Dear brothers and sisters, #Epistle 6 #DMK #Kalaignar #Karunanidhi There are several problems everyday in Tamil Nadu like deaths, murders, robberies, thefts, chain snatchings and deterioration of law and order! In particular there is heavy rain in the last one week due to which crops over lakhs of acres have submerged. There are reports that the present Chief Minister Panneerselvam himself was held up inside car for 30 minutes due to traffic disruption in rain. No flood relief work had been taken up. No need to write about law and order. The brother of a minister was murdered. There were sensational reports that a youth taken for enquiry to a police station near Tiruvadanai in Ramanathapuram died in the attack by the sub-inspector and to cover up the incident the sub-inspector claimed that he fired at him in self-defence. In Valangaiman three persons who consumed TASMAC liquor had died. In Neyveli, contract workers were on strike for more than a month and only yesterday they had been made to withdraw the strike following announcement of some wage hike. No assurance seems to have been given for regularising their service. Even after the High Court and the Supreme Court directed the Sahayam Commission to start the enquiry, the ADMK government did not care about those court orders. There is a report that the Traders Welfare Board remains hampered in the last three years. Is only that welfare board remaining hampered? All unorgainsed workers welfare boards remain hampered. Tamil Nadu itself remains hampered. In this condition, if I am writing about the verdict in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha during the last one week keeping aside all these, it is only for the people of Tamil Nadu to get clarified that if the charges against the former Chief Minister Jayalalitha have been proved, she was convicted and sentenced and lost power, the whole reason for it nothing else but it is they who reap what they sowed and what is stated in the verdict! In my yesterday’s epistle, I had said “It is quite normal that women sympathise with a woman sentenced to imprisonment”. I law is equal to all it implies that it is common for both genders. If a woman fails to behave like a woman subjecting herself to greed and misused power given to her by people, law could not bend sympathising her for being a woman. In this case also, though there are a ocean of truths to be said more and more, only a mustard size has found place in this series. To say further, it should not be thought that only now such a verdict has come against Jayalalitha. I remind in brief what judges had stated about her even earlier in some other cases. Can it be forgotten that it was only when Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister on 24.11.2003, in the TANSI case Supreme Court judges Justices S. Rajendra Babu and B.Venkataramana Reddy said in their verdict “Chief Minister Jayalalitha has gone to the extent of denying her own signature. Jayalalitha had breached the Code of Conduct, prohibiting Ministers from buying government properties since there was a conflict of interest between the office she held and the acts she committed.She must atone for the same by answering her conscience in the light of what we have stated not only by returning the property to TANSI unconditionally but also ponder over whether she had done the right thing in breaching the spirit of the Code of Conduct and giving rise to suspicion that rules and procedures were bent to acquire the property for personal benefit”? There is also a precedence in their verdict delivered on 24.2.2006 in the Income Tax Returns for 1993-94 case against Jayalalitha and Sasikala, Supreme Court judges Justices B.N. Agrawal and A.K. Mathur stating,“You [Jayalalitha] are making a mockery of the judicial process. How long you can drag the proceedings. You must set an example to others by presenting yourself in the court [trial court] for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. What counter affidavit you can file in this matter?” In the same period of the disproportionate assets case 1991-96, a case was filed against Jayalalitha relating to giving approval against rule for Pleasant Stay Hotel in Kodaikanal and she was convicted and sentenced for one year imprisonment. Even then ADMK men indulged in violence and three girl student of Coimbatore Agricultural College were burnt to death in the fire set on their bus by ADMK men. Was the order issued by Madras High Court judge Justice Kanakaraj when the prosecution side delayed the trial, a certificate? I had stated in the beginning of this epistle series the observations of Supreme Court judges Justices S.N.Variava and H.K.Sema when this case was transferred to Karnataka, were they ordinary words? The verdict delivered by the Bangalore special court is only another one to be added to this list against Jayalalitha. In yesterday’s epistle I had written about how the ornaments in her possession grew several fold from 1991 to 1996; the same Jayalalitha issued a statement for half a page in ‘Malaimalar’ daily on 30.7.1990 in which she had stated, “I performed the duty of returning the amount given by workers after the end of the elections. I returned in full the fixed deposit by selling my own jewels, ancient jewels and silver articles left over my ancestors, pledging my properties and also obtaining loans from some friends in order to keep up the trust reposed by party workers on me”. If only this statement of 1990 in which she claimed that she had sold out all her own jewels, her claim in 1991 of owning jewels and how their number multiplied in 1996 were compared the truth could be clearly understood. Of the important issues to be proved in this case, as far as the charge that she accumulated assets disproportionate to her known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 66.65 crore, the judge in his verdict has stated that assets to the tune of Rs. 55.79 crore were accumulated disproportionate to the legal income in the names of Jayalalitha and her benamis has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused could not account for them and that Jayalalitha, Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi were conspirators and Jayalalitha was assisted by the other three. Lakhs of rupees illegally amassed were credited in the accounts of firms in which the accused were partners which could not be explained. Lot of properties were bought. 3000 acre lands were purchased. To state and instance for crediting of money improperly received in the accounts of firms, the deposition of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram, Chennai Branch Manger Arunachalam was cited by the judge on page 752 of the verdict by which amounts of Rs.15,45,000 in the account of Riverway Agro Products on 29.11.1994, Rs.19,50,000 on 30.11.1994, Rs.22,41,000 on 3.12.1994, Rs. 15,00,000 on 7.1.1995, Rs 25,00,000 on 10.1.1995, 25,00,000 on 12.1.1995, Rs.19,00,000 on 25.4.1995, Rs.20,00,000 on 27.4.1995 and Rs.19,95,000 on 28.4.1995. The judge was surprised wherefrom so much money dropped to be deposited almost on alternative days. Through the depositions of many witnesses the judge has clearly referred to the instances of accumulation of lands. I will tell an example to show to what extent lands were bought. On page 765 the judge has listed the dates and extents of lands bought by them continuously as 53 acres on 22.8.1994, 281 acre on 17.11.1994, 507 acre on 22.12.1994, 166 acre on 6.1.1995, 158 acre on 21.2.1995, 281 acre, 73.90 acre , 69.78 acre, 60.65 acre,42.31 acre and 34.815 acre on 17.11.1994 alone. If the judge had surprisingly questioned where from and how they got money to buy and accumulate so much lands, should not the ‘noble persons’ (?) who paste posters accusing that court use their rational brain? I have already said about the expenditure accounts, particularly for the marriage of Sudhakaran, shown by Jayalalitha side and by whom they were spent. Similarly, a few examples should be shown for how some incomes shown by them came. It has been shown that rent income of Rs. 37.67 lakh was received by Jaya Publications (owned by Jayalalitha and Sasikala) taking on lease for three years (1993-96) a building in Gundy Industrial Estate from SPIC and renting it out to another unit. Similarly it has been shown that they received Rs.30.40 lakh lease income by leasing out a place belonging to Indo Doha Chemicals in Cuddalore Sipcot Industrial estate to Spic. In this case a demand was placed for adding Rs.4.29 crore to the income of Jayalalitha, which included Rs. 2.15 crore through gifts from party people on her 44th birthday, Rs 78 lakhs from gifts received from abroad, interest income of Rs. 78 lakhs and Rs. 47 lakh from vine yard. Similarly Sasikala asked Rs.19.28 crore to be added to her income. That is income through Namathu MGR daily Rs.14.01 crore and fund received from abroad Rs. 52 lakhs. During the period of trial they stated that their income account was Rs 34.24 crore adding Rs. 24.9 crore to the income of Rs. 9.34 crore already stated by the prosecution. As far as birthday gifts were concerned, to those who were presented as party functionaries during the cross examination, there were no evidence for the posts they held, no resolution was adopted in the party for mabilising fund like this, no receipt was given to workers for their contributions and no acknowledgement was given in the party headquarters for receiving the DDs. During the deposition of an auditor Shanmugasundaram on Jayalalitha side he said that all the DDs received as birthday gifts were deposited into the bank account of Jayalalitha and the concerned income tax details were filed. But during the cross examination it came to light that he was not the auditor of Jayalalitha during that period. Moreover Income Tax Commissioner had informed that ‘details about the gifts were not informed in the years concerned and informed only after several years. That too she has informed that only jewels were received as gifts till 1991. Besides that there are no evidence for having received money as gifts’. About these gifts the judge Cunha referred in detail and finally noted,“Though the receipt of birthday presents by themselves may not amount to windfall or immoral secretions, but in the facts of the present case, when Jayalalitha claims to have received huge sum of Rs.2 crores and foreign remittance as presents and gifts after she assumed the office of the Chief Minister creates serious doubts and suspicion about the character of the funds received by her. Naturally, a question arises in the mind, if her persona attracted such huge presents from her party loyalists why was the practice discontinued after 1992? Would she have received similar admiration in cash and kind from her party workers if she was out of office? It is not her case that it was her professional income. All these questions militate against the claim put forward by A-1. No doubt it is true large number of her party warkers have turned up to depose in her favour and have identified some D.Ds produced before the court, but even if their evidence is accepted on its face value, the receipt of alleged presents being illegal, their testimony does not render it legal. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that: “If public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes, they would easily curcumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present. The difference between the acceptance of a bribe, made punishable u/Sec. 161 and 165 IPC is this; under the former section the present is taken as a motive or reward for abuse of office; under the latter section the question of motive or reward is wholly immaterial and the acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted is forbidden because though not taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour, it is likely to influence the public servant to show official favour to the person giving such valuable thing. The provisions of Ss. 161 and 165 of IPC as also S.5 of the Act are intended to keep the public servant free from corruption and thus, ultimately ensure purity in public life. The evidence in the case, therefore, should have been judged keeping these aspects in view.” Alleged gifts received by Jayalalitha cannot be treated as lawful source of income within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Act, hence the claim is disallowed”. Similarly about the demand of Sasikala to include as additional income of her Rs 19,28,80,000 including Rs. 14,01,00,000 through ‘Namathu MGR’ daily, judge Cunha has bluntly said, “From the above narration of facts, it can be gathered that, initially, Jayalalitha and Sasikala did not produce any documents before the assessing officer relating to the above scheme. Even the cash books (2 volumes) of Namadhu MGR which were impounded by the I.T. Authorities did not contain any reference to the scheme deposit. The events narrated in the above order go to show that for the first time A-1 and A-2 introduced the story of scheme deposit in 1998 in the returns filed for the A/Y in the profit and loss account statement. It is only during the course of the appellate proceedings, the auditor contesting the claim produced a computerized bank extract prepared by himself in proof of the deposits. Be that it may, accused have now produced before this Court the original applications said to have been submitted by nearly 9,000 subscribers in 19 volumes and have examined as many as 31 witnesses in proof of the said application forms, but curiously before the Income Tax Authorities, even as late as in 2001, the accused appear to have given explanation for non-production of the application forms, counter-foils of receipts etc., on the ground that the original application forms and the counter foils were kept in Tata Sumo vehicle parked in front of a hotel and was found missing and the complaint was lodged in this regard. The copy of the complaint is not forthcoming. The Income Tax Authority has believed this explanation and has accepted the version of A-1. But surprisingly, the accused themselves have got the original application forms summoned from the office of the Income Tax Department in the year 2012. … ……Finally, in appreciating the evidence of the above witnesses, it should also be noted that the entire bunch of witnesses examined by the accused in support of the alleged claim are the ardent party workers, easily procurable witnesses who are vitally interested in the outcome of the trial and therefore, their evidence is bound to be interested and partisan. Even otherwise, the circumstances discussed above give a clear indication that these witnesses are tutored and interested witnesses. There is absolutely no corroboration to the oral testimony of these witnesses. Therefore, on over all consideration of all the above facts and circumstances and in view of my definite finding that the application forms relied on by the accused at Ex.D.230 series are got up and fabricated to bolster up the false claim laid by the accused, I am not inclined to accept the claim set up by the accused in this regard”. The judge further explained that “it is a basic or cardinal principle of law that, on incorporation, a Company acquires legal status with perpetual succession and a common seal. Since the Company has no physical existence, it must act through its agents and all such contracts entered into by its agents must be under the seal of the Company. The common seal of the company is of great importance. It acts as the official signature of the Company. A document not bearing the common seal of the Company is not authentic and has no legal force behind it. But unfortunately, in the instant case, hardly any document of title registered in the name of the above Companies bear the seal of the Company. This is another circumstance to show that the properties purchased in the name of the above Companies never assumed the character of the assets of the Companies. Worse still, the above Companies are not even represented by either the Secretary or Director and in 90% of the registered deeds discussed above there is not even the address of the Companies written in the body of the deed. This is another circumstance to show that, shoddy and murky deals had taken place in the names of the Companies solely with a view to screen the properties acquired through illegal means”. Anybody with legal knowledge could not raise questions about the basis for the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha and others. It could not be forgotten that even at the beginning stage, when Jayalalitha moved for anticipatory bail in the Madras High Court it was dismissed and held that there was prima facie evidence for the case and ii was not correct to claim that it was filed due to political enmity. Following the verdict of the special court and Jayalalitha and others were sent to prison, the country was shocked to witness the ADMK people condemning in very bad taste words denigrating in fourth rate terms the verdict, court, the judge and me in an uncivilised manner on the roads knowing well that it should not be done instead of legally fighting it out in courts. The people of Tamil Nadu were compelled to face the continuous acts of violence, arrogant misuse of power, the cruel scenes enacted by the ruling partymen disrupting public order and damaging public properties with least regard for law and order and the police force remaining as passive spectators. Trying to find solution through street brawls disrespecting and ignoring court verdict could only satisfy some persons but would never produce anything productive. Standing on the road sides and shouting nonsense like false case, conspiracy etc will not change the verdict. Everyone should realise the advice of the Supreme Court that ‘be you so high, the law is above you’ and act accordingly. Rule of law includes the court. Hence disobeying the verdict of a court is akin to breaking the leg of the seat of democracy. Other than me now detailing the verdict of the Bangalore special court, the opinions expressed by some other journals are seen, in the editorial written by ‘Ananda Vikatan’ weekly, it has been stated, “This is definitely a great verdict! Justice has been established; the trust on courts is reassured. The verdict of the Bangalore special court is very, very important in the political history of India”. In the editorial of ‘The Times of India’ on 2.10.2014, it has been stated, “If the sentence is considered to be unfair, there are many ways in the laws in force in India to go on appeal. The leadership of the ADMK which is the ruling party in Tamil Nadu, should advise party workers to abide by the legal decision and act accordingly”. ‘The Hindu’ daily has published details like “Even the transfer of the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha by the Supreme Court in 2003 was for getting just verdict as it won’t be available in Tamil Nadu impartially”. Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde in ‘The Hindu’ said, “Law is the same from the Prime Minister to ordinary police constable- from cobbler to emperor. It should be realised that be you so high the law is above you”. In an article by T.S.Subramanian in ‘Frontline’ it has been stated ‘The DMK government had clearly advised the investigating officers that while assessing the value of properties of the accused it should not be assessed in excess so that there was no room for accusation of evil intention, which has strengthened the case”. Brothers and sisters, before I complete this lengthy epistle series with heavy heart, I bow my head to the verdict delivered by the Bangalore special court judge John Michael D Cunha without fear and submitting to justice with the objective of ‘Truth alone triumphs’, and congratulating DMK lawyers Shanmugasundaram, Kumaresan, Saravanan, Thamaraiselvan, Balaji and Natesan who strove for bringing out this verdict, investigating officers Nallamma Naidu and Thukkayandi and B.V.Acharya and Murukesh Maradi who efficiently served as Special Public Prosecutors and completed this series.
Posted on: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:25:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015