamil Nadu.
Whether an SLP against an order of acquittal can be entertained when the High court had recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the gravamen of the charges of criminal conspiracy, abetment and possession of disproportionate assets against the accused; whether the High Court’s judgment acquitting them of all charges can be challenged on the ground that another view is possible on the same evidence; whether the findings that the assets and expenditure inclurred by five companies cannot be treated as those of Ms. Jayalalithaa when she was neither the Director nor shareholder can be interfered by the apex court; whether the judgment should be interfered with when there is no evidence to show that any part of the wealth of three other accused belonged to Ms. Jayalalithaa.
She also drew the court’s attention to rejection of prosecution’s charges relating to marriage expenditure; construction of buildings, acceptance of income from loans, grape garden and gifts and acceptance of income of Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR scheme.
In her main defence she denied that there was any grave mathematical calculation of the loans received by the accused during the check period. The loans received are based on documents and the judgment had discussed in detail the loans advanced to the accused/firms. The findings of the High Court that the loans received are income leave no manner of doubt about what has been decided. Hence the statement that there has been gross mathematical miscalculation of the loans was incorrect.
