Bangalore: The Special Court on Thursday posted for orders to April 21, applications filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and her close aide Sasikala Natarajan in the disproportionate asset case, seeking perusal of unmarked documents pertaining to the case.

Special Court judge B M Mallikarjunaiah posted the applications to April 21 after hearing submissions by defence counsels and objections by Special Public Prosecutor.

Earlier, counsel for Sasikala, C Manishankhar submitted that the accused had every right to peruse these documents. "Will the court not at least permit us to peruse the documents which have a bearing to the petitioner when it is admitted that these are unmarked documents?," he asked.

To the averment in the written counter filed by Special Public Prosecutor B V Acharya, that the applications were a repeated one, Manishankar argued it is "incorrect....it is an application filed for a different purpose...absolute right of the accused to ask for documents cannot be denied".

Terming the applications as "frivolous and vexatious", he argued that these were not maintainable under law or on the facts of the present case. The filing of the applications is an "abuse of the process of law", he contended.
  
He submitted that the Nov 18 2003 transfer order of the Supreme Court had directed that the case go on a daily basis as it pertains to the year 1997. The same is the mandate of Sec 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applications, Acharya argued, are "not bonafide but filed with an oblique purpose of dragging on the proceedings".

Till the prosecution closed its case in a Chennai court on February 21, 2003 none raised objections of documents not been given to them. Both accused answered questions in 2003, he said, adding they should have done it before that year if their request was genuine.

Acharya also stated that by filing repeated applications, both accused are guilty of committing contempt of court and said this is a fit case where the court could initiate action for contempt.

He contended that the court has all powers to curtail the liberty of an accused when he is obstructing administration of justice and therefore the applications "are liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost".

Taking serious objections to the applications being termed "frivolous and vexatious" and that these amounted to "contempt of court", Senior Counsel B Kumar, representing Jayalalithaa, urged the court eschew from considering the above paragraphs.

"Please ignore the averments as unnecessary and if these are not granted it will be "miscarriage of justice", he said.

(Agencies)