In a major turn of events, the Karnataka High Court will hear former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa’s plea on priority basis against her conviction by a special court in Bangalore. A specially constituted Vacation Bench will now hear her plea seeking immediate bail and suspension of conviction and jail sentence in disproportionate assets case on Wednesday.
After the Vacation Bench of the Karnataka High Court this morning adjourned the bail plea to October 6, lawyers for Jayalalithaa headed by Ram Jethmalani approached the court Registrar for an urgent hearing in the matter. Chief Justice DH Waghela then allowed the plea following which the court will on Wednesday hear the former Chief Minister’s application.
When the matter came up before the Vacation Bench this morning Jethmalani pleaded for suspending the sentence pending appeal under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for her release on bail.The team of lawyers led by Jethmalani also submitted that the matter should be treated as an exception as the continued incarceration of Jayalalithaa was causing law and order problems in Tamil Nadu.
They also argued that the AIADMK leader’s health was unstable. Contesting the need for a public prosecutor to file objections, her lawyers cited sections of the CrPC and said that when the sentence is less than 10 years the judge of a higher court can adjudicate the appeal on merits without seeking the view of the prosecutor.
According to legal experts Section 389 states that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended. Also, if the person is in confinement, that he or she be released on bail, or on own bond.
In her petitions seeking immediate bail and challenging her sentence, Jayalalithaa has maintained that the charges of amassing wealth against her were false and that she had acquired property through legal means. Jayalalithaa has also contended that the trial court has overlooked several judgements and has not considered the binding nature of various Income Tax orders and decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the income and the level of expenditure pleaded by her.
In a landmark verdict after 18-year old legal battle, Special Judge John Michael D’Cunha had convicted Jayalalithaa, sentencing her to four years simple imprisonment, and slapped a fine of Rs100 crore in the Rs66.65 crore corruption case.In her petitions seeking immediate bail and challenging her sentence, Jayalalithaa has maintained that the charges of amassing wealth against her were false and that she had acquired property through legal means.
The pleas of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister’s aide Sasikala, her relatives V N Sudhakaran, disowned son of the former Chief Minister, and Ilavarasi, who have also moved the High Court seeking bail and challenging their conviction, were also posted for hearing on October 6.
In her appeal, Jayalalithaa pleaded for suspension of the conviction and the sentence and also refused to pay the Rs100 crore fine imposed on her.In another development Amma refused to meet Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam and his many Cabinet Ministers who are staying in Bangalore since Monday evening. According to sources, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister returned disappointed after jail authorities told him that Jayalalithaa had refused to meet him.
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court’s Vacation Bench judge Justice Rathnakala on Tuesday after hearing Jayalalithaa's bail plea posted the matter for hearing on October 6.
This has further delayed her bail plea and has to stay in Parappana Agrahara central prison on the outskirts of Bangalore.As the matter came up before the Vacation Bench, counsel for Jayalalithaa, pleaded for suspending the sentence pending appeal under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for her release on bail. Defence lawyer Ram Jethmalani, who was specially flown in from london, argued that the bail plea for Jayalalithaa, could be decided on the bail plea immediately in the absence of the prosecution as the jail term was less than 10 years and the court can straight away decide on the application.