Friday, July 29 2005 11:08 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Bangalore: The Special Court Judge A S Pachhapure, while rejecting the application for a day's adjournment to the hearing filed by Jayalalithaa, took severe objection to the non-appearance of the accused and warned to issue arrest warrants against them if the failed to be present on August 2.

With this order by the Judge, the presence of Jayalalithaa, Sashikalanatarajan, V N Sudharakaran, Ilavarasi and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam (AIADMK) Rajya Sabha MP, T T V Dinakaran before the court on the next hearing date is imminent.

When Shanmuga Sundaram moved an application on behalf of his senior counsel N Jyoti, representing the accused, seeking a day's adjournment, the judge Pachhapure, rejected it saying' no specific ground has been made out for adjournment'.

The Defense counsel was to file written objections yesterday on the application filed by Dinakaran praying for his discharge in the case on the ground that the prosecution has not secured sanction to prosecute him by the authorities and also contesting the documents marked.

Jyoti had already advanced arguments seeking discharge of Ilavarasi, the accused No 4 in the case, contending that the uncertified copies of the documents, submitted by the prosecution were not admissible under law, an argument, opposed by Special Public Prosecutor, B V Acharya

The Judge, Pachhapure, while posting the case for orders on 'charge', and rejecting the plea for adjournment, observed that it was not possible to entertain the defense counsel request in the light of the Supreme Court and Madras High Court direction to the special court to expedite the matter.

However, the Judge said he was ready to hear the defense counsel's arguments today (July 29, 2005), provided if they moved an application seeking to argue.

Judge was furious for the continued seeking of exemption

The Judge was furious over the continued seeking of exemption for personal appearance by all the accused and observed 'the law knows how to secure the accused'.

"It is understandable with the case of Accused No. 1 (Jayalalithaa) seeking exemption from personal appearance. But what about others", the Judge asked.

The Judge Pachhapure wanted to know the opinion of Acharya whether it was necessary to secure the custody of a bus, seized as part of the evidence in the case, to which the Public Prosecutor replied in the negative, saying, "I don't think it is necessary".

The observation by the Judge suggested that the court was charting out a plan to take possession of the properties seized in connection with the disproportion asset case that currently remained with the custody of the special court in Chennai.

Responding to a query by the Judge, the Public Prosecutor submitted that an amendment to the charge sheet has to be made while framing additional charges against Jayalalitha and Dinkaran, following the court's June 27 order for a joint trial by clubbing both the asset case and London Hotel case.

Acharya contended that the additional charges have to be framed against Jayalalithaa and Dinakaran under Cr.PC sections120B, read with 13 (2) E, 1E and 109.

The Public Prosecutor said the value of the asset involved in the London Hotel case was about Rs 39.56 crore.

Dinkaran purchased two hotels in the name of the companies he floated in London, he said alleging that the actual owner of the properties was Jayalalithaa, accused No.1.

As the hotels have been sold two years after the purchase, that issue need not be part of the chargesheet, Acharya said.

Acharya further submitted that Indian money was transferred to London through various routes by hawala transactions.