Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003
Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By K.T. Sangameswaran
At one stage, the IO lamented that the SPP, who ought to support him, was accusing him. It all began when the examination of N. Nallamma Naidu, a retired Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, concluded before R. Rajamanickam, special judge-I. N. Jothi, the defence counsel, said he was prepared to cross-examine the witness. At this stage, Mr. Naidu sought adjournment to February 17 for reasons which, he said, could not be divulged in the open court, where the media was present. But the judge said such a long adjournment could not be granted. Mr. Naidu then said if the judge permitted, he would tell him the reason in his chamber. However, the judge said he would not grant that request and that the IO could state the reason in the court. Mr. Naidu said he should go through documents, prepared long ago, before testifying. The SPP, M. Chandrasekaran, rose to say the IO could not level allegations as he had seen the documents even last Saturday. A visibly annoyed Mr. Naidu, still in the witness box, turned to the prosecution and said he could not tolerate a false charge that he went to the DVAC office on Saturday. He went there only the previous Saturday (February 1). "Can you swear that I came there this Saturday"? The SPP said he was making the submission only on instructions from officers. Mr. Naidu said the present SPP never discussed the case with him. To this, the judge said an IO did not require the prosecutor's help as he himself had probed a case. Mr. Naidu said the prosecution did not give him the documents. The judge said the IO was at liberty to peruse the documents in the court. To this, Mr. Naidu said that on the dates he had to make the deposition, he came to the court at 10 a.m. and went through the documents till 10.30 a.m., when it started functioning. "How much can I read in half hour?".
Big conspiracy: defence
\Defence counsel said the verbal fight was part of a "big conspiracy". Newspaper cuttings on the goings-on would be shown `elsewhere'. "Ultimately, I will be the sufferer". He requested the judge to direct presspersons not to report what went on between the IO and the prosecutor. The judge said that as it was a matter of internal adjustment, the Press "need not" report it. Earlier, before recording of evidence, counsel said that during the last hearing, the IO wounded his feelings, stating he could not understand the annexures. The officer said he did not undermine counsel's calibre. "If by mistake, I have done it, I am sorry". During deposition, the witness said that during the check period, from January 1, 1991 to April 30, 1996, N. Sasikalaa and two other accused, V.N. Sudhagaran and Ilavarasi, had been staying in the Poes Garden residence of Ms. Jayalalithaa. Besides the firms they were already running, they started 32 units during the check-period and the address of most of the organisations was 36, Poes Garden. The address of some other firms was given as 21, Wellington Plaza, Anna Salai. A majority of the firms neither transacted any business nor maintained accounts. They deposited lakhs in their bank accounts. They did not send annual reports to the Commercial Taxes department, the Registrar of Firms or the Registrar of Companies or the Income-tax department and other authorities. The witness also explained how he arrived at the figure for the disproportionate assets and the filing of the charge sheet.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
