This was contended by the agency in its reply in the court of special judge P Anbazhagan opposing a petition by Jayalalitha, who had sought postponement of the proceedings against her till a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict on whether a state Governor had the power to sanction prosecution of a chief minister.

The CB-CID had filed chargesheets in November 1996 against Jayalalitha and her close friend Sasikala Natarajan in the case relating to the sale of prime land and buildings of the state-owned Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI) here, allegedly far below the then prevailing market rates to `Jaya Publications' and `Sasi Enterprises', in which the two were partners.

Contending that since the filing of the chargesheet Jayalalitha had been repeatedly seeking adjournments onvarious grounds, the CB-CID said the Madras High Court on October 1, 1997 had rejected her contention that the Governor was not the authority to accord sanction.

Stating that if Jayalalitha's petition was allowed it would nullify the High Court's ruling, the agency contended that as on date the High Court's order was binding on the special court.

Even the Supreme Court had held that the Governor had the power to grant sanction for prosecution. This had not been overruled by the apex court till date, the CB-CID said.

The investigating agency claimed that the court could proceed with the trial even without sanction since the purchase was made in her personal capacity and not in the discharge of official duty.

The offences committed by the petitioner would not come within the purview of Section 197 Cr.PC as purchase of government property for personal benefit, the CB-CID said and prayed for dismissal of Jayalalitha's petition.