Sasikala plea dismissed

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI, JULY 10. Mr. Justice Malai Subramanian of the Madras High Court today dismissed a petition by Ms. Sasikala challenging a lower court order permitting the Income-Tax Department to mark additional documents in the `Sasi Enterprises case'.

Consequently, the interim stay granted by the court on June 15 on all proceedings remains vacated.

Ms. Sasikala, along with the Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalithaa, has been charged with wilful failure to file income-tax returns for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93.

Though only three witnesses and 12 documents had been cited in the original complaint, the department obtained the permission of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Economic Offences- I, Egmore, to file 31 fresh documents.

Ms. Sasikala moved the High Court on June 8 seeking to set aside the trial court permission. She also sought an interim stay of all proceedings pending disposal of her revision petition.

When the matter came up today, Mr. Justice Malai Subramanian asked the Special Public Prosecutor for the Income- Tax Department, Mr. K. Ramasamy, whether the witnesses had been cross-examined. Counsel replied that none of the prosecution witnesses had been cross-examined by the defence counsel.

Accepting Mr. Ramasamy's submission, the judge observed, ``by marking additional documents the defence will not be prejudiced in any way, because they (defence) have not chosen to cross- examine any of the prosecution witness so far''.

Jayalalithaa case adjourned

Meanwhile, another income-tax returns case against Ms. Jayalalithaa, in which she was accused of having wilfully failed to file IT returns for 1993-94, was adjourned to July 17 by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences Court-I, Mr. S. Ramasamy Pillay.

The court was informed that the defence counsel, who was to cross-examine the first prosecution witness for the third time, was engaged in the Special Court in connection with another case.

Nevertheless, the IT counsel objected to the adjournment plea on the ground that the date for cross- examination had been fixed only in consultation with the defence counsel. He also pointed out that the High Court had directed the EO Court-I to complete the trial within eight months.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Suspend policemen: Karunanidhi
Next     : Dawaram posting is no violation: HC