Search Button

The Indian Express

The Financial Express


Latest News

World News

EIW


Market Indicators


Screen

Express Computers

Graffiti

Crossword



Advertisers Forum

Travel & Tourism

Information Technology

Drumbeat: Ad Buzzaar

Astrosurf

Eco-India

Dr Know

Screen: The Business of Entertainment

Career India

Business Forum

Match Maker

Express Properties


Politics

Business

Expressions

General

Sports

Leisure

States

 

Tuesday, May 5, 1998

HC clears way for Sasikala's trial

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA  
Chennai, May 4: The Madras high court today cleared the decks for the trial of Sasikala Natarajan, close friend of former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha. Sasikala has been accused of violating the FERA to the tune of 680,000 US dollars when she was chairman and director of the now defunct channel, JJ TV.

Justice S M Sidicck dismissed a criminal revision petition by V Bhaskaran, Sasikala's nephew and a co-accused in the case. He dismissed the stay order of October 20, 1997. Bhaskaran, who was managing director of JJ TV during the alleged offence, wanted the court to direct the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to produce statements recorded from him and Sasikala after October 1996. He had sought postponement of the trial till this was complied with.

The case pertains to purchase of transponders from Rimsat in the US for 500,000 US dollars and uplinking facilities from Subic Bay of Philippines for 180,000 US dollars by JJ TV through a Kuala Lumpur-based intermediary. The transaction did not have the RBI'sclearance and violated the FERA, according to the ED.

Bhaskaran was arrested on Sept 21, 1995, and was released on bail later. Subsequently, Sasikala was arrested on June 20, 1996, on various FERA charges. Later, both of them were detained under Cofeposa, but the detention was revoked on the Advisory Board's recommendation.

Justice Sidickk confirmed the October 14 order of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic offences) here, dismissing Bhaskaran's plea to direct the ED to file a supplementary charge-sheet to pursue further probe into the case. The judge held that no direction could be issued by the court to the ED merely on presumption, inference and surmise that the ED had probed further into the case.

He observed that the ED had made it clear that it had not obtained any letter rogatory (LR) in the case and that the petition was misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The judge stated that there was no factual basis to the contention that an LR was issued.

Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.



LIC

Bank of India

Godrej India

 

Touchwood Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.