B M Mallikarjunaiah rejected the petitions observing that there was no substantial ground in the contention of the petitioners that the present presiding officer in this case was not a special judge under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Jayalalithaa's counsel B Kumar and C Manishankhar appearing for her close aide and co-accused Sasikala Natarajan, then sought two weeks time to approach the high court to which the judge said "everytime time is sought to protract proceedings".
Assistant Special Public Prosecutor Sandesh Chowta opposed the plea stating "this can't be a ground to seek time".
Chowta submitted that the proceedings in the case should go on a day to day basis as per the directions of the Supreme Court, which had transferred the case to Bangalore.
The court then adjourned the case to July 24 for further recording of the statement of Sasikala, with a notice to the interpreter C Harish to be present on that day.
The court in its order observed that in furtherance of the order of transfer of the Supreme Court, more specifically, clause A and clause B, the notification (by High Court) in question is in order and accordance with section 3 of the PC Act.
More From This Section
The court held that there was no need for this court "to desist from hearing the present case". It also rejected the application filed yesterday for reopening and hearing the applications again.
Jayalalithaa had questioned Mallikarjunaiah's appointment as special judge, contending that the state government had not issued any specific notification for his appointment as stipulated by the section 3(1) of PC Act.
After previous judge A S Pachapure's elevation to the high court, only the high court has issued a notification, appointing him (Mallikarjunaiah) as special judge, while no notification by the state government has been issued.
The case relates to alleged accumulation of wealth to the tune of Rs 66 crore by Jayalalithaa disproportionate to her known sources of income when she was chief minister between 1991-95.