Jayalalitha plea in coal case dismissed

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, DEC. 15. The Madras High Court today dismissed a petition filed by the former Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalitha, challenging a Special Court order, fixing a time table for examination of witnesses in the `coal import case'.

On December 4, the Special Judge-II, fixed a month- long time frame for examination of the prosecution witnesses beginning December 18.

Ms. Jayalalitha's petition contended that the Supreme Court, while setting aside a Madras High Court order upholding her discharge from the case, had asked her to face the trial. At that time nine witnesses had been examined. The Supreme Court had stated that on completion of cross-examination of these nine witnesses, the prosecution could examine the rest of the witnesses. A prosecution witness, namely the former PWD secretary, Mr. V. Sundaram, who was away had not been examined yet.

In such a situation, the trial court fixing a time table for examination of the rest of the witnesses from December 18 to January 18, 2001, was a violation of the Supreme Court order, she had contended.

Rejecting her plea, Mr. Justice B Akbar Basha Khadiri said the Special Judge had fixed the dates using his powers under Section 242(1) of the Cr.P.C. It was for the prosecution to produce the witnesses, dispense with them or to take out summons for their production. There was no error in the Special Judge's order.

The petition had objected to the Special Judge's remarks asking Ms. Jayalalitha's counsel to arrange their dates according to the time table, giving priority to the case. Mr. Justice Khadiri said the Special Judge should have avoided making such remarks. It was the duty of counsel for both parties to either appear themselves or depute another counsel to proceed with the case. Such a direction (as given by the Special Judge) might fetter the independent discretion of the counsel in the cases. He hoped that the Special Judge might not make such remarks in future.

Mr. Justice Khadiri said the steps taken by the Special Judge in fixing the date for examination of witnesses, and giving time to Mr. Sundaram (who was abroad) in a time bound manner, would show he was very much anxious to give effect to the Supreme Court orders.

He said he found no violation of the Supreme Court order, and the direction appeared to be a persuasive one issued only to avoid delay, which could not be construed as mandatory.

On the timeframe, he said it was for the trial court to find ways and means to examine the witnesses. There was no illegality or irregularity in the trial court order. It was passed only to avoid delay, Mr. Justice Khadiri said dismissing the petition and asked the Special Court to proceed with the trial.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Lower courts to work on Saturdays from Jan.
Next     : G.O. on SC, STs direct recruitment scrapped