Former Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that when a lawyer is appointed special public prosecutor in the trial of a criminal case, then the appointment was not co-terminus with the pronouncement of the verdict by the trial court but holds good even at all stages of appeal.
Jayalalithaa was convicted by a Bengaluru court in a disproportionate assets case. She was sentenced to four jail terms and Rs.100 crore fine on September 27, 2014.
The AIADMK chief was opposing DMK leader K. Anbazhagan challenging the appointment of special public prosecutor G. Bhavani Singh to appear as public prosecutor for the Tamil Nadu government before the Karnataka High Court during the hearing of her appeal against conviction and sentencing.
"This (Bhavani Singh's) appointment should not only be seen from the letter of appointment but from the statutory provisions. Letter says that Bhavani Singh was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in the case and the case does not conclude with the verdict of acquittal or conviction by the trial court as there are other stages," counsel Fali Nariman told the bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice R. Banumathi.
Telling the court that the appointment of special public prosecutor could not be restricted to trial court only, Nariman said a case travels in stages and under the statutory provisions, as the case progresses to higher judiciary in appeal, the public prosecutor remains the same.
Defending the appointment of Bhavani Singh as public prosecutor before the Karnataka High Court, Nariman said he was no intruder as the Tamil Nadu government appointed him because the Karnataka government was not discharging its obligation.
The counsel said the Tamil Nadu government had all the locus to do so as the prosecuting agency was the state's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
All expenses that the Karnataka government was incurring in the course of the trial after the case was transferred to it, the same was being reimbursed by the Tamil Nadu government.
As Nariman made the submission, the court asked counsel M.N. Rao, appearing for Karnataka, as to why they did not object to the appointment of Bhavani Singh by the Tamil Nadu government.
Rao told the court that there was a communication gap as there were change of governments both in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Counsel K.T.S. Tulsi, who appeared for Jayalalithaa's aide N. Sasikala, reiterated some of the positions taken by Nariman.
The court adjourned the hearing for April 7 when Tulsi will continue with his arguments.
The DA case against Jayalalithaa and three others relates to the period from 1991 to 1996 involving Rs.66.65 crore when she became chief minister of Tamil Nadu for the first time.
Besides Jayalalithaa, the others who were convicted and sentenced included Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran, and J. Elasvarasi.
The apex court granted bail to Jayalalithaa and Sasikala, Sudhakaran, and Elasvarasi on October 17, 2014, which was further extended by four months on December 18.
