Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa could not satisfactorily explain the legal sources of her income, which was disproportionate to her known sources of income, and she was rightly convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by John Michael D’Cunha, a trial judge in Bengaluru, argued senior counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for Karnataka.
Continuing his submissions before a bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitav Roy, counsel argued that under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act the burden of proving the legal means of income was on the accused but they could not do so.
He said the trial court had rendered a finding on each count of assets and expenses and came to the conclusion that the disproportionate assets totalled Rs 53 crore after accounting for Rs 13 crores towards expenses.
He alleged that the three other accused who were staying in the Poes Garden residence were taking bags of currency notes and depositing them in banks and that this was not properly accounted for.
Whether the amount was received from party cadres or whether a loan was received from a bank, the main accused, Ms Jayalalithaa, being a public servant, ought to have informed the authorities about the receipt of such income. They chose not to report to the authorities and whatever defence they had presented in court was only an afterthought.
Reading the trial court judgment relating to the marriage of Sudhakaran, counsel said that right from the erection of pandals to the performance of marriage, the reception of guests and the accommodation of guests, “all expenses on the marriage were met by A1 [Ms Jayalalithaa] except to the extent of Rs 14 lakh, which is said to have been contributed by the father of the bride.” He said the court was of the view that the Rs 6.45 crore amount spent on the marriage, as determined by the DVAC, appeared exorbitant and that it had arrived at an amount of Rs 3 crore even by modest and conservative estimation.
At this juncture Justice Ghose made a revelation that judge Cunha had committed a mathematical error by not including Rs 45 lakhs from the original figure of Rs 6.45 crore. Hitherto it has been the contention of Karnataka and others that the high court had committed grave mathematical mistakes, but today the apex court pointed out a calculation error in the trial court judgment.
The bench asked the counsel to find out whether in Tamil Nadu there is a provision or a rule that mandates a public servant to disclose gifts or other sources of income to the competent authority, and whether in the absence of any rule whether the general rule can be applied in such cases. Arguments will continue on Thursday.
