Special Judge-2, V Radhakrishnan, before whom the counter was filed, adjourned the hearing of the petition to November 26. The judge had already discharged Jayalalitha and former finance minister V R Nedunchezhian from the case.

In her counter affidavit, Jayalalitha sought dismissal of Swamy's petition as not maintainable. She said the case was filed on a police report under Section 173 (2) before this court. As such, a private party has no locus standi to move any application much less an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), she contended.

Provisions of the code could not be twisted to seek private vengeance and exhibit personalanimosity and antipathy, she added. Jayalalitha submitted that she was an accused to whom process was issued initially when the case was taken on file. But later this court came to the conclusion that the charges against her were groundless and discharged her.

A perusal of the said order would indicate that the issue now now raised by Dr Swamy had been considered. The court had reached the conclusion that she had no knowledge of the missing pages in the file.

Jayalalitha said the matter of her discharge from the case was now the subject matter of revision by the High Court. Nevertheless, it had become final as far as this court was concerned. She submitted that Section 319 of CrPC would apply only in a case where the person had never been an accused. Once a person was found to have been accused in the case, then the person goes out of reach of section 319. In the case of an accused who had been discharged as in the present case, the relevant provisions of the code and the nature of the finality to suchan order and resultant protection of the persons discharged could not not be lost sight of, she contented.