The following is an analysis of the verdict of Karnataka High Court acquitting Jayalalitha in the disproportionate assets case.
According the verdict of the Special Court,
In the beginning of the test period
Value of Jayalalitha’s assets
(as on 30.04.1996) - Rs. 55,02,48,215.00
During the test period,
Jayalalitha’s expenses - Rs. 8,49,06,833.00
Total - Rs. 63,51,55,048.00
During the test period
Jayalalitha’s income - Rs. 9,91,05,094.00
Assets disproportionate
to income - Rs. 53,60,49,954.00
Percentage of assets disproportionate to income
53,60,49,954.00 X 100
9,91,05,094.00
This was arrived at by Judge Michel D Cunha after meticulously studying all evidences and documents produced by the prosecution side.
Now, in the judgment delivered by Karnataka High Court judge Justice C.R.Kumaraswamy acquitting Jayalalitha and others in the case, this ratio of percentage of assets disproportionate to income is mentioned as 8.12%
This was arrived at by Justice C.R.Kumaraswamy in his 919 page judgment. It is that must exhaustive because, in the first part depositions of witnesses both during examination and cross examination are detailed for 500 pages; parts of verdict of the special court run to 300 pages; the written submissions of Prof. K. Anbazhagan and Subramanian Swamy are covered in 90 pages; and only in the rest of 28 pages, various judgments delivered according to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were cited to ‘establish’ that Jayalalitha did not amass wealth beyond her known sources of income.
But the attempt made is to bring down the value of properties owned by Jayalalitha and to show increased income for her during the period.
On arriving at the value of immovable assets like buildings, the judge argues that the PWD could not categorically assess the value of a building because the contactors might own their own brick cline might bring construction materials in vehicles owned by them, which would bring down the cost of construction. Moreover PWD engineers were accustomed to constructing and inspecting government buildings and they had insufficient experience in assessing private buildings. The notes taken by them while assessing were not filed and only reports were filed and hence the reports could not be taken into consideration, it is argued. Moreover in the presence of DVAP personnel there was no chance of the engineers correctly assessing the value, it is said. While assessing the value of the building constructed in 1994 in 1996, the depreciation of the value of accessories like wires and switches had not been deducted, the HC verdict argues.
The judge also argues that as the assessors of the value of ornaments did not see them during trial their estimates could not be taken. He says that there were 16 wings in ADMK and as they were buying the daily ‘Namathu MGR’, the subscription scheme was true and the daily received considerable income from 1991.
The judge also notes that by renting Maha Subbulakshmi Kalyanamandapam owned by Sudhakaran lot of income were received. But on page no. 852, it has been mentioned that for the same Kalyanamandapam, a loan of Rs.17,85,274 was obtained from Indian Bank. Why should loan be obtained for a hall getting lot of income?
It is stated that well-informed people would not generally take up the rates of PWD as basis as it would include the delay of contractors, loan amounts and other expenditure. Hence the PWD rate would be more than marker cost. But in this case PWD rates have been taken, it is stated. The fact that PWD rates were always lesser than market rates is well known, but the judge differs.
“The construction cost was valued at Rs.27,79,88,945/- by the DV & AC. The construction area measured by way of square feet is about 1,66,839.68 sq. feet. It amounts to 1668.39 squares. The PWD estimate per sq. feet was Rs.31,580.19. The learned Sessions Judge has simply on guess work has reduced the cost of construction to the extent of 20% from the total cost of construction….I have adopted the square rate and cost of construction per square rate is taken as Rs.28,000/- . This Court has given a finding to the effect that the cost of construction is Rs.5,10,54,060/-“
There are several verdicts to the effect that judges should not give their opinions in fields like engineering, medicine, science etc. and the opinion of the experts is those fields are final. But this judge has made estimates like a civil engineer.
About the ostentatious wedding of foster son, the judge has raised several trivial questions to bring down the estimated expenditure. The judge states: “Insofar as marriage expenditure is concerned, Accused No.1 has disclosed that she has spent about Rs.28,68,000/- for bearing marriage expenses. DW.1 – Ramkumar has deposed that he has spent about Rs.92 lakhs. Bank passbook is also produced and marked. The bride’s father Narayanswamy was a Professor in IIT. His evidence on record discloses that he has spent about Rs.18 lakhs. There is positive evidence to the effect that party workers of AIADMK has met the expenses of food and pandal. Engineers valued pandal based on plan. Their evidence is to the effect that without inspecting the pandal, they have given statement of expenditure that might have occurred. Their evidence is hear-say. The evidence on record reveals that party workers took up the responsibility of erecting pandal. Sri A.R. Rahman and Sri Mandolin Srinivas have performed music with free of cost. The bride’s grandfather is Mr. Sivajiganeshan. He was a famous Tamil film actor. He was also known to A.R. Rahman. Now the question that arises is what is the amount that was spent by Accused No.1 for the marriage of Accused No.3. Accused No.1 has declared in her income tax returns that she has spent about Rs.28,68,000/-. In our Hindu customs, it is bride’s family members who take care of marriage expenditure. Nominal expenditure will be borne by bridegroom’s family. Just because Accused No.1 was Chief Minister at that time, we cannot saddle all the marriage expenses on her part. Relying on income tax returns towards expenditure of marriage, I consider that she has spent about Rs.28,68,000/-. Besides, evidence of father of bride is withheld by the prosecution. Accused No.3 Bridegroom has also not entered the witness box. The Priest who has performed the marriage has not been examined. The Contractor for putting up pandal has not been examined in this case. Due to insufficient and vague evidence, it is difficult to assess as to what is the expenditure that is incurred. Besides, some expenses are not verifiable expenditure”.
People and the media of Tamil Nadu and elsewhere, who were witness to the ‘wedding of 20th century’ would just laugh away and contemptuously reject all these contentions of the judge. The special court verdict clearly stated that Ramkumar did not submit passbook in the court and not informed who deposited Rs.94,00,000 in his account. While there are judgments that Xerox copies should not be accepted as documents for evidence, the High Court judge has relied on Xerox copies.
The judge defends the Registrar visiting Jayalalitha’s residence 15-20 times to register documents of various purchases of properties and says the visit of Registrar to the residences of buyers of properties for registration is not illegal.
The judgment includes Rs.1.5 crore gifts received by Jayalalitha on her birthday as income. It is astonishing that the High Court judge is not aware of the rule that a public servant while in office should remits all gifts and donations to the government treasury. Moreover the birthday gift case against Jayalalitha filed by the CBI is still pending in courts.
The judge has stated that the DVAC has failed to take into account the amount of Rs.13.89 crore from the Namathu MGR subscription scheme which has been accepted by the IT department. But the special court has categorically established that the subscription scheme was ‘created’ after the charge sheet was filed in this case.
The judge has stated that the contention of accused side that it was wrong that the depositions of hostile witnesses during their retrial after the case was transferred from Chennai were taken as those of witnesses. This was in contravention of the Supreme Court order while transferring the case to Bangalore.
In page number 910, it has been suggested that there was Rs 7 crore of income for the period 1991 – 1996 from Kodanad estate that has not been included and hence decided that the judge will leave this amount out of disproportionate income.
1. While the judge has talked about income from the land as Rs 7 crores, what about the expenses made for growing tea? Or should we understand that Rs 7 crore is the profit out of the 700 acres of land cultivated?
2. In Cunha’s Judgement, page no 472 it is mentioned that the Kodanad land was acquired on 5th June 1995. It is amazing that the land yielded Rs 7 crore in a matter of 10 months which is Rs 1 lakh per acre.
3. What is much more amazing is that a land that was bought for Rs 7.6 crores in 1995 (as per page no 36 of this judgement) yielded Rs 7 crore in a matter of 10 months.
The judge states that the four accused had obtained loans up to Rs.24 crore which should have been included in their income. The first loan referred to by the judge is for Jaya Publication Rs.1.5 crore.
The total in this table has been much discussed as it comes to only Rs.10,67,31,274 excess by Rs 13,50,00,000.
During the test period in such assets case against a public servant, if a loan was taken for Rs. 2 lakhs and repays Rs.60,000 (with interest) and at the end how much will be calculated as his income. Is it not Rs.1,40,000 (and not Rs.2,00,000). That was how special court calculated as shown below:
But Justice Kumaraswamy includes the full amount of Rs.1.50 crore as income while Cunha took it as Rs.50,93,921, remitted as interest on loan. How can the loan amount fully repaid during the test period be treated as income?
Now the math error which has resulted in the acquittal of the accused. In his over anxiety to acquit Jayalalitha the judge has included even loans obtained by the accused as income. Let it be. But should not the addition be correct? On page number 852 the judge noted the income of the accused as Rs.24,17,31,000. How?
If this wrong calculation is kept aside and correct calculations is made:
The total amount of loans obtained by the four accused is Rs.10,67,31,274.00. if the DVAC figure of Rs.5,99,85,274.00 is subtracted the balance is Rs. 4,67,46,000.00.
According to the High Court verdict arithmetic mistake the total income including loans is Rs.34,76,65,654.00.
But if the mistake has not been made the total of this amount would be Rs.21,26,65,654.
Even according to the formula of Justice Kumaraswamy (from Rs.55.6 crore of the special court estimate) the total assets of Rs.37,59,02,466.00 divided by the total income of Rs.21,26,65,654.00 and the percentage is worked out it comes to 77% which according to the Supreme Court verdict in Krishnanand Agnihotri cited by Justice Kumaraswamy is more than 10% and hence punishable. (17-05-15)
No comments:
Post a Comment