G Bhavani Singh it will be. For the first
time since the Karnataka high court started hearing the corruption case appeals
filed by former chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her three associates, a
division bench of the court cleared doubts over the status of Bhavani Singh and
held that the senior Karnataka advocate would continue to function as special
public prosecutor (SPP) for the case in the high court as well.
As he has been put in charge of the case
involving Jayalalithaa and three of her associates, he is entitled to appear at
all stages of the case, at all courts hearing the case and, that too, without
any further written order from the Karnataka government, ruled a bench
comprising Justice N Kumar and Justice B Veerappa. He can appear before
whichever court hearing the case, and whichever stage the case is, the bench
said rejecting a petition filed by senior DMK leader K Anbazhagan, who had
objected to Singh's continuation as prosecutor.
As the Karnataka government has already
appointed Singh as SPP the question of
issuing any directive to it to appoint an SPP for the case does not arise, the
judges said. The judges also said that they would not like to pass any order
which would stand in the way of the Supreme Court directive that mandated the
Karnataka high court to hear the appeals on a day-to-day basis.
Curiously , the verdict was followed by
bear-hugs and thumbs-ups among a large number of AIADMK lawyers and some of
those either appearing or helping out counsel for the four convicted persons
Jayalalithaa, N Sasikalaa, V N Sudhakaran and J Ilavarasi whose appeals are
being heard by another judge, Justice C R Kumaraswamy .
Even as Justice Kumaraswamy started hearing
the criminal appeals of the four about a month back, Anbazhagan took exception
to the fact that Singh was representing the prosecution. Noting that he was a
reluctant prosecutor before the special court which convicted all the four, as
well as the high court which declined bail to them after their conviction on
September 27, 2014, Anbazhagan said his role as SPP was over the moment the
special court verdict was out. He wanted the Karnataka high court to direct the
Karnataka government to appoint a new SPP for appeal proceedings in the high
court. Singh countered the allegations, and said he had secured conviction of
all the four accused in the special court. As SPP he was entitled to appear
before the high court as well, he said.
Continuation of Singh as SPP in the high
court revolved around one question whether the term `case' meant only trial
or would it include appeals as well. The bench concluded that a case includes
original and appellate proceedings, and the term includes every proceedings
arising out of a trial discharge, acquittal and conviction, it said.
It also held that an SPP put in charge of a
case would not be confined to a particular court or a particular stage of the
case. In this regard, the bench distinguished the role of an SPP from that of
normal prosecutors. While other prosecutors are to handle cases in particular
courts allotted to them, an SPP is not allotted any court as his area of
operation. Instead, he is put in charge of a case, therefore till the case
attains finality in the form of conviction or acquittal or discharge, he would
represent the prosecution at all stages and at all judicial forums, they said.
If the Karnataka government wants to appoint
a fresh prosecutor, it has to remove Singh first, for only then a vacancy would
arise, they said, adding that all this must be done in accordance with the
judgment of the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment