SC to hear Karnataka's plea to recover Rs 100-crore fine in Jaya case

SC to hear Karnataka's plea to recover Rs 100-crore fine in Jaya case

SC to hear Karnataka's plea to recover Rs 100-crore fine in Jaya case
The Supreme Court is likely to consider on Thursday Karnataka government's plea for recovery of Rs 100 crore fine in the J Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case.

A bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy would decide the review petition filed by the state government against the February 14 judgement that abated the proceedings against the former Tamil Nadu chief minister due to her demise.

The petition has been listed for consideration at 1.40 pm in the chambers of the judges and would be put up for hearing in the open court only if it is not dismissed.

The apex court had on February 14 set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgement of May 11, 2016 that had acquitted Jayalalithaa and others. The top court had restored the trial court judgement “in toto”. Jayalalithaa was sentenced to a four-year jail term along with Rs 100 crore fine by the Bengaluru court. But the proceedings against her before the Supreme Court got abated in view of her death on December 5, last.

However, Sasikala and two of her relatives were held guilty of conspiracy and abetting Jayalalithaa's “sinister” design to launder ill-gotten wealth to the tune of Rs 53.6 crore. As a result, all the three were also handed down four-year jail terms, along with fine.

The Karnataka government contended, “In the case of appeal against conviction, it is settled law that the appeal does not abate if the accused has been sentenced to pay fine either along with imprisonment or otherwise.”

Describing the apex court's February 14 judgement as “error apparent on the face of record” with regard to abatement of proceedings against Jayalalithaa, the state maintained that though the question Jayalalithaa undergoing imprisonment does not arise, the sentence to pay fine is legally sustainable.

The state government claimed, “The court overlooked the position of law that if the death takes place after arguments are concluded and the judgement is reserved, the appeal does not abate.”
DH News Service