Karnataka government has appealed against the judgment of the Karnataka High court acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha in the disproportionate assets case..The appeal, which was filed through Advocate Joseph Aristotle today, puts to rest speculations surrounding whether the State government will appeal against the High Court judgment or not..The State government has relied on various grounds in the petition, both on merits and otherwise. Strong reliance has been placed on contention that the Karnataka government was not made a party to the proceedings as per the directions of the Supreme Court and that Bhavani Singh, who appeared as Public Prosecutor before the High Court, had no authority to do so..As per the petition,.“The Petitioner had contended that all the appeals filed by the Accused before the Hon’ble High Court without impleading the State of Karnataka as party, are not maintainable as it is the sole Prosecuting Agency, as repeatedly held by this Hon’ble Court….Non-joinder of the sole prosecuting agency can never be an irregularity. It is an illegality which goes to the root of the matter…..In spite of repeated objections, the Respondents did not chose to make State of Karnataka a party till the disposal of all the Appeals.”.The petition further states that due to the failure to implead Karnataka government in the appeal, the Karnataka government could not appoint a public prosecutor to conduct the appeal before the High Court denying it the right to be heard..“Throughout the Appeal proceedings, it is only Sri Bhavani Singh who appeared as Public Prosecutor. The three Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court has ruled that he had no authority to appear either on the basis of the order of appointment by the Government of Tamil Nadu (which has no authority at all) or on the basis of order of appointment by the State of Karnataka which authorised him to appear only before the trial Court….In effect, the Appeals were disposed off ex-parte without the sole prosecuting agency being a party and without the presence of a validly appointed Pubic Prosecutor….The petitioner herein has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It is submitted that in law, in Criminal Appeal before the High Court, the Public Prosecutor ought to have an opportunity of addressing oral arguments particularly in a case of this magnitude…It is submitted that the entire proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court are vitiated and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.”.The petition also assails the judgment on merits contending that the High Court judge has not appreciated the ratio in Agnihotri’s case (on which it had relied upon for acquitting Jaya) properly..“He erred in thinking that it is laid down as a proposition of law that in every case, if the disproportionate assets is less than 10% of the income, the offence is not made out irrespective of the amount involved and the length of the check period…The learned judge erroneously observed that it is well settle law that according to Krishnanand Agnihotri’s case, when there is disproportionate assets to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal. In the Agnihotri case, the excess asset found was Rs. 11,350 and the check period was 13 years. The Supreme Court had acquitted the accused in that case since the excess is comparatively small….Further the decision in Agnihotri’s case was rendered under the 1947 Act. In the 1987 PC Act, Explanation to section 13(1) (e) states that known source of income means income received from lawful source and such receipt has been intimated to the authorities as required by law. The learned judge has ignored this provision.”.The petition states that the High Court erred in valuation of buildings and in calculating the income of Jayalalitha to determine disproportionate assets. It has also submitted that the most serious and glaring infirmity in the judgment was made in calculating the loans availed by Jaya which only comes upto Rs. 10.6 crore and not Rs. 24.1 crore as held in the judgment..The miscalculation by the judge resulted in the disproportionate assets totalling only up to 8.12 percent of the income when it was actually way above that..The Karnataka government has, therefore, sought for setting aside the High Court judgement and also prayed for staying the High court judgment by way of interim relief till the appeal is finally disposed of..In September last year, Jaya and three others were convicted by Special judge Michael Cunha for having 66.65 crore worth of disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court had then directed the Karnataka High Court to constitute a Special Bench to dispose of the appeal within three months. Subsequently, on May 13 this year, the High Court had overturned the judgement of the Special Judge and acquitted Jaya and the other accused..Image taken from here.
Karnataka government has appealed against the judgment of the Karnataka High court acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha in the disproportionate assets case..The appeal, which was filed through Advocate Joseph Aristotle today, puts to rest speculations surrounding whether the State government will appeal against the High Court judgment or not..The State government has relied on various grounds in the petition, both on merits and otherwise. Strong reliance has been placed on contention that the Karnataka government was not made a party to the proceedings as per the directions of the Supreme Court and that Bhavani Singh, who appeared as Public Prosecutor before the High Court, had no authority to do so..As per the petition,.“The Petitioner had contended that all the appeals filed by the Accused before the Hon’ble High Court without impleading the State of Karnataka as party, are not maintainable as it is the sole Prosecuting Agency, as repeatedly held by this Hon’ble Court….Non-joinder of the sole prosecuting agency can never be an irregularity. It is an illegality which goes to the root of the matter…..In spite of repeated objections, the Respondents did not chose to make State of Karnataka a party till the disposal of all the Appeals.”.The petition further states that due to the failure to implead Karnataka government in the appeal, the Karnataka government could not appoint a public prosecutor to conduct the appeal before the High Court denying it the right to be heard..“Throughout the Appeal proceedings, it is only Sri Bhavani Singh who appeared as Public Prosecutor. The three Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court has ruled that he had no authority to appear either on the basis of the order of appointment by the Government of Tamil Nadu (which has no authority at all) or on the basis of order of appointment by the State of Karnataka which authorised him to appear only before the trial Court….In effect, the Appeals were disposed off ex-parte without the sole prosecuting agency being a party and without the presence of a validly appointed Pubic Prosecutor….The petitioner herein has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It is submitted that in law, in Criminal Appeal before the High Court, the Public Prosecutor ought to have an opportunity of addressing oral arguments particularly in a case of this magnitude…It is submitted that the entire proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court are vitiated and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.”.The petition also assails the judgment on merits contending that the High Court judge has not appreciated the ratio in Agnihotri’s case (on which it had relied upon for acquitting Jaya) properly..“He erred in thinking that it is laid down as a proposition of law that in every case, if the disproportionate assets is less than 10% of the income, the offence is not made out irrespective of the amount involved and the length of the check period…The learned judge erroneously observed that it is well settle law that according to Krishnanand Agnihotri’s case, when there is disproportionate assets to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal. In the Agnihotri case, the excess asset found was Rs. 11,350 and the check period was 13 years. The Supreme Court had acquitted the accused in that case since the excess is comparatively small….Further the decision in Agnihotri’s case was rendered under the 1947 Act. In the 1987 PC Act, Explanation to section 13(1) (e) states that known source of income means income received from lawful source and such receipt has been intimated to the authorities as required by law. The learned judge has ignored this provision.”.The petition states that the High Court erred in valuation of buildings and in calculating the income of Jayalalitha to determine disproportionate assets. It has also submitted that the most serious and glaring infirmity in the judgment was made in calculating the loans availed by Jaya which only comes upto Rs. 10.6 crore and not Rs. 24.1 crore as held in the judgment..The miscalculation by the judge resulted in the disproportionate assets totalling only up to 8.12 percent of the income when it was actually way above that..The Karnataka government has, therefore, sought for setting aside the High Court judgement and also prayed for staying the High court judgment by way of interim relief till the appeal is finally disposed of..In September last year, Jaya and three others were convicted by Special judge Michael Cunha for having 66.65 crore worth of disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court had then directed the Karnataka High Court to constitute a Special Bench to dispose of the appeal within three months. Subsequently, on May 13 this year, the High Court had overturned the judgement of the Special Judge and acquitted Jaya and the other accused..Image taken from here.