Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday virtually questioned the "common sense" of Tamil Nadu officials who over-valued the properties of former chief minister Jayalalithaa and three other accused in the disproportionate assets case.
"Can anybody accept the market price of marble at Rs 5,000 per square metre in 1994? At the most, the maximum price could be between Rs 100 to Rs 150. Tamil Nadu officials ... (it is a matter of) common sense," said Justice CR Kumaraswamy, who is hearing the appeals filed by Jayalalithaa and three others challenging their conviction in the case.
The Special Bench has been set up after the Supreme Court had on December 18 last directed the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court to constitute it to decide Jayalalithaa's appeal within three months.
After raising doubts over the officials' assessment of properties belonging to Jayalalithaa and other accused - Sasikala Natarajan, VN Sudhakaran and Illavarasi - Justice Kumaraswamy orally summoned them to submit proper documents to corroborate their findings during investigations.
Countering submissions made by Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh, Jayalalithaa's Counsel B Kumar said the case against his client was politically motivated, thus 'deliberate' over-valuation of properties held by Jayalalithaa had been made.
Kumar contended that among several judgements the trial court has overlooked and not considered the binding nature of various Income Tax orders and decisions of the appellate tribunal of the Income Tax which had accepted the income and level of expenditure pleaded by her.
"Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has contentiously arrived Rs 28 crore worth construction properties of all the accused, whereas the total roughly comes around Rs 10 crore ... There has been over-valuation. They did it when Jayalalithaa and Sasikala were imprisoned in Chennai, which is impermissible," he argued.
In the post-lunch session, Jayalalithaa's counsel L Nageswara Rao said the charge of amassing wealth against Jayalalithaa during 1991-96 when she was Chief Minister for the first time was false and she had acquired property through legal means.
Rao contended that asking the defence to prove their "innocence" about not possessing disproportionate assets was not legally correct as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that they are guilty.
"How can one justify the burden shifted on the defense or accused to prove they are not guilty of possessing disproportionate assets. It is not legal," he said. Rao submitted that the trial court cited the clean chit given by the Income Tax Tribunal but did not consider it while giving the verdict sentencing Jayalalithaa and three others to four-year jail term and imposing a hefty fine of Rs 100 crore on her.
The special court had held Jayalalithaa and three others guilty of corruption and awarded four years jail term and slapped a fine of Rs 100 crore on her. It had also imposed a fine of Rs 10 crore each on the three other convicts. Besides Jayalalithaa, her close aide Sasikala and her relatives Sudhakaran, erstwhile foster son of the AIADMK leader, and Elavarasi, were also convicted.
Comments
0 comment