WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS CASE ON SRI N CHANDRABABU NAIDU GAARU (AP)AND JAYALALITHA GAARU (TAMILNADU)

HC stays CBI probe into Chandrababu Naidu's assets case

December 13, 2011 19:14 IST


In a major relief to Telugu Desam Party president N Chandrababu Naidu, the Andhra Pradesh high court in its interim orders on Tuesday stayed the preliminary probe by the Central Bureau of Investigations into his alleged disproportionate assets.

A division bench comprising of Justice G Rohini and Justice Asutosh Mohunta stayed the preliminary inquiry by the CBI as well as the Enforcement Directorate into Naidu's assets and his many other associates, including media baron Ramoji Rao, member of Parliament Nama Nageshwara Rao, industrialists C M Ramesh and B Y Choudhary.

The orders were passed on the vacation petitions filed by Naidu, Ramoji Rao and Nama Nageshwara Rao challenging the orders of the high court passed on November 14 on a petition filed by YSR Congress president and MLA Vijayalakshmi, widow of former chief minister Y S Rajashekhar Reddy.

Naidu and others have sought the stay on the ground that the petition of Vijayalakshmi was politically motivated and it had no public interest involved. Naidu also pointed out that several petitions in the past on the similar grounds were dismissed by the court and even the government headed by YS Rajasekhar Reddy, husband of the petitioner, had not found any thing against him.

The petitioner had alleged that Naidu had amassed wealth when he was the chief minister of the state from 1995 to 2004. While the CBI has already booked a case, on the legal front, the case has already seen many interesting twists and turns.

Naidu and his associates had challenged the high court order before the Supreme Court but the apex court refused to intervene in the matter and asked the petitioners to approach the high court for interim order.


Subsequently Naidu, Ramoji Rao and others filed a vacation petition in the high court against the CBI probe.


The matter took a new turn when Reliance Industries also impleaded in the case and Chief Justice Madan Lokur rescued himself from the case on the ground that he had shares in Reliance.

Later on, one more judge V Eswaraiah recused himself following Vijayalakshmi's counsel Sushil Kumar raising doubts about the judge's credibility. He alleged that the family members of Justice Eshwaraih had links with the Telugu Desam Party.

The case was then referred to a bench comprising of Justice G Rohini and Justice Asutosh Mohunta. Again Vijayalakshmi's counsel raised doubts about Justice Rohini, saying the judge had heard three different cases where the verdicts were given in favour of Naidu.

Vijayalakshmi has also filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the case against Naidu be transferred to the Supreme Court or the high court of some other state.

During the arguments against the CBI probe into the alleged disproportionate assets of Naidu, the counsels for Naidu and other petitioners alleged that the entire case was politically motivated and it did not involve any public interest.

The counsel of Reliance Industries expressed apprehension that the case can cause damage to the company as well as lakhs of its investors. One of the allegations leveled by the petitioner against Chandrababu Naidu pertains to the decisions regarding the Reliance's investment in the Krishna Godavari basin.

Anil Dhawan, the counsel for Ramoji Rao argued that his clients want to be heard before the court takes a decision as his reputation was at stake.

The court was likely to pass the final order on Wednesday after hearing the arguments of Vijayalakshmi's counsel, who has been opposing the right of the respondents to be heard before the CBI starts its probe.

-------------------------------------------------
Verdict in Assets Case: Jayalalithaa Will Have to Quit if Convicted Today


Here is your 10-point cheat-sheet to this story:
Jayalalithaa, 66, left her Poes Garden residence at 8.40 am along with her close aide Sasikala Natarajan, another accused in the case, and flew to Bangalore in a special aircraft. She is expected to reach the court any moment.
If convicted, Jayalalithaa, 66, can face up to seven years in jail. She spent a few days in jail after her arrest a few months after an FIR, or police complaint, was filed in 1996.
Special Court Judge Michael Dicunha will be delivering the verdictat the makeshift court created at Bangalore central prison at Parappana Agrahara on the outskirts of Bangalore city, which has been provided with multi-layer security cover.
The Bangalore city police have promulgated prohibitory orders under section 144 of the the Code of Criminal Procedure as a precautionary measure ahead of the court delivering its verdict.
If the court pronounces her guilty, the three-time Chief Minister will have to step down and appoint a loyalist in her place. There's speculation that she could be considering a few names to be appointed as Chief Minister in the event of her conviction. Topping the list is former Chief Secretary Sheela Balakrishnan. Others include former DGP Mr Natraj, former Advocate General and Rajya Sabha MP Navaneedakrishnan, Visalakshi Nedunchezhian, wife of late former Minister Nedunchezhian and Transport Minister Senthil Raja.
The prosecution has argued that Ms Jayalalithaa had just Rs.3 crore when she became the Chief Minister for the first time in 1991 and took a salary of just one rupee, but in her five-year tenure, her wealth and that of three others who lived with her shot up to Rs. 66 crore.
Investigators of the state anti-corruption department say Ms Jayalalithaa, her friend Sasikala Natarajan, her now disowned foster son VN Sudhakaran and Sasikala's sister-in-law Ilavarasi, floated 32 firms that bought property but had no business activities.
The alleged illegal wealth includes 2,000 acres of land, 30 kg of gold and 12,000 saris. Rs. 5 crore was allegedly spent on the wedding of Sudhakaran in 1996, but Jayalalithaa claimed the bride's family paid for it.
The case was shifted to a Bangalore court after Ms Jayalalithaa returned to power for the second time in 2001. This was on a petition by a DMK leader who said that a trial in Tamil Nadu could not be unbiased in AIADMK rule. In 2011, Ms Jayalalithaa, a former film star, had attended the Bangalore court to answer over 1,300 questions asked by a judge over four days.
Ms Jayalalithaa calls the case political vendetta by arch-rival DMK. She argued that the prosecution undervalued her earlier assets, ignored her income from other sources and exaggerated the value of her property. 

-----------------


WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS CASE ON SRI N CHANDRABABU NAIDU GAARU (AP)AND JAYALALITHA GAARU (TAMILNADU)



HIS HIGHNESS MAJESTIC MAHARAJA SHRI SHRI ANJANI RAVISHANKAR PILLA VAARU
DIRECTORATE OF KING AND QUEEN
HYDERABAD