Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Of Jayalalithaa's Legal Heirs Seeking Return Of Her Properties Confiscated In DA Case
Live LawThe Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court filed by the legal heirs of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, seeking to release her property/assets seized by the authorities in the disproportionate assets case registered against her in 2004, in their favour. Further, they contended that the assets seized by the prosecuting agency also includes the assets which were possessed by A1 earlier to the check period and unless there is segregation made by the prosecution as to what are the assets possessed before check period and after check period by A1, there cannot be an order of attachment order which could be permitted to continue, having regard to the fact that conviction order was set aside by this court and could not be held in any manner as proceedings against the accused stood abated. Despite considering the said aspect in para 536 of the order and in para 542, it has been specifically held that the trial court order is restored in full including consequential directions.” Thus it held, “Further interpretation of the order of Apex court by this court in this appeal is thus clearly impermissible, besides being opposed to judicial ethics.” The Court also noted that there are no details forthcoming in applications filed before the trial court about assets earned by A1 prior to the check period. The court held, “Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any proper pleading, proof this court cannot pass any orders stating that the assets seized by the prosecution prior to the check period can be excluded from the confiscation.” However, it clarified that “It is always open for the appellants to place such pleadings and proof to establish that the seized asset contained the assets earned by A1 in pre-check period and if any such proof is placed on record, the trial court is bound to consider the same in accordance with law.” It added, “In the event of the prosecution agency further proceeding with the confiscation proceedings in auctioning the property which may contain the assets which were possessed and seized by the prosecution agency prior to the check period, the value thereof would be entitled by the appellants herein.