Scientific Review of the John Michael D'Cunha Judgement

Live Scientific Review of the John Michael D'Cunha Judgement and further Proceedings

by Prof. Dr. Prabhu Britto Albert, Founding Editor, IJBST Journal Group www.ijbst.org

https://facebook.com/prabhu.britto
https://facebook.com/prabhu.britto.albert
https://twitter.com/PrabhuBritto


Amma @ Her Excellency The Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu










May 11, 2015
From the Desk of the Editor, IJBST Group of Journals

Prof. Dr. A. Prabhu Britto


www.ijbst.org


Live Scientific Review of a Judgement and Appellate Court's acquittal of Her Excellency The Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha in agreement with the Live Scientific Review of the lower court's judgement.


Teachers and Researchers will henceforth be respected as Pillars of Democracy and Guardians of the Constitution of INDIA, by virtue of the review of the Michael D’Cunha Judgement by Prof. Dr. Prabhu Britto Albert (Editor, IJBST Group of Journals http://www.ijbst.org) and the further subsequent processes at the Supreme Court of INDIA and the Appellate Court of the State High Court of the State of Karnataka in INDIA that resulted in the acquittal of Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, in agreement with Prof. Dr. Prabhu Britto Albert's Live Review of the Michael D'Cunha Judgement and further processes.
For more details please feel free to visit http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-a-judgement
------
Summary:
In a sensational legal battle foisted by political rivals, that spanned a period of 18 years, Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, the Head of State of the State of Tamil Nadu in INDIA was awarded a sentence of 4 years imprisonment and a hefty fine of 1 billion Indian Rupees (or 16.67 million dollars at the exchange rate of 1 US$ = 60 INR) on Sept. 27, 2014.


The Editor of the IJBST Group of Journals Prof. Dr. Prabhu Britto Albert reviewed the judgement (sentence) scientifically and the review indicated unexplained irregularities and possibility of propagation of irregularities accompanied with motivated or accidental catalytic activity of the case proceedings to lean towards conviction and published it on facebook and on his website at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-a-judgement during the period Oct. 12-16,2014.


On Oct. 17, 2014 the Supreme Court of INDIA granted bail to Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha.


On May 11, 2015 the Appellate court (State High Court of the State of Karnataka in INDIA) in its landmark judgement acquitted Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha in agreement with the scientific review of the lower court's judgement.


This is a significant and unique landmark in the Scientific and Research Pursuits of the Nation of INDIA, wherein a scientific/research opinion was provided for a Live Case Proceedings (instead of the regular research activities which might research on past cases). Consequent to the scientific review, the flaws in the Judgement has been appraised and it helped the Judiciary to identify and correct the flaws, and further resulted in a very significant outcome as acquittal of Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Head of State of the State of Tamil Nadu in INDIA.


Teachers and Researchers will henceforth be respected as Pillars of Democracy and Guardians of the Constitution of INDIA, by virtue of the live review of the Michael D’Cunha Judgement by Prof. Dr. Prabhu Britto Albert and the further processes at the Supreme Court of INDIA and subsequent processes at the Appellate Court of the State High Court of the State of Karnataka in INDIA that resulted in the acquittal of Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, in agreement with Prof. Dr. Prabhu Britto Albert's Live Review of the Michael D'Cunha Judgement and further processes.
For more details please feel free to visit http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-a-judgement


Chronology of Events:
May 23, 2015 11:08 am IST

Taken oath of Office as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, post acquittal by appellate Court

NOW.....

Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, INDIA





Oath Taking Ceremony 23.05.2015 11:00 am
Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152854686671752




Thanks to the Judiciary for the acquittal of Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha. (May 2015)

Acquittal Judgement Copy by Appellate Court (The Kumarasamy Judgement): http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

PDF Link : http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/59037/1/CRLA835-14-11-05-2015.pdf







Scientific Review of the Michael D' Cunha Judgement indicated unexplained irregularities & possibility to lean towards conviction… (Oct. 2014)

Lower court conviction judgement order copy (The Michael D'Cunha Judgement): http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdfScientific Review of the Michael D'Cunha Judgement:
http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-a-judgement








Conclusion of the Scientific Review of the Michael D'Cunha Judgement and review of further relevant activities:

Dedicated to my parents, my mother Annie Nazareth (05.02.1947 - 28.02.2001 physical presence on earth) and my father, Albert G.B. (16.05.1944 - 26.06.2014 physical presence on earth).

With thanks to All Good Souls.

The Live Scientific Review of the Michael D'Cunha Judgement and review of further relevant activities hereby stands concluded as on 11.05.2015 with the acquittal of Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha (http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/232748647 ).

The Scientific Review of the Michael D'Cunha Judgement against Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha indicated unexplained irregularities and possibility of propagation of irregularities accompanied with motivated or accidental catalytic activity of the case proceedings to lean towards conviction.

Thanks to the Judiciary for the acquittal of Her Excellency Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha.




Live Scientific Review of the John Michael D'Cunha Judgement
Legend: Amma @ Her Excellency The Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha @ JJ







Live Scientific Review of the John Michael D'Cunha Judgement:

Judgement Copy:



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf







Strange !!! 84.2% of original witnesses abandoned their earlier position and Spl. P.P. went ahead without attending to it?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752


http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

When 64 out of 76 prosecution witnesses substantially resiled/abandoned their earlier position, was it right on the part of the Spl. P.P.

(1) NOT to choose to treat any of the 64/76 witnesses as hostile witnesses, when it should have been a natural course of action of the Spl. P. P. to declare the 64/76 (almost 84.2% of the original list of prosecution witnesses) as hostile witnesses

(2) And examine why 84.2% of the original list of witnesses abandoned their earlier positions on the case

(3) and further examine whether it would be correct to proceed with just 15.8% of the original list of witnesses

a. as JJ is a high profile political leader who could have been possibly victimized by nature of the profile held by her?



A. Further, why wasn’t there an effort to check or call for investigation to rule out victimization of JJ or force/pressure on the witnesses to provide information under conditions of duress?

B. Further, why wasn’t there an effort to check or call for investigation whether the people or groups of people who complained against JJ had any natural or political advantage due to incriminating JJ on this case?

C. Further, why wasn’t there an effort to check or call for investigation whether the people or groups of people who complained against JJ had all assets in proportion to their known sources of income?

D. Further, was there any special reason that could NOT be recorded on the Judgement regarding why the Spl.P.P. went ahead totally ignorant of the fact that 84.2% of witness resiled or abandoned their earlier positions (on the case)?

E. Further, was there any possibility of teamwork between the Spl.P.P. and the people or groups of people who complaint against JJ?

a. Was it checked or was it ignored?

F. Further, when the Chief of the DMK party himself did not seem to get a good opinion in the Sarkaria Commission report, was it wise on the part of the Vigilance Department to file an FIR on the basis of DMK Govt.’s direction at that time? Why couldn’t the Vigilance Department ask a legal opinion, whether to proceed with the DMK Govt.’s direction at that time (citing the Sarkaria Commission Reports and possibility of political vendetta)? (Ref: Point 2 at: http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/jayalalithaa-s-disproportionate-assets-case-5-things-to-know-114092700375_1.html )

G. Further, why wasn’t the observations of the Sarkaria Commission taken into account in the pursuit of the JJ case, since the group of people complaining against did not have a good reputation in the Sarkaria Commission report?

H. Further, why wasn’t it possible to investigate both the complainant (having negative repute due to Sarkaria Commission report) and the person against whom the complainant filed the complaint, in this case, JJ ?

I. Further, why was the Spl.P.P. rushing ahead without pausing to attend to sudden developments (64/76 witnesses resiling or abandoning their earlier positions on the case) as if the complainant had a very good reputation in society without regard for the Sarkaria Commission Report?

J. Why wasn’t it thought of then, that such questions might crop up in the minds of the people when the Judgement was accessible by the general public?

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 17. S. No. 14.

Quote

“On the subsequent adjourned dates, 76 prosecution witnesses who were already recalled and cross-examined in full were got recalled by the accused for the purpose of further cross-examination and 64 of them substantially resiled from their earlier statements made on oath. The learned Spl.P.P. conducting the prosecution did not choose to treat any of these witness as hostile, instead proceeded with the examination of the Investigating Officer as P.W.259”


End of Quote




Has the Special Judge D’Cunha exceeded the authority that the Supreme Court designated to him, by going beyond whatever instructions has been given by the Supreme Court with regard to the conduct of the case against JJ?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

The JJ Judgement Page 19 Section No. 16 provides the Instructions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of INDIA with respect to

a) Convening of Special Court

b) Appointment of Special Judge

c) Appointment of Public Prosecutor

d) Instructions to investigating agency to render all assistance to public prosecutor and his assistant

e) “The Special Judge so appointed to proceed with the cases from such stage as he deems fit and proper and in accordance with law”

f) Permissions for Public Prosecutor to discharge his duty

g) Instructions to Tamil Nadu to transfer documents and ensure that witnesses are produced on requirement

h) Instructions on witness protection to State of Karnataka

i) “The Special Judge shall after completion of evidence put to all the accused all relevant evidence and documents appearing against them whilst recording their statement u/Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code.”.”

But where is the Instruction what the Special Judge has to do after completing the case, as items (e) and (i) refer to the manner in which the Special Judge has to conduct the case?

With reference to the fact that this case is labelled as State of Tamil Nadu Vs JJ and others, the Supreme Court has NOT mentioned whether the Special Judge has to give Judgement (acquittal or conviction or pardon or whatever in accordance with the law) or hand over the completed case to the Tamil Nadu High Court or to the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court has given detailed instructions for each protocol in the conduct of the case, when the protocol to be followed on completion of the case is NOT given, then shouldn’t the Special Court and the Special Judge seek the advice of the Supreme Court before proceeding to conclude the case with the delivery of Judgement?

Has the Special Judge D’Cunha exceeded the authority that the Supreme Court designated to him, by going beyond whatever instructions has been given by the Supreme Court with regard to the conduct of the case against JJ?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 19. Section No. 16

Quote

16. TRANSFER OF THE CASE :

By its Judgment dt. 18.11.2003 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.77-78/2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered transfer of the case to the State of Karnataka with the following directions;

“(a) The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall constitute a Special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom CC No.7 of 1997 and CC No.2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XI Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1) Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu shall stand transferred. The Special Court to have its sitting in Bangalore.

(b) As the matter is pending since 1997 the State of Karnataka shall appoint Special Judge within a month from the date of receipt of this Order and the trial before the Special Judge shall commence as soon as possible and will then proceed from day to day till completion.

(c) The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as public prosecutor to conduct these cases. The public prosecutor so appointed shall be entitled to assistance of another lawyer of his choice. The fees and all other expenses of the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant shall be paid by the State of Karnataka who will thereafter be entitled to get the same reimbursed from the State of Tamil Nadu. The Public Prosecutor to be appointed within six weeks from today

Spl.C.C.208/2004 20

(d) The investigating agency is directed to render all assistance to the public prosecutor and his assistant.

(e) The Special Judge so appointed to proceed with the cases from such stage as he deems fit and proper and in accordance with law.

(f) The Public Prosecutor will be at liberty to apply that the witnesses who have been recalled and cross-examined by the accused and who have resiled from their previous statement, may be again recalled. The Public Prosecutor would be at liberty to apply to the court to have these witnesses declared hostile and to seek permission to cross-examine them. Any such application if made to the Special court shall be allowed. The public prosecutor will also be at liberty to apply that action in perjury to be taken against some or all such witnesses. Any such application/s will be undoubtedly considered on its merit/s.

(g) The State of Tamil Nadu shall ensure that all documents and records are forthwith transferred to the Special Court on its constitution. The State of Tamil Nadu shall also ensure that the witnesses are produced before the Special Court whenever they are required to attend that Court.

(h) In case any witness asks for protection the State of Karnataka shall provide protection to that witness.

(i) The Special Judge shall after completion of evidence put to all the accused all relevant evidence and documents appearing against them whilst recording their statement u/Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code.”.

Spl.C.C.208/2004 21

In obedience to the above directions, the Government of Karnataka by its Order dt. 27.12.2003 in Proceedings No. LAW 151 LCE 2003, Bangalore, accorded sanction for establishment of the Special Court at Bangalore and by Notification dt. 19.02.2005 bearing No. LAW 151 LCE 03, appointed Sri. B.V. Acharya, Sr. Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka as Public Prosecutor to conduct C.C.No.7/97 and C.C.No.2/2001. By Notification dt. 5.3.2005 in LAW 42 LCE 2005 Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, Advocate, Bangalore was appointed as Jr. Advocate to assist Sri.B.V. Acharya


End Quote


However JJ has been convicted, in which case, could it be said that the unexplained acts and unexplained proceedings were done in unexplained ways to convict JJ?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Comparing Page 17. S. No. 14 and Page 24, 258 witnesses were examined. 76 were recalled and cross examined. 64 resiled/abandoned their earlier statements.

Hostile Witness clause not evoked and Hostile Witness protocol not followed. Sp.P.P. went ahead with what he deemed best.

After 10 years, the Sp.P.P. sought to recall 45 witnesses for cross examination. Reasons are NOT given in judgement.

Even if numbers are tried to be matched with earlier data, 45 does NOT agree with 258 NOR agree with 76 NOR agree with 64.

No reasons and no records of death of other witnesses nor any other reason for their inability to be cross examined not recorded in judgement.

Could the Sp.P.P. conduct the case proceedings as he deemed fit, without attributing reasons for his choice of action ???

Was the Sp.P. P. fair in the discharge of his duties?

Or like the unexplained behaviour of the 64 witnesses who resiled/abandoned their earlier positions on the case (and were NOT labelled hostile), was the action of the Sp.P.P. also supposed to be unexplained?

If JJ had been acquitted, the unexplained acts and unexplained proceedings could be said that they were done in unexplained ways to help JJ to get acquitted.

However JJ has been convicted, in which case, could it be said that the unexplained acts and unexplained proceedings were done in unexplained ways to convict JJ?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 17. S. No. 14.

28.12.1998 - 24.08.2000, 258 witnesses

Quote

“On the subsequent adjourned dates, 76 prosecution witnesses who were already recalled and cross-examined in full were got recalled by the accused for the purpose of further cross-examination and 64 of them substantially resiled from their earlier statements made on oath”

End Quote



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.

Date between 19.03.2010 and 14.07.2010

Quote

“In the meanwhile, the learned Spl. P.P. sought to recall 45 witnesses for cross-examination”


End Quote



Does it point to any strategy to frame A-1 (JJ) (& convict her), right from the beginning of the case, which was set in motion right from the beginning of the case through induced irregularities (right from the beginning of the case as pointed out in Ref:1-3) which could camouflage the conviction at the end and make it appear to be a legal consequence instead of a framed conviction?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752


With regard to the irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1 – 3, A-1 (JJ) could have been right in asking for a de novo translation by summoning all the witnesses before the court, in which case A-1 (JJ) would have been given a fair chance to point out the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref: 1-3) by the Court and the Prosecution and ask & obtain relief from the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref: 1-3).

However, the Court seems to have rejected the application of A-1 (JJ). Therefore, did the Court do it in such a way so that the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref: 1-3) would remain there (right from the beginning of the case) and consequently aid the Judge to convict JJ at the end of the case?

Does it point to any strategy to frame A-1 (JJ) (& convict her), right from the beginning of the case, which was set in motion right from the beginning of the case through induced irregularities (right from the beginning of the case as pointed out in Ref:1-3) which could camouflage the conviction at the end and make it appear to be a legal consequence instead of a framed conviction?

Why did this NOT attract the attention of any of the legal or scientific fraternity?

Defense Lawyers for JJ could have been pressurised by the nature of the case, yet there are so many other Lawyers & Scientists who could have helped Defense Lawyers and JJ to understand these irregularities and attempt to get them corrected right from the beginning of the case so that JJ would NOT be framed with a conviction at the end of the case?

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.



Ref 1: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref 2: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref 3: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.

Quote

“In the meanwhile, the learned Spl. P.P. sought to recall 45 witnesses for cross-examination. At that stage, on 14.07.2010, A-1 filed an application in I.A-No.396 seeking to scrap the English translations of the depositions of all the witnesses and to hold a de novo translation by summoning all the witnesses before the Court. The said application was rejected by a considered order with certain directions on 22.07.2010”


End Quote


Was the High Court of Karnataka denied the opportunity of helping JJ to have a fair trial?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752



JJ could have been right in preferring Crl. Petition No. 3748/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and it is said that the learned Spl. P.P. also filed Crl. Petition No. 3766/2010.

However, did the Court and the Prosecution declare the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref:1-3) to the High Court of Karnataka?

If the Court and the Prosecution declared the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref:1-3), then, maybe the High Court of Karnataka would NOT have disposed of the petition of JJ, which could have resulted in an opportunity for a fair trial for JJ in the case.

Did the Court and the Prosecution NOT declare the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref: 1-3) to the High Court so that the irregularities would continue to remain in the conduct of the case and would serve to aid the conviction of JJ at the end of the case and make it appear like a fair conviction?

Was the High Court of Karnataka denied the opportunity of helping JJ to have a fair trial?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.



Ref 1: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref 2: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref 3: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.

Quote

“Aggrieved by the said order, A-1 preferred Crl. Petition No. 3748/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the learned Spl. P.P. also filed Crl. Petition No. 3766/2010 challenging the part of the directions issued by this Court. Both the Crl. Petitions were heard and disposed of by a common order dt. 23.10.2010”


End of Quote


Was the Supreme Court denied the opportunity of understanding the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref: 1-3) and helping JJ to have a fair trial?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752



The common order is recorded to have been argued before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 10324 and 10325 of 2010.

However, did the Court and the Prosecution declare the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref:1-3) to the Supreme Court?

If the Court and the Prosecution declared the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref:1-3), then, maybe the Supreme Court could have appraised itself of the irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings, which could have resulted in an opportunity for a fair trial for JJ in the case.

Did the Court and the Prosecution NOT declare the irregularities (as pointed out in Ref: 1-3) to the Supreme Court so that the irregularities would continue to remain in the conduct of the case and would serve to aid the conviction of JJ at the end of the case and make it appear like a fair conviction?

Was the Supreme Court denied the opportunity of understanding the irregularities and helping JJ to have a fair trial?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.



Ref 1: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref 2: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref 3: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 24.

Quote

“ The said common order was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No.10324 and 10325 of 2010.”


End of Quote


How was the Sp.P.P. allowed to continue his processes in such unexplained ways for the sake of any specific unexplained or undeclared purpose or motivation? However, JJ has been convicted, in which case, could it be said that the unexplained acts and unexplained proceedings were done in unexplained ways with unquestioned approvals / permissions to the Sp.P.P. to convict JJ, accompanied with denial of right of relevant and significant information of the High Court and Supreme Court (as pointed out in Ref. 1-6) to ensure fair trial for JJ?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Pages 25-26. S. No. 21



Ref: 1 https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref: 2 https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref: 3 https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref: 4 https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref: 5 https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref: 6 https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752





With specific reference to Ref: 3, read together Ref: 1-2 & 4-6, there is no explanation recorded in the Judgement regarding why

(a) the Spl. P.P. chose to recall and re-examine only 23 witnesses and

(b) the prosecution dispenses with the further examination of PW.256 and PW.51

Significance of PW.256 and PW.51 not mentioned in Judgement.

Further, (a), read together with Ref. 3,

the number of 23 witnesses

does NOT agree with the 258,

NOR the 76 who were recalled and cross examined,

NOR the 64 who resiled/abandoned their earlier statements.

Further hostile witness clause & hostile witness protocol NOT invoked.

Not mentioned whether this set of 23 witnesses who were chosen to be recalled and re-examined falls within the 64 or the 76 or falls outside the 76 but within the 258 accompanied with the fact that the Choice of population of 23 witnesses is also NOT explained.

Same questions as earlier arise, however the strength of the question whether the SP.P.P. could conduct the case as he deemed fit, without attributing reasons for his choice of action is further strengthened with each additional unexplained strange process called for by the Sp.P.P.

(i) Was the Sp.P. P. fair in the discharge of his duties?

(ii) How was the Sp.P.P. allowed to continue his processes in such unexplained ways for the sake of any specific unexplained or undeclared purpose or motivation?

(iii) If JJ had been acquitted, the unexplained acts and unexplained proceedings could be said that they were done in unexplained ways to help JJ to get acquitted.

(iv) However, JJ has been convicted, in which case, could it be said that the unexplained acts and unexplained proceedings were done in unexplained ways with unquestioned approvals / permissions to the Sp.P.P. to convict JJ, accompanied with denial of right of relevant and significant information of the High Court and Supreme Court (as pointed out in Ref. 1-6) to ensure fair trial for JJ?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Pages 25-26. S. No. 21

Quote

“21. Here itself it needs to be mentioned that, even though the learned Spl. P.P. was permitted to recall 45 witnesses for the purpose of cross- examination, the learned Spl. P.P. chose to recall and re-examine only 23 witnesses and on 19.01.2011 filed a memo to the effect that the prosecution dispenses with the further examination of PW.256 and PW.51 and filed Spl.C.C.208/2004 26 another memo stating that the prosecution does not choose to adduce any further evidence and accordingly prosecution side was closed…”


End of Quote


The Judge should have been happy that JJ did NOT ask for a complete stop to the current irregular proceedings, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7; JJ did NOT ask for the Court to restart the entire case, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7; JJ did NOT ask for a new Special Court, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7; JJ did NOT ask for quashing of the proceedings and be acquitted, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7; JJ had complete faith in the wisdom of the Officials prosecuting and judging her, and went with them all the way, to the extent of getting imprisoned (with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7)
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752





http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 23. S. No. 20



Ref 1: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref 2: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref 3: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref 4: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref 5: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref 6: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref 7: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752



Why is the judge appearing to complain that the considerable delay in the progress of the case was due the accused (to be read as JJ) moving “applications after applications before this Court at every stage of the proceedings raising different interlocutory issues purportedly to vindicate different facets of their right to a free and fair trial and virtually every order passed by this Court was carried in Appeal or Revision to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and then to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India”?

The Judge should have been happy

(1) JJ did NOT ask for a complete stop to the current irregular proceedings, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7

(2) JJ did NOT ask for the Court to restart the entire case, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7

(3) JJ did NOT ask for a new Special Court, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7

(4) JJ did NOT ask for quashing of the proceedings and be acquitted, with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7

(5) JJ had complete faith in the wisdom of the Officials prosecuting and judging her, and went with them all the way, to the extent of getting imprisoned (with reference to irregularities pointed out in Ref: 1-7)



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 23. S. No. 20

Quote

“It is borne out from the records that, after the trial resumed before this Court, the accused moved applications after applications before this Court at every stage of the proceedings raising different interlocutory issues purportedly to vindicate different facets of their right to a free and fair trial and virtually every order passed by this Court was carried in Appeal or Revision to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and then to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India resulting in considerable delay in the progress of the case”


End Quote


With Reference to this and previous posts (Ref. 1-8), was it an attempt to deprive JJ of the fair chance to defend herself by introducing irregularities, forcing JJ to run here and there to seek legal remedies, spending valuable time, which could possibly and even eventually end up in weakening her defence evidence (sometimes as even natural death of some people who could have had valuable information that could have acquitted JJ)?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752





http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 28 S. No. 24 & 25.



Ref 1: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref 2: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref 3: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref 4: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref 5: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref 6: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref 7: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

Ref 8: https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752



With specific Reference to Ref. 8, read together with Ref. 1-7, was there any specific reason why initially the Judge tried to explain that the delay in the conduct of the case proceedings was due to JJ?

In the quoted segment from S. No. 24 & 25 on Page 28, “persons named at Sl. Nos.5 and 29 are no more and the accused do not propose to examine the other witnesses named in the list and sought to close defence evidence”

In light of these happenings, and revisit of Ref. 8, read together with Ref. 1-7, was it a purely intentional delay caused, triggered by intentional irregularities so that JJ would have to spend time to overcome each irregularity, which would consequently take up a lot of time, in which time, even natural reasons would come in as death or disease and weaken defense evidence?

Why should a prior explanation and fixing the blame of the delay in conduct of the case proceedings on JJ and then mentioning a weakness caused due to death of two people be done, while discussing defense evidence?

Why should an understanding be attempted to be indicated that JJ was responsible for the delay in conduct of case proceedings?

Why should an understanding be attempted to be indicated that JJ could have been indirectly responsible for insufficiencies in defense evidence (caused due to death of two people) as a natural consequence of delay in conduct of the case proceedings?

With Reference to this and previous posts (Ref. 1-8), was it an attempt to deprive JJ of the fair chance to defend herself by introducing irregularities, forcing JJ to run here and there to seek legal remedies, spending valuable time, which could possibly and even eventually end up in weakening her defence evidence (sometimes as even natural death of some people who could have had valuable information that could have acquitted JJ)?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 28 S. No. 24 & 25.

Quote

“The accused submitted a list of 128 defence witnesses and amongst them examined 99 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.99 and produced in evidence Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.384.

25. ARGUMENTS:

On 29.07.2013, counsel for A-1 to A-4 filed a memo stating that the persons named at Sl. Nos.5 and 29 are no more and the accused do not propose to examine the other witnesses named in the list and sought to close defence evidence.”


End of Quote.





Does this point to any planned introduction of irregularity in the translation so that inefficiency in translation would weaken the defense of JJ?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396701776752





http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 21.



Ref (1) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref (2) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref (3) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref (4) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref (5) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref (6) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref (7) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

Ref (8) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752

Ref (9) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752



With Reference to quote from page 21, read together with Ref (1-9),

(a) : Was it required to obtain a Cabinet Decision or Was a Cabinet Decision obtained, to serve as a shield for the irregularities (Ref 1-9) and pursue the proceedings under the shelter of the strength of the Cabinet Decision?

(b) : Was the right of information of the Cabinet respected and was the Cabinet provided all details including possible irregularities as pointed out in previous references cited here?

(c) : Was the Cabinet aware of irregularities as pointed out in previous references cited here?

(d) : Assistant Professors / Lecturers are never senior most in cadre. The senior most cadre is that of Professor and Senior Professor. Was there any specific reason to add emphasis with “senior most 20 Assistant Professors / Lecturers” when the cadre that they represent is NOT senior most?

(e) : Any academic or research or related work is always supervised or monitored or mentored by an Official with a higher cadre. In such case, why was it NOT deemed fit that a team of Professors & Senior Professors monitor or mentor or supervise the translation?

(f) :If there is any mistake or error in translation, it might even affect the possibility of JJ to have a fair trial and present her defence to prove her innocence. Keeping this in mind, why was there NOT a supervisory mechanism put in place for the translation?

(g) : Further, was the absence of the supervisory mechanism for translation an introduced irregularity so that mistakes or inefficient translation could possibly weaken the defense of JJ?

(h) : Further, was there any special reason NOT to involve any eminent academic team of linguistic researchers, scholars and serving or retired professors in the translation?

(i) : Does this point to any planned introduction of irregularity in the translation so that inefficiency in translation would weaken the defense of JJ?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 21.

Quote

“The Government of Karnataka vide the decision of the Cabinet, in Ref. No. C-300 of 2004, dt. 30.9.2004 directed the Prl. Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department to depute the services of the senior most 20 Assistant Professors/Lecturers proficient in Tamil and English language to the Special Court, Bangalore, for translating the documents from Tamil to English”


End of Quote


Was the defense of JJ given any benefit due to the documents that could NOT be traced?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396780036752



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 27 & 28



Ref (1) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref (2) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref (3) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref (4) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref (5) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref (6) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref (7) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

Ref (8) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752

Ref (9) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752

Ref (10) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396701776752



With reference to quote from Pages 27 & 28, read together with Ref. 1-10,

(a) : Was checking or verification done whether the documents that could NOT be traced were very essential for the defense of JJ?

(b) : Was there any weakening on the defense of JJ caused by the documents that could NOT be traced?

(c) : Was evaluation done of the effect of the possible weakening of the defense of JJ caused by the documents that could NOT be traced?

(d) : Was any benefit given to the defense of JJ, as documents listed for the sake of defense of JJ could NOT be traced?

(e) : Was it recorded if any benefit for the defense of JJ was given or NOT given as documents listed for the sake of defense of JJ could NOT be traced?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Page 27 & 28

Quote

“The accused however, moved an application u/Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summons to the Director General of Income Tax, Chennai to cause production of documents and records listed in the applications and accordingly summons were issued and the counsel representing the Income Tax Department produced the documents sought for by the accused and submitted that the other documents could not be traced. “


End of Quote


Read together with Ref. 1-11, was the entry of this new person (Mr Anbazhagan, offering to assist the prosecution) meant to complicate the irregularities to a greater extent so that the probability of conviction of JJ would be the highest?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396968081752





http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Pages 28 & 29



Ref (1) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref (2) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref (3) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref (4) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref (5) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref (6) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref (7) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

Ref (8) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752

Ref (9) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752

Ref (10) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396701776752

Ref (11) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396780036752



With reference to quote from Pages 28 & 29, read together with Ref. 1-11,

(a) : The learned counsel for JJ would have also placed requests before the court under some legal provisions, as the learned counsel for JJ would have also had some good knowledge about the law and its legal provisions.

(b) : Mr Anbazhagan also would have placed a request to assist the prosecution under some legal provision.

(c) : However, it is NOT mentioned in what way Mr Anbazhagan (with an offer to assist the prosecution) is related to the case; whether he was part of the investigating team, or vigilance dept. official, or any official directly related to the case proceedings.

(d) : Quoting a legal provision, anyone could get involved in a case proceeding.

(e) : Was it absolutely necessary to have a new person (offering to assist the prosecution) getting involved with the case (on his own request), as if the Investigating Officials and the Prosecution were NOT capable of handling the case?

(f) :If it was absolutely necessary to have a new person (offering to assist the prosecution) getting involved with the case (on his own request), and reason not recorded in the Judgement, does it mean that the Investigating Officials and the Prosecution were NOT capable of handling the case? In which event, does the case proceedings have any merit?

(g) : Read together with Ref. 1-11, was the entry of this new person (Mr Anbazhagan, offering to assist the prosecution) meant to complicate the irregularities to a greater extent so that the probability of conviction of JJ would be the highest?

(h) : Since some of the complainants or those who passed orders to conduct enquiry already had the negative opinion of the Sarkaria Commission, was it investigated whether the new person coming into the case (on his own request) had a clean financial background, or whether there could be a possibility of political reasons or possibility of political vendetta or any other relevant check done on him (as he was coming into the case with an offer to assist the prosecution) and was it recorded in the judgement?

(i) : Further, read together with Ref. 1-11, when the learned counsel for JJ makes any request, it is turned down. But when someone unrelated comes into the case (on his own request) with an offer to assist the prosecution, he is permitted. Does this indicate that the case proceedings were conducted in a fair manner?





http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Pages 28 & 29

Quote

“During this time, the aforesaid Mr. Anbazhagan filed an application u/Sec. 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the prosecution. On hearing the parties and considering the objections thereto, the said application numbered as I.A-No.1143 was partly allowed and the applicant intervener was permitted to file memo of arguments and present the same to the Court and to render such assistance which the learned Spl. P.P. may require.”


End of Quote


With reference to quote from Pages 31 & 32, read together with Ref. 1-12, wont the inference be that JJ could have possibly been falsely implicated in the alleged offences at the behest of her political opponents (who also had Sarkaria Commission’s negative remarks against them)?
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152397037671752





http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Pages 31 & 32



Ref (1) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref (2) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref (3) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref (4) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref (5) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref (6) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref (7) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

Ref (8) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752

Ref (9) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752

Ref (10) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396701776752

Ref (11) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396780036752

Ref (12) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396968081752



With reference to quote from Pages 31 & 32, read together with Ref. 1-12, wont the inference be that JJ could have possibly been falsely implicated in the alleged offences at the behest of her political opponents (who also had Sarkaria Commission’s negative remarks against them)?

Whether Defense Lawyer Sri. B. Kumar said it or whether the references Ref 1-12 helped to understand it, isn’t the inference the same, though the two analysis are completely different; one being a legal analysis and the other being a scientific analysis?

When a convergence is achieved via two different analysis which are NOT related to each other, namely,

(a) a scientific evaluation of a manuscript (in this case the judgement) and

(b) analysis and statements of the Defense lawyer Shri. B. Kumar,

then, shouldn’t it be accepted that there could be a very high possibility that JJ could have been falsely implicated in the alleged offences at the behest of her political opponents (who also had Sarkaria Commission’s negative remarks against them)?



http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/Jayalalitha_Assets_2136932a.pdf

Pages 31 & 32

Quote:

“Learned Senior Counsel for A-1, Sri. B. Kumar, however has addressed arguments for more than 80 hours elaborately dealing with every aspect of law and fact touching the points in controversy and has extensively dealt with each and every item of the income, expenditure, assets and pecuniary resources attributed to A-1 in an attempt to show that all the properties and assets held by A-1 are acquired out of her legitimate source known to law and that she is falsely implicated in the alleged offences at the behest of her political opponent.

26.1) In his prefatory submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has strongly objected to the investigation conducted by the I.O. and has strenuously contended that, these illegalities in the investigation and procedural infirmities go to the root of the matter vitiating the cognizance taken by this Court and the consequent trial held against the accused.”


End of Quote


Convergence of Scientific Analysis & Legal Analysis:

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152397048086752



When a convergence is achieved via two different analysis which are NOT related to each other, namely,

(a) a scientific evaluation of a manuscript (in this case the judgement) and

(b) analysis and statements of the Defense lawyer Shri. B. Kumar,

then, shouldn’t it be accepted that there could be a very high possibility that JJ could have been falsely implicated in the alleged offences at the behest of her political opponents (who also had Sarkaria Commission’s negative remarks against them)?



Ref (1) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752

Ref (2) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

Ref (3) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

Ref (4) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

Ref (5) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

Ref (6) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

Ref (7) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

Ref (8) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752

Ref (9) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752

Ref (10) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396701776752

Ref (11) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396780036752

Ref (12) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396968081752

Ref (13) : https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152397037671752
Published in Social Media vide links

16.10.2014, 15:32 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152397037671752

16.10.2014, 15:19 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152397037671752

16.10.2014, 14:31 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396968081752

16.10.2014, 11:52 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396780036752

16.10.2014, 10:42 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152396701776752

15.10.2014, 21:59 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395276056752

15.10.2014, 20:34 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152395041666752

15.10.2014, 07:01 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152393932536752

14.10.2014, 23:12 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152392888581752

14.10.2014, 06:42 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391213456752

14.10.2014, 06:12 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152391155881752

13.10.2014, 03:12 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152388238701752

13.10.2014, 00:59 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152387910851752

12.10.2014, 13:13 hours IST https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10152386645166752














Ċ
Prabhu Britto Albert,
Jan 11, 2017, 7:58 PM