<p>A bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma observed that the chief minister was attempting to delay the proceedings by seeking exemption from personal appearance in the matter.<br /><br />"We are on a broad principle. It is not necessary that the court should accept what all the accused says. Except to delay the whole proceedings in the court, we don't find anything in this application," Justice Bhandari observed.<br /><br />The bench made the observations while adjourning the matter for one week to allow senior counsel Harish Salve to seek instructions from Jayalalithaa on the day she would like to appear before the trial court.<br /><br />Jayalalithaa had sought exemption from personal appearance in recording her statement under section 313 CrPC.<br /><br />"We think you have not been properly advised. We can understand your position. If you want we can direct the trial court to provide you with adequate security and allow the proceedings on the day of your choice," the bench told Salve and granted him one week's time to seek necessary instructions in this regard.<br /><br />Earlier, appearing for the chief minister, Salve had contended that the trial court had erroneously rejected her plea for exemption from personal appearance and pointed out that section 313(5) CrPC grants liberty to an accused to answer the questions in writing.</p>.<p>It was the case of Jayalalithaa that it has become difficult for her to appear before the trial court as she has become the chief minister again and there were definite security threat perceptions.<br /><br />However, the argument failed to convince the bench, which said that Section 313 was a salutary provision intended to provide principle of natural justice and also allow the magistrate concerned to observe the demeanour of the accused.<br /><br />Hence, the bench said it was willing to direct the trial court to provide her adequate security for her safety.<br /><br />The disproportionate case relates to the period between 1991 and 1996 during which she is alleged to have accumulated assets over Rs 66 crore, a contention strongly disputed by her.<br /><br />She has alleged that the cases were foisted against her by the previous DMK government for political reasons. The case had been transferred to Karnataka to ensure a fair and free trial. </p>
<p>A bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma observed that the chief minister was attempting to delay the proceedings by seeking exemption from personal appearance in the matter.<br /><br />"We are on a broad principle. It is not necessary that the court should accept what all the accused says. Except to delay the whole proceedings in the court, we don't find anything in this application," Justice Bhandari observed.<br /><br />The bench made the observations while adjourning the matter for one week to allow senior counsel Harish Salve to seek instructions from Jayalalithaa on the day she would like to appear before the trial court.<br /><br />Jayalalithaa had sought exemption from personal appearance in recording her statement under section 313 CrPC.<br /><br />"We think you have not been properly advised. We can understand your position. If you want we can direct the trial court to provide you with adequate security and allow the proceedings on the day of your choice," the bench told Salve and granted him one week's time to seek necessary instructions in this regard.<br /><br />Earlier, appearing for the chief minister, Salve had contended that the trial court had erroneously rejected her plea for exemption from personal appearance and pointed out that section 313(5) CrPC grants liberty to an accused to answer the questions in writing.</p>.<p>It was the case of Jayalalithaa that it has become difficult for her to appear before the trial court as she has become the chief minister again and there were definite security threat perceptions.<br /><br />However, the argument failed to convince the bench, which said that Section 313 was a salutary provision intended to provide principle of natural justice and also allow the magistrate concerned to observe the demeanour of the accused.<br /><br />Hence, the bench said it was willing to direct the trial court to provide her adequate security for her safety.<br /><br />The disproportionate case relates to the period between 1991 and 1996 during which she is alleged to have accumulated assets over Rs 66 crore, a contention strongly disputed by her.<br /><br />She has alleged that the cases were foisted against her by the previous DMK government for political reasons. The case had been transferred to Karnataka to ensure a fair and free trial. </p>