Dear brothers and sisters, 3 #DMK #Kalaignar #Karunanidhi At the end of yesterday’ epistle, I have said that I am pointing out what the Bangalore special court judge had written in his verdict. The income shown by Jayalalitha before she became a public servant (Chief Minister) was Rs.2 crore, which included the incomes of Jaya-Sasi Enterprises and Jaya Publications. But, the speed with which their income increased in the five years of her tenure as Chief Minister could not even be imagined. The extent of the farm owned by them is 900 acres for which they have submitted account of buying for just Rs. 7 crore. Even by the government fixed guideline value this could not be bought. In this way they can buy and own a whole village for Rs. 7 crore. Their firms own 3,000 acre land, but they could not say from which income they were bought. The value of those lands were assessed by government fixed guideline value and included in this case. If they were calculated on market value, their total value will exceed to the extent in which we cannot assess even in imagination. Others have assisted Jayalalitha for buying properties like this. They have assisted her by starting new firms and using the bank accounts of defunct firms. Nobody made any investment in those firms, none purchased their shares and there were no commercial transactions. But the firms were owned by them. Only the action of using the bank of accounts of them, crediting the properties accumulated in excess of income and making them as their properties. Arguments and counters have proved all these beyond doubt. That is only the transactions required for accumulating properties were made in these bank accounts. Jayalalitha is occupying a high position in the Government of State of Tamil Nadu. It is often observed “just as those at high places behave, so others below”. If persons holding higher positions indulge in corruption, not only those below get encouraged to indulge in corruption, but also the person holding higher position will not be in a position to exact honesty from them or to take action against delinquent officials. I want to remind the essence of the Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Subbaiah vs. State of Karnataka in Crl. A. No.350/1985 (D.D. 4.10.1991), Rama Jois, JJ. observed : “Therefore, the gravity of the offence committed by a public servant is directly proportional to the higher position he holds in hierarchy of administration. Any leniency in this behalf and misplaced sympathy would prove disastrous to the entire social life.” Therefore, in the background of these factual and legal position and having regard to the magnitude of the disproportionate assets acquired by the accused and the gravity of the offence, there is no scope for any leniency or sympathy in this case. The accused have sought for leniency merely on the ground that the case is foisted at the instance of the political rivals of Jayalalitha and 18 years have elapsed from the date of the initiation of the proceedings and during this period, accused have undergone great tension, mental agony and trauma which cannot be compensated in their lifetime. In my view, none of these submissions permit the Court to take a lenient view in the case. No doubt, the case has been pending for nearly 18 years. It may not be necessary at this stage to find out as to who is responsible for the said delay, but the fact remains that the case was transferred to this court on account of the allegations faced by the accused attempting to subvert the course of justice. No doubt, there has been a stay for five years, but even thereafter, the accused have taken advantage of the procedural trammels of our legal system in keeping the penal consequences at bay for a considerable time. It also needs to be noted that, these accused have not appeared before the Court regularly except at the time of framing charge and recording their statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, their submissions that, on account of pendency they have been subjected to hardship and trauma cannot be accepted. The mere fact, the case against them is pending before this Court itself may be dissuading them from getting involved in any such cases. Therefore, all these factors may not be significant in deciding the quantum of punishment. The factors that should weigh with Court while deciding the quantum of sentence is the gravity of the offence, magnitude of the disproportionate assets and the manner in which the assets were acquired by the accused as stated above. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, this case calls for stringent punishment. The law itself having provided maximum punishment of 7 years, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the accused is awarded more than half the sentence prescribed under the provision”. Thus judge Cunha has categorically stated in his judgement. Not only this; Cunha has further explained that Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi, under the supervision of Jayalalitha and as wished by her, accumulated money and properties in wrong ways. The details are as under: “Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that as against the income of Rs.9,91,05,094.75 and expenditure of Rs.8,49,06,833.00 during the check period, Jayalalitha acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi and in the names of the business enterprises acquired in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 which she could not satisfactorily account. They cannot account this amount as their ancestral property because prior to 1991 Jayalalitha has officially shown only Rs. 2 crore as her property which has been proved by the prosecution. The documents filed by Sisikala and Ilavarasi in the court were sufficient. According to the deposition of PW R.Krishnamurthy and documents, the source of income for Sasikala was only her husband Natarajan, M. Natarajan joined the Government service as Assistant to the then Social Service Dept. Later, he was placed as Information Public Relations Officer on 30.11.1970 and continued in that post till 31.07.1976. Later in 1980 he was posted in the same post and continued there till 1988. In his service records, he appointed his wife Sasikala as nominee. He had received Rs.3,000/- as scooter advance when he was PRO. Later to buy a constructed house, he availed a loan of Rs.84,700/- in 1987. In the same year he availed a loan of Rs.80,000/- to purchase a motor car. On 1.11.1988, he submitted his resignation but it was accepted in the year 1991 w.e.f. the date of his letter. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that PW.169 did not produce any document either in proof of availment of loan or with regard to the resignation by the husband of Sasikala. He did not possess any substantial assets in his name and hence it is proved that she did not get any huge property though her husband. Neither did she have any ancestral property. The important point to be noted here is that only after she permanently started staying with Jayalalitha in Poes Garden, did she start filing income tax returns. According to the deposition of District Registrar Thangavelu and documents, firms such as J.S.Housing Development, J.J.Leasing, Green Farm House, J Farm House, J Real Estate, Jaya Contractors and Builders, Metal King and Marble Marvels were started by Jayalalitha, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran when Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister. In each firm either two or three or all of them were partners. Moreover District Registrar Thangavelu has deposed that his higher official S. Ayyar (who is now appointed by the ADMK regime as State Election Commissioner and is serving) directed him to register these firms and that he was telephonically ordered by the Chief Minister. The testimony of Commercial Taxes officer Kannan confirms that the application for starting Super Dupeer TV was signed and presented by Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran. The testimony of Commercial Taxes officer Sundararaj confirms that the application for Anjaneya Printers was signed by Sasikala and Sudhakaran. By these it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it was these persons who started and run these firms. In all the units assumed and run by the four none of them made any investment or shares were floated for mobilising investment but the profits from them did not go to any other account than those of these four. The deposition of Balaji, the auditor for Sasikala and Ilavarasi, is very important. According to him, these firms never produced anything, or bought and sold materials, but cash transactions were continuously made in their accounts. Following this the prosecution presented to the court the bank accounts of those firm and evidences for cash transactions. The details of bank transactions are awesome and surprising. Rubber stamp firm without any investment and those which never indulged in any trade have transacted in lakhs and thousands each time. Only for rotating money like this, Jayalalitha and Sasikala who maintained only 12 bank accounts prior to 1991, thereafter started 52 bank accounts. The depositions of North Beach Sub-Registrar and Horticulture department officer Radhakrishnan are very important. As directed by their higher officials, they were called to Jayalalitha’s house and registered documents without following rules. They have registered all document at throw away prices. Most shocking is that in six of those documents were registered without even the names of the buyers. Now if everyone of them are verified for whose enjoyment were they it was found that all of them were bought for Jayalalitha. . There was no account for 423 credits of cash on various dates (every time in lakhs and thousands) in the bank account of ‘Namathu MGR’. Similarly, Jayalalitha side could not explain the credits to the tune of several crore in the accounts of Jaya Publications, Vinodh Video Vision, Maha Subbulakshmi Kalyanamandapam and Anjaneya Printers. It has been proved by auditors and evidences that the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts maintained by Jayalalitha side were bogus preparations. But it has been confirmed through PW Jayaraman that it was Sasikala who credited money in banks and asked them to be transferred to other accounts. Jayaraman was employed as car driver in Poes Garden. On the direction of Sasikala he had carried lakhs of rupees filled in suit cases and filled up chalans and deposited them in bank accounts. That is, they had credited the money in the accounts of the firms run by them and then transferred them to their bank accounts. Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi have done all these for Jayalalitha. “ All these details were stated in the verdict written by judge Cunha. Though he has written the verdict in 1,136 pages, I have taken only important portions and told you.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:50:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015