X

DON'T SHARE NUISANCE.
SHARE NEWS.

Be a responsible citizen. Come, pledge to always check and share verified and vetted news.
»
1-min read

Assets case against Jaya adjourned till August 8

News18test sharma |

Updated: August 1, 2011, 6:25 PM IST
facebook Twitter google skype whatsapp
Assets case against Jaya adjourned till August 8
BANGALORE: A special court today adjourned to August 8 hearing of an application filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, ..

BANGALORE: A special court today adjourned to August 8 hearing of an application filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, seeking permission to depose through video-conferencing under a CrPC provision in a disproportionate wealth case.
Special judge B M Mallikarjunaiah adjourned the hearing after Jayalalithaa's senior counsel B Kumar sought time to present his arguments on the application filed under Section 313 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Earlier, concluding arguments in another application filed under Section 313 (5) of the CrPC, Kumar said his client may be allowed to file a written statement instead of personally appearing in the court.
He requested the court to pronounce the orders on this application, stating "if this application is granted then the second application becomes infructuous."
However, the judge observed that the two applications were "inter-linked" and said he would pronounce orders once arguments were completed on both applications.
The judge then granted time till August 8 for arguments on the second application.
The applications were filed by Jayalalithaa after the judge had directed her to appear in the court for examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Special public prosecutor B V Acharya opposed both the applications submitting that the Supreme Court while transferring the case to the court here from Tamil Nadu had given a specific direction that the accused had to be present to answer the question under Section 313 of the CrPC.
He submitted that the petitions filed "to overcome this direction of the apex court may amount to contempt of its order".
Acharya pointed out that the Supreme Court while giving this specific direction had considered the fact that a magistrate had the discretion in exceptional cases to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused.

First Published: August 1, 2011, 6:25 PM IST
Read full article
Next Story
facebook Twitter google skype whatsapp