Bangalore, Sep 12 (PTI) Karnataka High Court today adjourned to September 16, the petition challenging Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption's decision to conduct further investigation into the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. Justice V Jagannathan, hearing the petition filed by DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan, adjourned it for further arguments.
Earlier counsel representing Anbazhagan submitted that further investigation being carried out was "not for a fair purpose but to aid the first accused (Jayalalithaa)" and therefore should not be permitted as it lacks bonafides. He also said plea for further investigation was being done at a "juncture when the trial in the case has been going on for the past 14 years". Special Public Prosecutor B V Acharya expressed similar contention and submitted "further investigation is justified if fresh facts come to light." It was not a fit case for holding further investigation at this stage when Supreme Court has ordered Jayalalithaa to appear personally on October 20 before the trial court, he contended. Senior Counsel for the DVAC M T Nanaiah however submitted that further investigation was necessary. The court then adjourned the petition.
Earlier counsel representing Anbazhagan submitted that further investigation being carried out was "not for a fair purpose but to aid the first accused (Jayalalithaa)" and therefore should not be permitted as it lacks bonafides. He also said plea for further investigation was being done at a "juncture when the trial in the case has been going on for the past 14 years". Special Public Prosecutor B V Acharya expressed similar contention and submitted "further investigation is justified if fresh facts come to light." It was not a fit case for holding further investigation at this stage when Supreme Court has ordered Jayalalithaa to appear personally on October 20 before the trial court, he contended. Senior Counsel for the DVAC M T Nanaiah however submitted that further investigation was necessary. The court then adjourned the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment