A special judge yesterday declined to postpone proceedings in the Rs7.82-crore coal import scandal of 1993 in which former Chief Minister Jayalalitha is the prime accused.
Special judge-II V. Radhakrishnan rejected a prayer for postponement made by the counsel for former state power minister and the second accused in the case S. Kannappan, until the Supreme Court modified or vacated its earlier stay order. The stay order was given against any prosecution pursuant to the sanction given by the then Governor M. Chenna Reddy for Jayalalithas prosecution on a private complaint from Subramanian Swamy.
The judge passed the order after hearing K.T.S. Tulsi, senior counsel for Kannappan, and the special public prosecutor. However, he adjourned the matter to October 28 on which day all 11 accused would have to be present to receive copies of the chargesheet filed by the crime branch-CID, alleging they had conspired to manipulate tender norms for the import of coal by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) in 1993. The manipulations had allegedly caused a loss of Rs 7.82 crore.
More From This Section
The accused, Jayalalitha, Kannappan, former finance minister V.R. Nedunchezhiyan, one serving IAS officer and three retired officers, and four TNEB officials appeared in the court yesterday. Radhakrishnan had taken cognisance of the chargesheet on September 18 and issued summons to the accused, directing them to be present yesterday.
When the case was taken up, Tulsi moved an application seeking postponement, contending that the prosecution had suppressed from the court the fact that the apex court had stayed all proceedings pursuant to the earlier sanction accorded by the late governor on March 25, 1993.
He pointed out that Reddys sanction covered two charges, one of them related to manipulation of tender norms for the import of coal in 1993.
G. Krishnan, senior counsel for Jayalalitha sought to distance himself from the arguments advanced for Kannappan. He reserved his right to raise the issue after receiving the chargesheet copy and documents, as he was as yet unaware as to whether the present case was based on the earlier sanction order or a fresh one.
When Jayalalitha took this matter to the apex court, after the Madras High Court upheld the sanction orders validity, the apex court had not only stayed the proceedings, but also referred the larger questions arising out of it (relating to the existence and scope of the governors power to sanction the prosecution of a chief minister) to a constitution bench, he said.
Tulsi contended that the present case was based on the same facts on which the late governor had given his sanction. Therefore, the court should not proceed with the case pertaining to the very same facts.
However, Tulsi said despite the stay on proceedings pursuant to this sanction, the CB-CID had obtained a fresh sanction order from the governor for the present chargesheet. He charged the investigating agency with pursuing the ruling partys political agenda of harassing the petitioner and other members of the previous regime by surreptitiously obtaining a fresh sanction.
This subterfuge by the agency has put this court in an awkward position, as it is proceeding on a matter stayed by the Supreme Court, Tulsi said.
In his order, Radhakrishnan said the governors power of sanction had recently been upheld by the Madras High Court (in three petitions filed by Jayalalitha). The high court had taken into consideration the pendency of the larger questions before the constitution bench of the apex court, while disposing of those petitions, he said. Further, the high court, in interim orders on a batch of related cases, had permitted the special judges to proceed with the cases upto the stage prior to recording of evidence.