The value of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa and three of her aides is just Rs. 2.82 crore and not Rs. 66 crore as claimed by the prosecution, said the Karnataka High Court on Monday.
This meagre value is not enough to convict them on charges of corruption as disproportionate assets (DA) are less than 10 per cent of their income, said Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy in his verdict while disagreeing with the verdict of the Special Court, which had computed the value of DA at Rs. 53.6 crore.
The High Court concluded that Ms. Jayalalithaa, her aides V.K. Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Ilavarasi together had income of Rs. 34.76 crore while including Rs. 18.17 crore loans availed by them, their firms and companies from banks. And value of their assets was Rs. 37.59 crore, a difference of only Rs. 2.82 crore.
The High Court said Ms. Jayalalithaa incurred only Rs. 5.1 crore for putting up constructions at her Poes Garden and other properties while rejecting the claim of the prosecution that she had spent Rs. 27.79 crore.
‘All surmises’
“The trial court failed to examine the evidence relating to cost of construction at that relevant time and simply arrived at a conclusion that 20 per cent of the cost has to be reduced without appreciating the evidence placed on record. This 20 per cent reduction is calculated on surmises,” observed Justice Kumaraswamy.
“The prosecution witnesses — engineers, have used the word ‘supreme quality’ for marbles, [and] granites [used], and ‘highest quality’ for sanitary fittings. But… They have simply guessed the rate and assessed the value of granite and marbles,” the High Court said.
Marriage expenses
Also, the court held that she had spent only Rs. 28.68 lakh for the marriage of her former foster son V.N. Sudhakaran while rejecting the claim of Rs. 6.45 crore made by the prosecution, and Rs. 3 crore as assessed by the trial court.
‘Hearsay evidence’
“Due to insufficient and vague evidence, it is difficult to assess what is the expenditure that is incurred. Besides, some expenses are not verifiable,” the court said, pointing out that the engineers valued cost of marriage pandal based on plan without inspection and their evidence “is hearsay.”
“In our Hindu customs, it is bride’s family members who take care of marriage expenses. Nominal expenditure will be borne by bridegroom’s family. Just because A-1 was Chief Minister at that time, we cannot saddle all the marriage expenses on her part,” the judge said, while accepting that Ms. Jayalalithaa had spent Rs. 28.68 lakh for the marriage as was declared in her income tax returns.
“If we remove the exaggerated value of cost of construction and marriage expenses, the assets will work out at Rs. 37,59,02,466. The total income of the accused, firms and companies is Rs. 34,76,65,654. Lack of proportion amount is Rs. 2,82,36,812. The percentage of disproportionate assets is 8.12. It is relatively small,” the court found on analysing the documents.
“In the instant case, the disproportionate assets are less than 10 per cent and it is within permissible limit. Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. When the principal accused [Ms. Jayalalithaa] has been acquitted, the others who have played a lesser role are also entitled for acquittal,” Justice Kumaraswamy said.
