"Their decision to seek bail for all four, including the relatively young and healthy V N Sudhakaran, simultaneously defies logic," a veteran prosecutor of a central law enforcement agency told TOI. "If a case involves more than one accused, it is not uncommon practice among lawyers to move the case of the fittest among all for bail first," he said. "In this case, they ought to have first bailed out Jayalalithaa, who had age, health and societal status on her side."
It was a wedding that would have earned the envy of every parent in the country, but it also opened Pandora's Box for former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa, who is in jail after being convicted in a disproportionate assets case.
Given Sudhakaran's age and the relatively better health of the other three convicts in the disproportionate assets case, no judge would have granted bail to them at first instance. "Had the Jayalalithaa's case alone been moved first, the remaining three could have benefited later by citing her case," the veteran prosecutor said. "I do not understand their haste in trying to get all convicts out on bail in one stroke."
Just as the AIADMK cadres lit their firecracker wicks too soon, the legal team too has been exhibiting extraordinary haste in filing appeals and pushing them for early hearing. "First of all, the defence team took only two days to file appeals against the 1,136-page judgment of special judge John Michael Cunha. On September 30, after vacation judge Justice Ratnakala adjourned it to October 6 to be heard by a regular bench, they represented the matter to the chief justice of the court and made the same Justice Ratnakala hear it yet again on October 1. She, again, adjourned the matter to October 7. Not satisfied with the second adjournment, they gave an application to the court registrar demanding early hearing by another judge. The ex-chief minister's lawyers behaved like novices. How can a court registrar go beyond an order of adjournment by a judge?" asked a senior advocate.Another senior prosecutor TOI spoke to also echoed the view that Jayalalithaa's legal team has made "tactical blunders." "It is well settled that granting bail is mostly the discretion of the judge concerned, more so in the case of a big corruption case involving the high and mighty. On Tuesday, instead of seeking bail on humanitarian grounds, which is the best way to win interim reprieve such as bail, the legal team was very critical of special judge Cunha's verdict and argued on such serious issues as merits and jurisdiction," a member of the defence team told TOISo, what's next? According to a key member of the defence team, the order copy was expected by Tuesday evening and the plan was to quickly move the Supreme Court on Wednesday. However, a senior advocate questioned the hurry saying, "her legal advisors need to get their strategy correct first, and then move courts with detailed affidavits supported by strong evidence in their favour."
Heavy security cover outside Karnataka HC during Jaya's hearing. The high court rejected the AIADMK supremo's bail plea on Oct 7.
An appeal cannot be printed like a 'cinema notice', said a senior advocate, who added that several thousand pages of documents need to be printed, verified and numbered. "It will take at least three months for the high court to prepare the full set of appeals, and the proceedings itself might take a couple of years to end. Either the ex-chief minister's counsel themselves are ignorant, or they are too scared to appraise their clients of the actual time these judicial proceedings will take," he said.
The opulent marriage of Jayalalithaa's foster son VN Sudhakaran on July 9, 1995, when she was the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, saw Rs 1.14 crore spent on food, mineral water and tamboolam alone, according to the prosecution.
Sample this: The tailor who stitched Sudhakaran's wedding trousseau was paid Rs1.26 lakh, while the postal department earned a whopping Rs 2.24 lakh by delivering invitation cards, according to the prosecution.
Besides, Rs 5.21 crore was spent on wedding pandal. These were the expenses incurred in 1995.
According to the prosecution, Rs 6,45,04,222 was spent on Sudhakaran's marriage.
Howver, special judge John Michael Cunha said in his verdict: "Huge amount was spent towards the printing of invitation, publication of thanks in the dailies, tamboolam and valuable presents given to the guests, all of which would certainly entail an expenses of more than Rs 3 crore even by modest and conservative estimation. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, Rs 3 crore is taken as the expenses incurred by A-1 (Jayalalithaa) towards the arrangement for the marriage of A-3 (Sudhakaran)."
In his nearly 1,200-page verdict, a copy of which with TOI, the judge also noted that Ram Kumar, a relative of Sudhakaran's wife, had tendered evidence before the IT-department stating that he spent Rs 97 lakh on the marriage. At one point of time during investigation, it was said that Jayalalithaa had spent Rs 94 lakh on the marriage.
Jaya spent money:
In his order, the special judge said Jayalalithaa had spent money on Sudhakaran's marriage. "If in fact, the marriage expenses were met by the bride's family, as contended by Jayalalithaa, there was no reason for her to make payments by issuing her cheques in connection with the marriage expenses. The very fact, all the original documents, receipts and cheque leaves belonging to her were seized from the office of the auditor of Jayalalithaa is sufficient to hold that the entire expenses were met only by her. That apart, if Jayalalithaa had not incurred the expenses in connection with the marriage of Sudhakaran, there was no reason for her to admit in her reply to the Income Tax Authorities about the expenses incurred by her to the tune of Rs 98 lakh. These circumstances are consistent with the case of the prosecution that Jayalalithaa alone met the marriage expenses of Sudhakaran," the judge has said.
Money poured like water into the bank accounts of deposed chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her friend N Sasikalaa during the AIADMK supremo's 1991-96 reign as Tamil Nadu chief minister, the special court in Bangalore which convicted them in the 66.65 crore disproportionate assets case has found.
Special court judge John Michael Cunha said: "The accused have failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as to the enormous unexplained credits entered into their bank accounts." They are proved to be false and bogus, he said adding: "It is undoubtedly established that even though many accounts were opened either in the names of the accused or in the names of firms or companies, the remittance into the accounts used to be made only by the staff of Jayalalithaa, as per the instructions of Sasikalaa, who was managing all the financial affairs of Jayalalithaa,". In this regard, the judge pointed out that remittances in these bank accounts were made by one Ram Vijayan and Jayaraman, staffs of Jayalalithaa working at her Poes Garden residence at that point of time. Quoting Jayaraman's evidence in court, the judge said, Ram Vijayan used to deposit the money given to them in banks. Sasikalaa used to send money either in suitcases or bags through domestic servants, instructing Vijayan about details of the bank where the money should be deposited, he said
Jayaraman identified the bank challans and Vijayan's signatures, whereas bank officers examined in court confirmed 'unequivocally' the large number of pay-in slips bearing Vijayan's names, and identified him as the person remitting the amount.
The flow of money from one account to the other accounts would establish that all the accused persons had actively participated.
Noting that returns and balance sheet, and the profit and loss account of various companies, were manoeuvred "solely with a view to offer an explanation to the huge unexplained credits entered in their respective bank accounts," the judge concluded that the balance sheets and profit-loss account statements filed before income tax authorities had not been proved in accordance with law. "Mere declaration of property in the income tax returns does not amount to showing the same was acquired from known sources of income," he said, adding that the prosecution was able to show that there was no real source of income with the assesses and the public servant (Jayalalithaa) was the real source. It is proved in evidence that substantial funds accumulated by Jayalalithaa were credited to the account of Jaya Publications from where they were diverted to other accounts, and, ultimately, utilized for the acquisition of huge assets, he said.
Cunha also said that after the case was transferred to Bangalore, 23 of witnesses told the court that their original statements were true and correct, and that they were constrained to deviate from their original statement due to compulsion or such other factors. "Therefore, merely because the witnesses have rescinded from their earlier version during their further cross-examination, cannot by itself be a factor to disbelieve their testimony," he concluded.
As for the defence argument that such witnesses should be ignored because they had been giving inconsistent evidence at two different stages,
'Take Cauvery, give Amma'
As protests peaked against Jayalalithaa's conviction and incarceration, AIADMK cadres put up a poster in Madurai that said: "Keep Cauvery, Give Amma...Weeping Tamil Nadu."
Pointing out that a large number of the witnesses were government officials attached to either public works department, police department or the vigilance wing of the state government, which is directly under the control of the chief minister, the judge said: "Most amazing and shocking part of the proceedings is that even the deputy inspector general of police (V C Perumal, IPS), who registered the FIR in his official capacity as the head of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), himself has been a victim of this malaise. It may also be relevant to note that the course adopted by the accused to subvert the course of justice and manoeuvre the witnesses prompted the case to be transferred to this court."
Witnesses 'told' to retract
Cunha also said that after the case was transferred to Bangalore, 23 of witnesses told the court that their original statements were true and correct, and that they were constrained to deviate from their original statement due to compulsion or such other factors. "Therefore, merely because the witnesses have rescinded from their earlier version during their further cross-examination, cannot by itself be a factor to disbelieve their testimony," he concluded.
Pointing out that a large number of the witnesses were government officials attached to either public works department, police department or the vigilance wing of the state government, which is directly under the control of the chief minister, the judge said: "Most amazing and shocking part of the proceedings is that even the deputy inspector general of police (V C Perumal, IPS), who registered the FIR in his official capacity as the head of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), himself has been a victim of this malaise. It may also be relevant to note that the course adopted by the accused to subvert the course of justice and manoeuvre the witnesses prompted the case to be transferred to this court."
In the end, even somersaults performed by state officials with aplomb in the court were not enough for the unseated chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa, to disprove allegations of amassment of wealth against her before the special court in Bangalore.
"Most amazing and shocking," remarked special judge John Michael Cunha, pointing out the retraction by IAS and IPS officers, including the vigilance officer who registered the FIR in the case, besides several officials of state departments, from their earlier depositions.
A total of 76 prosecution witnesses were recalled by the court in 2000, when the trial was going on in Chennai, on the application filed by the accused. The manner in which 64 of them casually, without any rhyme or reason, backtracked from their earlier depositions cannot be dismissed as a trivial act of dishonesty or hostility of witnesses, Cunha said.
Given Sudhakaran's age and the relatively better health of the other three convicts in the disproportionate assets case, no judge would have granted bail to them at first instance. "Had the Jayalalithaa's case alone been moved first, the remaining three could have benefited later by citing her case," the veteran prosecutor said. "I do not understand their haste in trying to get all convicts out on bail in one stroke."
Just as the AIADMK cadres lit their firecracker wicks too soon, the legal team too has been exhibiting extraordinary haste in filing appeals and pushing them for early hearing. "First of all, the defence team took only two days to file appeals against the 1,136-page judgment of special judge John Michael Cunha. On September 30, after vacation judge Justice Ratnakala adjourned it to October 6 to be heard by a regular bench, they represented the matter to the chief justice of the court and made the same Justice Ratnakala hear it yet again on October 1. She, again, adjourned the matter to October 7. Not satisfied with the second adjournment, they gave an application to the court registrar demanding early hearing by another judge. The ex-chief minister's lawyers behaved like novices. How can a court registrar go beyond an order of adjournment by a judge?" asked a senior advocate.Another senior prosecutor TOI spoke to also echoed the view that Jayalalithaa's legal team has made "tactical blunders." "It is well settled that granting bail is mostly the discretion of the judge concerned, more so in the case of a big corruption case involving the high and mighty. On Tuesday, instead of seeking bail on humanitarian grounds, which is the best way to win interim reprieve such as bail, the legal team was very critical of special judge Cunha's verdict and argued on such serious issues as merits and jurisdiction," a member of the defence team told TOISo, what's next? According to a key member of the defence team, the order copy was expected by Tuesday evening and the plan was to quickly move the Supreme Court on Wednesday. However, a senior advocate questioned the hurry saying, "her legal advisors need to get their strategy correct first, and then move courts with detailed affidavits supported by strong evidence in their favour."
Heavy security cover outside Karnataka HC during Jaya's hearing. The high court rejected the AIADMK supremo's bail plea on Oct 7.
An appeal cannot be printed like a 'cinema notice', said a senior advocate, who added that several thousand pages of documents need to be printed, verified and numbered. "It will take at least three months for the high court to prepare the full set of appeals, and the proceedings itself might take a couple of years to end. Either the ex-chief minister's counsel themselves are ignorant, or they are too scared to appraise their clients of the actual time these judicial proceedings will take," he said.
The opulent marriage of Jayalalithaa's foster son VN Sudhakaran on July 9, 1995, when she was the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, saw Rs 1.14 crore spent on food, mineral water and tamboolam alone, according to the prosecution.
Sample this: The tailor who stitched Sudhakaran's wedding trousseau was paid Rs1.26 lakh, while the postal department earned a whopping Rs 2.24 lakh by delivering invitation cards, according to the prosecution.
Besides, Rs 5.21 crore was spent on wedding pandal. These were the expenses incurred in 1995.
According to the prosecution, Rs 6,45,04,222 was spent on Sudhakaran's marriage.
Howver, special judge John Michael Cunha said in his verdict: "Huge amount was spent towards the printing of invitation, publication of thanks in the dailies, tamboolam and valuable presents given to the guests, all of which would certainly entail an expenses of more than Rs 3 crore even by modest and conservative estimation. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, Rs 3 crore is taken as the expenses incurred by A-1 (Jayalalithaa) towards the arrangement for the marriage of A-3 (Sudhakaran)."
In his nearly 1,200-page verdict, a copy of which with TOI, the judge also noted that Ram Kumar, a relative of Sudhakaran's wife, had tendered evidence before the IT-department stating that he spent Rs 97 lakh on the marriage. At one point of time during investigation, it was said that Jayalalithaa had spent Rs 94 lakh on the marriage.
Jaya spent money:
In his order, the special judge said Jayalalithaa had spent money on Sudhakaran's marriage. "If in fact, the marriage expenses were met by the bride's family, as contended by Jayalalithaa, there was no reason for her to make payments by issuing her cheques in connection with the marriage expenses. The very fact, all the original documents, receipts and cheque leaves belonging to her were seized from the office of the auditor of Jayalalithaa is sufficient to hold that the entire expenses were met only by her. That apart, if Jayalalithaa had not incurred the expenses in connection with the marriage of Sudhakaran, there was no reason for her to admit in her reply to the Income Tax Authorities about the expenses incurred by her to the tune of Rs 98 lakh. These circumstances are consistent with the case of the prosecution that Jayalalithaa alone met the marriage expenses of Sudhakaran," the judge has said.
Money poured like water into the bank accounts of deposed chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her friend N Sasikalaa during the AIADMK supremo's 1991-96 reign as Tamil Nadu chief minister, the special court in Bangalore which convicted them in the 66.65 crore disproportionate assets case has found.
Special court judge John Michael Cunha said: "The accused have failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as to the enormous unexplained credits entered into their bank accounts." They are proved to be false and bogus, he said adding: "It is undoubtedly established that even though many accounts were opened either in the names of the accused or in the names of firms or companies, the remittance into the accounts used to be made only by the staff of Jayalalithaa, as per the instructions of Sasikalaa, who was managing all the financial affairs of Jayalalithaa,". In this regard, the judge pointed out that remittances in these bank accounts were made by one Ram Vijayan and Jayaraman, staffs of Jayalalithaa working at her Poes Garden residence at that point of time. Quoting Jayaraman's evidence in court, the judge said, Ram Vijayan used to deposit the money given to them in banks. Sasikalaa used to send money either in suitcases or bags through domestic servants, instructing Vijayan about details of the bank where the money should be deposited, he said
Jayaraman identified the bank challans and Vijayan's signatures, whereas bank officers examined in court confirmed 'unequivocally' the large number of pay-in slips bearing Vijayan's names, and identified him as the person remitting the amount.
The flow of money from one account to the other accounts would establish that all the accused persons had actively participated.
Noting that returns and balance sheet, and the profit and loss account of various companies, were manoeuvred "solely with a view to offer an explanation to the huge unexplained credits entered in their respective bank accounts," the judge concluded that the balance sheets and profit-loss account statements filed before income tax authorities had not been proved in accordance with law. "Mere declaration of property in the income tax returns does not amount to showing the same was acquired from known sources of income," he said, adding that the prosecution was able to show that there was no real source of income with the assesses and the public servant (Jayalalithaa) was the real source. It is proved in evidence that substantial funds accumulated by Jayalalithaa were credited to the account of Jaya Publications from where they were diverted to other accounts, and, ultimately, utilized for the acquisition of huge assets, he said.
Cunha also said that after the case was transferred to Bangalore, 23 of witnesses told the court that their original statements were true and correct, and that they were constrained to deviate from their original statement due to compulsion or such other factors. "Therefore, merely because the witnesses have rescinded from their earlier version during their further cross-examination, cannot by itself be a factor to disbelieve their testimony," he concluded.
As for the defence argument that such witnesses should be ignored because they had been giving inconsistent evidence at two different stages,
'Take Cauvery, give Amma'
As protests peaked against Jayalalithaa's conviction and incarceration, AIADMK cadres put up a poster in Madurai that said: "Keep Cauvery, Give Amma...Weeping Tamil Nadu."
Pointing out that a large number of the witnesses were government officials attached to either public works department, police department or the vigilance wing of the state government, which is directly under the control of the chief minister, the judge said: "Most amazing and shocking part of the proceedings is that even the deputy inspector general of police (V C Perumal, IPS), who registered the FIR in his official capacity as the head of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), himself has been a victim of this malaise. It may also be relevant to note that the course adopted by the accused to subvert the course of justice and manoeuvre the witnesses prompted the case to be transferred to this court."
Witnesses 'told' to retract
Cunha also said that after the case was transferred to Bangalore, 23 of witnesses told the court that their original statements were true and correct, and that they were constrained to deviate from their original statement due to compulsion or such other factors. "Therefore, merely because the witnesses have rescinded from their earlier version during their further cross-examination, cannot by itself be a factor to disbelieve their testimony," he concluded.
Pointing out that a large number of the witnesses were government officials attached to either public works department, police department or the vigilance wing of the state government, which is directly under the control of the chief minister, the judge said: "Most amazing and shocking part of the proceedings is that even the deputy inspector general of police (V C Perumal, IPS), who registered the FIR in his official capacity as the head of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), himself has been a victim of this malaise. It may also be relevant to note that the course adopted by the accused to subvert the course of justice and manoeuvre the witnesses prompted the case to be transferred to this court."
In the end, even somersaults performed by state officials with aplomb in the court were not enough for the unseated chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa, to disprove allegations of amassment of wealth against her before the special court in Bangalore.
"Most amazing and shocking," remarked special judge John Michael Cunha, pointing out the retraction by IAS and IPS officers, including the vigilance officer who registered the FIR in the case, besides several officials of state departments, from their earlier depositions.
A total of 76 prosecution witnesses were recalled by the court in 2000, when the trial was going on in Chennai, on the application filed by the accused. The manner in which 64 of them casually, without any rhyme or reason, backtracked from their earlier depositions cannot be dismissed as a trivial act of dishonesty or hostility of witnesses, Cunha said.
No comments:
Post a Comment