Jaya fails to get reprieve, to be in jail till 7 October
2 Oct 2014 6:15 AM IST
With a thick security blanket thrown around the entire court complex, the High Court vacation bench took up the matter for an urgent hearing with Jayalalithaa’s counsel Ram Jethmalani pleading for suspending the sentence pending appeal under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for her release on bail.
Under this provision, pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended. Also, if the person is in confinement, that he or she be released on bail, or on own bond.
Opposing Jayalalithaa’s plea, special public prosecutor Bhavani Singh told Justice Rathnakala that suspension of conviction sought by Jayalalithaa ‘is not not allowed under the law.’
Singh also objected to Jayalalithaa seeking bail under Section 389, saying that ‘because of the status of the accused, being a former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, she may misuse the liberty.’
Singh also filed a memo about his appointment as SPP in the case. Singh, who was SPP in the Special Court in the disproportionate assets case, had told the court yesterday that he had not yet received any official notification appointing him as the SPP.
After a brief hearing in the jampacked court, the judge adjourned the matter to 7 October to be taken up by a regular bench.
Soon thereafter, some pro-AIADMK supporters and advocates upset over the order expressed their displeasure outside the court complex but were dispersed by police.
Policemen were deployed in good strength with each person being checked thoroughly at all entry points of the court complex entrance before being let in.
The court is on Dasara holidays from 29 September to 5 October. 6 October is a government holiday on account of Bakrid.
The High Court had yesterday posted the matter for hearing on 6 October but after Jayalalithaa’s counsels made a plea for an urgent sitting on Wednesday, the court allowed it.
In a verdict on Saturday at the end of an 18-year old legal battle, Special Judge John Michael D’Cunha had convicted Jayalalithaa, sentencing her to four years imprisonment, and slapped a staggering fine of Rs 100 crore in the Rs 66.65 crore corruption case.
Under this provision, pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended. Also, if the person is in confinement, that he or she be released on bail, or on own bond.
Opposing Jayalalithaa’s plea, special public prosecutor Bhavani Singh told Justice Rathnakala that suspension of conviction sought by Jayalalithaa ‘is not not allowed under the law.’
Singh also objected to Jayalalithaa seeking bail under Section 389, saying that ‘because of the status of the accused, being a former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, she may misuse the liberty.’
Singh also filed a memo about his appointment as SPP in the case. Singh, who was SPP in the Special Court in the disproportionate assets case, had told the court yesterday that he had not yet received any official notification appointing him as the SPP.
After a brief hearing in the jampacked court, the judge adjourned the matter to 7 October to be taken up by a regular bench.
Soon thereafter, some pro-AIADMK supporters and advocates upset over the order expressed their displeasure outside the court complex but were dispersed by police.
Policemen were deployed in good strength with each person being checked thoroughly at all entry points of the court complex entrance before being let in.
The court is on Dasara holidays from 29 September to 5 October. 6 October is a government holiday on account of Bakrid.
The High Court had yesterday posted the matter for hearing on 6 October but after Jayalalithaa’s counsels made a plea for an urgent sitting on Wednesday, the court allowed it.
In a verdict on Saturday at the end of an 18-year old legal battle, Special Judge John Michael D’Cunha had convicted Jayalalithaa, sentencing her to four years imprisonment, and slapped a staggering fine of Rs 100 crore in the Rs 66.65 crore corruption case.
Next Story
