Jayalalitha case Appeal to the higher Court is absolutely necessary – CPIM, TN State Committee
Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Tamil Nadu State Committee
Accumulation of assets in excess of income is not 8.12 % but 76 %
The Karnataka High Court delivered a judgement yesterday (May 11, 2015) acquitting J. Jayalalithaa and three others of all charges and thus cancelling the sentences of imprisonment and fines imposed on them by the trial court. Even before receipt of the full judgment order, the CPI(M) state secretariat had noted that this was not the final judgment and demanded that the Karnataka government must appeal against this judgment. With the receipt of the judgment copy, it has come to light that the judgment is based on flawed accounting and wrong understanding.
Justice Kumarasamy argues in his judgment that the Special Court judge did not take into account the loans obtained from banks by Miss Jeyalalithaa and the three persons sentenced along with her in calculating income and that, if this was done, her income would be higher. On this basis, he says that the value of assets accumulated by Miss Jeyalalithaa in excess of income was only 8.12% and that this was permissible. However, in adding up the loans taken by the sentenced persons the judge has arrived erroneously at a figure 13.50 crore rupees in excess. Even if this one error is corrected, the assets accumulated by Jayalalithaa in excess of income will be more than 76%. This shows that the Special Court Judge has given a judgment based on a balanced assessment. Just this one aspect alone shows that the (High Court) judgment suffers from infirmities.
Besides, theview of the judge on hostile witnesses is also wrong. When the AIADMK was ruling Tamil Nadu, witnesses were threatened and therefore they turned hostile. It was for this reason that the case was transferred to Karnataka. Refusing to accept this and refusing to take into account the depositions of the witnesses who were recalled to testify in the proceedings of the Special Court in Karnataka is to call into question the very reason for which the Supreme Court had transferred the case to another state.
The judge has taken construction cost per square foot to be Rs 280 in calculating the expenditures on construction work in 1995. This is lower than the PWD norm then of Rs 315 per square foot. The fixation of construction costs in a location such as Poes Garden below the PWD norm for ordinary buildings certainly raises questions.
Similarly, it has been stated that the amount spent by Miss Jeyalalithaa for her foster son’s wedding was Rs 28, 68,000 and that the cost of an Otis elevator in 1995 was only Rs 15,000. These raise the suspicion that the costs have not been calculated properly.
The special Court judge had stated that it was not possible to accept the claim that Rs 14 crores were got by way of subscriptions to the magazine Namathu MGRwhen no announcement in this regard was published in that magazine. In contrast, Justice Kumarasamy has accepted the statements of the accused without any question. This raises several doubts.
Moreover, Acharya, the advocate for the government, has noted that he was not given an opportunity to argue in court, that he was given only one day to submit his arguments in writing and that during the two months when the accused presented their arguments the government side was not present to listen and respond to them. These remarks also need to be taken into account.
The Tamil Nadu state secretariat of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) urges the government of Karnataka to go on appeal immediately against this judgment so as to preserve the conviction among the people that courts will play an appropriate part in the struggle against corruption.