‘HC calculation method faulty in Jaya DA case’

The Karnataka government on Tuesday reiterated in the Supr-eme Court its plea that the Karnataka high court judgment acqu-itting Tamil Nadu CM J. Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets to her known sources of income must be reversed and that she should be convicted for the offence.

Making this submission before a bench of Justices Pinaki Chan-dra Ghose and Amitav Roy, Karnataka public prosecutor and senior counsel B.V. Acharya said the method of calculating the disproportionate assets by the high court is wrong. If all the findings of the high court are accepted in toto then the amount of DA is Rs 14,38,93,645, i.e. 41 per cent and not 2,82,36,36,812 (8.12 per cent) as held by the high court to acquit the four accused —Ms Jayalalithaa, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhagaran.

Explaining the proper calculation, Mr Acharya said, “If the error in totalling at page 852 of the HC judgment is corrected, the DA comes to Rs 16,32,36,812 which is 76.70 per cent in excess (as against 8.12 per cent arrived at by the HC); if Rs 3,58,53,055, the cost of construction of buildings as admitted by the accused, is incl-uded in DA, it comes to Rs 19,90,89,867 which is 93.60 per cent in excess; if Rs 2,85,05,140, business income of Jaya Publications is included, the DA com-es to Rs 22,75,95,007.”

“On the basis of finding of the high court, correction of other mistakes in arithmetic, admissions of accused and disallowing gifts as income, then the DA comes to Rs 35,73,04,000 and total income comes to Rs 16,92,60,503 and percentage of DA is 211.09 and not 8.12 per cent as arrived by the high court,” Mr Acharya said.

He described the May 11, 2015, verdict acquitting Ms Jayala-lithaa and three others as perverse, illogical and lacked reasoning.

The high court further erred in holding that the loans from nationalised banks were not taken into consideration by the prosecuting agency, while in fact, the same was taken into consideration.

Counsel explained how there is a fundamental error in calculating the DA and total income. Even as he was pointing out the flaws in the HC judgment in treating loans from banks as income, the bench asked him to furnish details of the loans obtained by the accused in various banks from the time the accounts were opened with opening balance and the accounts were operated during the check period of 1991 to 1996. Arguments will continue on Wednesday.