New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday posted for final hearing on February 23 a batch of appeals filed by the Karnataka government and the DMK General Secretary K. Anbazhagan challenging the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms Jayalalithaa and three others in the assets case by the Karnataka high court. The case was scheduled for day-to-day hearing from February 2.
A Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Am-itav Roy granted three weeks adjournment to the appellants and Ms Jayalalithaaa and others when senior counsel L. Nageswara Rao and Dushyant Dave sought adjournment on the ground that Justice Ghose is part of a Constitution bench hearing the Arunachal Pradesh President's rule case next week.
Karnataka, the DMK General Secretary K. Anbazhagan, BJP leader Subramanian Swami as well as the four respondents had already submitted a list of issues to be adjudicated in these appeals.
A single Judge of the Karnataka High Court while acquitting Ms Jayalalithaa, Ms. Sasikala, Ms. Iavlrasi and Mr. Sudhakaran had relied upon a judgment of the apex court in 1977 holding that it would not be an offence if the accused had disproportionate assets which is not more than 10 per cent of the known sources of income. As the accused had only 8.12 per cent, in excess of the known sources of income, the judge gave the accused benefit of doubt and acquitted them.
In its appeal Karnataka and Mr Anbazhagan maintained that if the mathematical errors in calculation in Justice Kumaraswamy's judgment are corrected, Ms Jayalalithaa's assets to her known sources of income come to more than 10 per cent.
Ms Jayalalithaa, in her rejoinder, had asserted in her response that there was no 'mathematical error' in the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting her and three others and had prayed for dismissal of the appeal. She questioned Karnataka's locus standi to file this appeal as she said only the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu had the right to file an appeal. She said beyond the role of appointing a special public prosecutor, Karnataka had no other role in prosecuting the appeal.
