Dear brothers and sisters, #DMK #Kalaignar #Karunanidhi ”ஒய்யாரக் கொண்டையாம்; தாழம்பூவாம்” “High rise hair style and screw pine flower” You would have read the first line of the Tamil lyric ”ஒய்யாரக் கொண்டையாம்; தாழம்பூவாம்” which means “High rise hair style and screw pine flower” ! Only if you read the next lines you will understand what I want to say. The full meaning will be known in detail. It is not necessary for me to say new for you to know about the details of the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha and the final verdict delivered. The people of the State understand well. In these affairs, though the disproportionate assets case can be read dividing it into chapters of arrest, imprisonment and conditional bail following sentence, as it will be good for you and the State if only said in detail- with the hope that at least in the future of the State truth will be established and it will be useful and caution to the future youth- after keeping mum in the last few days, I have started this series of epistles for telling in detail. The title of this epistle is “ஒய்யாரக் கொண்டையாம்; தாழம்பூவாம்”. With the hope that If the next line is released ”உள்ளே இருக்குமாம் ஈரும் பேனும்” which means ‘inside is only lice’, you will understand I begin this epistle and continue for a few days. In the disproportionate assets case against four including Jayalalitha, which was delayed for eighteen years by dragging at various stages, Judge John Michael D Cunha announced that the verdict will be delivered in the special court on September 20. Still, the accused demanded that the verdict be delivered only on September 27 in view of their security, which was accepted by the judge and delivered the verdict on September 27. In that verdict Jayalalitha was sentenced to four years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 crore. Further, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and V.N.Sudhakaran were also sentenced to four years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10 crore each. Judge John Michael D Cunha has explained in detail in his 1136 page verdict evidences and witnesses for this on the basis of legal rules. After the verdict was delivered, I did not say any opinion. Because, as this is an important case, cautiously maintaining patience, I thought of explaining after carefully going though the verdict in full. Moreover, I was neither elated over the conviction of the ADMK leader nor ready to regret for her release on conditional bail. But ADMK cadres are telling as if I have foisted a false case on Jayalalitha. But what is the truth? This epistle series is to share with you what are all stated in the verdict delivered by the judge of the Bengaluru special court! In the beginning of his verdict judge John Michael D Cunha has given the detail as to why the disproportionate assets case was transferred to Bengaluru though it started in Chennai. The case was filed against the four Tamil Nadu former Chief Minister Jayalalitha, Sasikala, V.N.Sudhakaran and J.Ilavarasi for having committed punishable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Criminal Procedure Code 120 B and 109. Jayalalitha was Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24.6.1991 to 13.5.1996. Prior to that, daughter of late N.R.Sandya, who was acting in films in 1960s, was owning only the properties of Natya Kala Niketan, after the demise of her mother in 1971. The second accused Sasikala is the wife of Natarajan, who got promoted as deputy director in Public Relations department of Tamil Nadu government and then resigned; Sasikala, who was married to Natarajan in 1970s, was visiting Jayalalitha’s house now and then and after 1988 became her close associate and stayed there itself along with Jayalalitha. Jayalalitha openly adopted as foster son V.N.Sudhakaran, son of Sasikala’s sister Vanithamani-T.T.Vivekanandan, and conducted his wedding with Sathyalakshami in Chennai with much pomp. The fourth accused Ilavarasi is the wife of Sasikala’s elder brother V.Jayaraman. After the death of Jayaraman, Ilavarasi was also staying in Jayalalitha’s house like Sasikala from the beginning of 1992. As mentioned in the prosecution, as on 1.7.1991, Jayalalitha and Sasikala possessed assets worth Rs. 2,01,83,957 including their partnership firms Jaya Publications, Sasi Enterprises and Namathu MGR and assets acquired in those names. After 1.7.1991, that is after Jayalalitha became the Chief Minister, the assets of Jayalalitha, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran manifold several times. They are:- 1. Jayalalitha’s farm houses. 2. J.S.Housing Development. 3. J. Real Estate. 4. Jaya contractors and buildings. 5. J.S.Leasing and Maintenace. 6. Green Farm houses. 7. Metal King. 8. Super Duper T.V.Ltd., 9. Anjaneya Printers Private Limited. 10. Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., 11. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd., 12. Lex Property Development P Ltd., 13. Riverway Agro Products P. Ltd., 14. Medo Agro Farms P. Ltd., 15. Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 16. V.B.Publicity Services 17. Vigneswara Builders 18. Lakshmi Constructions 19. Gopal Promoters 20. Sakthi Constructions 21. Namasivaya Housing Developers 22. Ayyappa Property Developers 23. Sea Enclave 24. Navasakthi Contractors and Builders 25. Asianic Constructions 26. Green Garden Apartments 27. Marble Marvels 28. Vinodh Video Vision 29. Fax Universal 30. Fresh Mushrooms 31. Kodanad Tea Estate In these firms referred above, from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996, excepting acquiring assets like lands, machineries and buildings no other transactions that normally transacted in a commercial firm took place. No income tax returns were filed through these firms. Commercial Tax assessments were also not conducted for them. Jayalalitha also did not file income tax returns from 1987-88 to November 1992. After 1.7.1991, moveable and immoveable properties were acquired not only in the names of Jayalalitha and the three others but also in the names of the firms started in their names. On a review of the bank accounts of the four, in various accounts amounts were frequently credited in excess of their income. For illegally acquiring properties, money was transferred from one account to another frequently. As all these happened during the period when Jayalalitha was in power and as Jayalalitha, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran lived in the same house, it has proved that in fact all these properties were acquired by Jayalalitha. Further, public servant Jayalalitha and her three associates conspired in the criminal act and accumulated assets worth Rs. 66,65,20,395 in the names of Jayalalitha and three others and in the names of their firms. This is disproportionate to their income. According to the prosecutor, the income from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996 including rent income, interest received on bank accounts and other deposits, agricultural income received by her and the other three, loans and salary received as Chief Minister all put together was Rs. 9,34,26,054. Similarly, it has been calculated that Jayalalitha and others had spent Rs. 11,56,56,833 on interest for loans, loans repaid and other expenses. Thus as on 30.4.1996, a public servant Jayalalitha has acquired properties worth Rs. 66,65,20,3935 in excess of income. This is a culpable crime vide Prevention of Corruption Act. This case against Jayalalitha started due to the complaint lodged by Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy to the Tamil Nadu Governor. On 14.6.1996 Subramanian Swamy filed a complaint before Chennai Principal Sessions and Special Judge that after Jayalalitha became the Chief Minister she has accumulated assets in excess of income. The judge registered the complaint as a case and ordered senior IPS officer Tmt Lathika Saran on 21.6.1996 to file a report within two months. Accordingly, Lathika Saran obtained reports from various banks, offices of registration and office of the Registrar of Companies and conducted enquiry. As Jayalalitha and Sasika moved the Madras High Court against this order vide order of 14.08.1996 the investigation was halted for some time. Later the Madras High Court itself lifted the stay and gave approval for enquiry. Rejecting the anticipatory bail petition of Jayalalitha, the Madras High Court held that ‘there was prima facie evidence for the corruption case filed against Jayalalitha and it was not correct to claim that it was foisted due to political enmity’. As the Madras High Court on 4.9.1996 gave approval to the Commissioner for Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for enquiry, the DVAC Commissioner V.C.Perumal ordered the then Additional SP in DVAC Nallamma Naidu to conduct the enquiry. V.C.Perumal, who was later promoted as IG, filed the FIR against Jayalalitha on 18.9.1996. Nallamma Naidu started the enquiry, with the warrant for search conducted searches in the residences of Jayalalitha and collected lot of witnesses and evidences. On 22.01.1997 he filed and application in the special court to include Jayalalitha and the three others in the case. By procedure the enquiry was completed and the charge-sheet against Jayalalitha was filed and registered in the Special court cum Chennai Additional Sessions Court. The special judge, Chennai on 5.6.1997 considered the charges and ordered issue of summons to the four accused. Along with the charge-sheet except for Jayalalitha for the other three he ordered Tamil translation also as demanded by them. Dismissing the petitions of the accused for relieving them from the case, he filed the charges on 21.10.1997. Jayalalitha side filed a petition in the Madras High Court opposing the setting up of a special court and posting of special judge for the disproportionate assets case. They were dismissed as arrangements for the enquiry were made by following the Constitution of India. The appeal against it in the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 15.5.1999 by the bench consisting of Justices G.T.Nanavati and S.P.Kurdukar. It was established that the constitution of the special court and the posting of the special judge were in accordance with the Constitution of India.
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:47:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015