Ever since the CBI took up the 2G spectrum
allotment case, day in and day out Jayalalitha had been issuing statements ‘directing’
the Central investigating agency on the contents and names that should find
place in the chargesheets to be filed before the courts. She has usurped the
roles of prosecutor and also suggesting the judiciary as to how the cases
should be dealt with. As pointed out by Kalaignar whatever be the issue whenever
she makes statements she presumed as though she is above all suspicions, an
epitome of purity and truthfulness and a repository of moral values. In respect
of CBI also, she has a repulsive and disgusting record, that makes her in
competent to speak about CBI cases. But she invariably proves herself too thick
skinned.
One of the cases filed by the CBI against
Jayalalitha is Birthday gift case. When she was the Chief Minister she
celebrated her birthday on a grand scale when she received 89 demand drafts
worth Rs.2 cr. and cash of Rs.15 lakh. In her capacity as Chief Minister she
must have handed over the gift money to the government. But she deposited it in
her personal account.
On July 30, 2006 the CBI has filed a charge sheet
against Jayalalitha for allegedly accepting gifts worth more than Rs.20 million
in the 1990s. Two of her colleagues - Azhagu Thirunavukarasu and K.A.
Sengottian - both former ministers, had also been charged with abetting the
crime. The charges against the former Tamil Nadu chief minister were filed
under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The 2,000-page charge
sheet, filed in the court of principal judge Meenakshi Sundaram, cited 285
documents and 149 witnesses. According to CBI sources, Jayalalitha received 89
demand drafts worth Rs. 20 million, drawn on various banks in the state and
purchased in the names of 57 people, as well as Rs.1.5 million in cash. Twelve
of the 57 names were found to be fictitious. Some of the witnesses reportedly
told the CBI that they had purchased the drafts at the instance of the two former
ministers. The drafts and the cash were deposited in Jayalalitha's savings bank
account in the Canara Bank in Chennai.
The case was initially registered in 1996, under
the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, on a complaint made by the Director
General of Income Tax. The case was taken over by the CBI in 1996 for
investigating an alleged offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant
relating to gifts allegedly received by her, which she had disclosed in her
income tax returns. Jayalalitha allegedly used the drafts to avail of an
immunity scheme announced by the central government in 1991-92. She had also
received $300,000 from an unknown admirer, and disclosed it under the scheme,
which granted her immunity from prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act now replaced by FEMA.
In 2000, Jayalalitha appealed to the Madras High
Court to discharge her from this case citing delay in filing of chargesheet. In
the counter affidavit filed by the CBI in this case, the efforts of Jayalalitha
to protract the case and her intention had been clearly spelt. Ever since the
case was filed, the CBI asked for permission to ask the Interpol to investigate
at Channel Island
in UK, New
York and Dubai
which was not granted. Similarly the efforts to collect some details from
foreign banks did not yield fruit. Several years were taken for these efforts
causing the delay. After the investigations the chargesheet was filed only
after obtaining legal advice from the Solicitor General of India. These aside,
the case was protracted only because of Jayalalitha who till then had filed 12
appeals in various courts, the CBI said noting that her aim was to prevent the
filing of the chargesheet. So no further development had taken place since July
31, 2006. The co-accused had also been delaying the hearing by filing petitions
in courts. The CBI claimed that it was not in possession of Income Tax
documents to show that she had accepted the gifts and pleaded the High Court to
order the CBI Special Court
to hear the case on day to day basis. This was stated in the counter of the CBI
filed in September 2010 to reject the petition of her to discharge her from the
case. Thus the CBI had unmasked her face.
The CBI had also investigated the case of
investment of about Rs.35 cr. in dollars by Sasikala’s nephews V.Baskaran and
TTV Dinakaran in the name of a firm in Virgin Island
in Barclays Bank. The Income Tax department’s case against her for failure to
file IT refurns for the year 1992-93 and Enforcement Directorate’s case on
payment made to a Singapore based telecom firm and a Russian television firm to
the tune of 6.8 lakh dollars without the permission of the RBI and in violation
of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are also still pending in courts.
During her regime a case was filed against one
Robin Moin who was close to her for obtaining loans from nationalized banks by
submitting fictitious RC books of vehicles. Chargesheet was also filed against
the then Speaker of the State Assembly Kalimuthu for collusion with Robin Moin,
following which the opposition parties sought his resignation. Rejecting the
demand Jayalalitha told the Assembly on 4.4.2005, “Chargesheet had been filed
against the accused. That is all. They have not been convicted. Till now
judgement has not been delivered holding them guilty. So there is no
disqualification. The High Court itself had held that they could continue as
ministers. Similarly the Speaker has also been arranged as an accused in a
case, and a chargesheet has been filed against him. That is all. He has not
been convicted and sentence awarded. So there is no bar on his continuation as
Speaker.”
(It is the same lady who now demands that family
members of Kalaignar whose names are mentioned in the chargesheet should be
arrested.)
Whenever opposition parties demanded CBI probes
into something in the State Assembly, Jayalalitha had rejected it with a scant
remark ‘The CBI after all did not descend from the Heavens.”
With such track record, Jayalalitha has no moral
right to suggest and direct the CBI on how to proceed on investigation and who
should be included in the chargesheet!
No comments:
Post a Comment