If Sasikala has to be convicted, Jaya has to be convicted

Chennai: A crucial fact that the AIADMK party and the media have missed is that the Disproportionate Assets case is mainly about former chief minister J Jayalalithaa, and whether she is guilty or not. The Supreme Court judges have to find Jayalalithaa guilty in this case and convict her, and only then can they go on to Sasikala, Ilavarasi and V N Sudhagaran, the other three accused in the case. The O
Panneerselvam camp which wants Sasikala to be convicted in the case and face disqualification from contesting the elections, and
perhaps be jailed straightaway, doesn't realise that their revered Amma, hailed by the AIADMK as a paragon of virtue and revolutionary leader, would carry a stigma for ever, which cannot be erased.

If the Karnataka High Court judge, Kumaraswamy's acquittal has to be overturned, the trial court judge John Michael Cunha's verdict
will apply, which means that Accused no. J Jayalalithaa is convicted for ill-gotten wealth and investments beyond known sources of
income , and the other accused including Sasikala are convicted as abetting this as conspirators. This involves disproportionate
assets amounting to over Rs 53 crore, according to the trial court.

Karnataka HC judge, Kumaraswamy, is his acquittal order, said that the case against Jayalalithaa did not apply, and as she was the
main accused, the other three including Sasikala are acquitted as the main charges were against Jayalalithaa, and the other three were
only shown as benami holders of Jayalalithaa's assets.  He therefore acquitted the other three also along with Jayalalithaa.

The Supreme Court judges now have to convict Jayalalithaa first and then the other three, though the terms of punishment could vary
with that of the trial court order, if Sasikala has to be found guilty.

It is strange that the Panneerselvam camp wants Sasikala to be convicted without wondering what would happen to the Jaya image and legacy if the former chief minister is found guilty, and holding properties worth crores of rupees which are disproportionate assets.  Can this group and will this group celebrate such a verdict against their Amma?

The media too hasn't done its homework in the case, calling it the Sasikala DA case, when it is actually the Jayalalithaa DA case, as
the latter is accused number one. A TV channel  in Tamil Nadu evern carried a logo with the repors on the "Sasikala DA case"  
showing a large photo of Sasikala, two smaller images of Ilavarasi and Sudhagaran, and the smallest image in the background is that
of Jayalalithaa, accused number one!

Let us see what judge Cunha said in his judgement in the trial court:

"The prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the only source for the acquisition of the large assets is
A-1 herself…

Under the said circumstance, the inevitable conclusion that would follow is that, the various amounts credited into the accounts of
Namadhu MGR or Jaya Publications or the other accounts maintained by the accused is the unexplained wealth accumulated by A-
1…

As already discussed above, neither A-2 nor A-3 or A-4 had any independent source of income. Even though large number of firms
had been constituted during the check period, it is proved in evidence that none of these firms transacted any business and there was
absolutely no income from any of these firms. On the other hand, it is established that, all these firms and companies had received
funds diverted from the bank account of A-1 and out of these funds, A-2 to A-4 acquired various properties described in Annx. II….

As the accused have failed to prove even by preponderance of probability that, they had any independent source of income to
acquire the assets found in their possession, it goes without saying that all the acquisitions were made out of the source provided by
A-1. As a result, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the real source for acquisition of assets
detailed in Annx. II is A-1 alone.

...as it is proved in evidence that the credits made into these accounts were from the unexplained resources of A-1, it necessarily
follows that the funds for acquisition of all these assets are provided by A-1.


98.7) In view of the above finding, I hold that all the assets and pecuniary resources found in possession of A-2 to A-4 and in the
name of various firms and the companies referred above actually belong to A-1. As the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that during the check period, A-1 was found in possession of assets and pecuniary resources of the total value of
Rs.55,02,48,215.00 in her name and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and in the names of the firms and companies acquired by them, I
hold that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act.

99. In so far as the complicity of A-2 to A-4 in the alleged offence is concerned, there is overwhelming evidence indicating the
circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by the A-2 to A-4 in the commission of the above offence u/Sec. 13 (1)(e) of the
Act....

Large amount of funds were diverted to these accounts giving a clear indication that the firms were constituted only with a view to
siphon off the unlawful resources accumulated by A-1....

v) It is vehemently argued that, A-1 has nothing to do with the firms established by A-2 to A-4 and she has been falsely implicated in
the alleged offence at the instance of her political rivals. But, the very documents produced by the accused at Ex.D.61 reveals that
before the Income Tax Authorities, the representative of A-1 himself had put forth an argument that Rs.1 crore was advanced by A-1
to Sasi Enterprises towards share capital and further it was submitted that on the security of the said amount, loan was borrowed by
A-1, which argument is seen to have been accepted by the  Tribunal. Even before this Court, there is abundant evidence to show that
A-1 has issued cheques in favour of other accused and has filed applications for availing loan for the benefit of the firms. Under the
said circumstances, I do not find any substance in the argument canvassed by the learned counsel that A-1 was totally ignorant about
the dealings of the firms and is no way involved in the formation of the said firms.

vi) The flow of money from one account to the other accounts as detailed in the preceding paragraphs would establish beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused persons have actively participated in the conspiracy to launder the illgotten wealth of A-1 for
purchasing properties in the names of the firms and the companies acquired by them....

It can be presumed that, the District Registrar obliged to tour the entire district and register the properties at the residence of the
purchasers, only to oblige A-1 and to assist her in the acquisition of huge properties.

100. Thus, the prosecution having proved beyond reasonable doubt the intention and object of A-2 to A-4 to acquire and hold the
properties for and on behalf of A-1, I hold that A-2 to A-4 are liable for conviction for the offence u/Sec. 109 and 120-B of I.P.C.
R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of P.C. Act.  To sum up, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the following
facts constituting the offences charged against the accused viz.,

I. Total assets found in possession of A-1 as on 30.04.1996 : Rs.55,02,48,215.00

II. Total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period : Rs.8,49,06,833.00
 
III. Total of (I) and (II) : Rs.63,51,55,048.00

IV. Total income of accused from all sources as determined above : Rs.9,91,05,094.00

V. Value of disproportionate assets and pecuniary resources found in possession of accused as on 30.04.1996 which has not been
satisfactorily accounted. : Rs.53,60,49,954.
 
O R D E R
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that as against the income of Rs.9,91,05,094.75 and expenditure of
Rs.8,49,06,833.00 during the check period, A-1 acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and in the names
of the business enterprises acquired in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of Rs.
53,60,49,954.00 which she could not satisfactorily account. Hence, acting u/Sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., A-1 is hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of P.C. Act."

The above will clearly confirm that all the assets including properties of value of Rs 66 crore was the ill-gotten wealth of Jayalalithaa,
earned during her period as chief minister, which included investments made in various companies floated with Sasikala and co., as
partners, were that of A-1, that is Jayalalithaa.      

The trial court, has in its order, clearly mentioned, "I hold that all the assets and pecuniary resources found in possession of A-2 to
A-4 and in the name of various firms and the companies referred above actually belong to A-1." That is all the assets and resources
listed as belonging to Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhagaran actually belonged to Jayalalithaa.

Counha made it clear that the source of all the major investments in properties etc were made by Jayalalithaa with ill-gotten and
unexplained wealth, and thereby held her guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges against Sasikala and others was
only that they helped Jayalalithaa in this conspiracy, and are guilty as conspirators.

The judge does not see Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhagaran as having real income at all, and they had means to acquire properties or
assets.

"As already discussed above, neither A-2 nor A-3 or A-4 had any independent source of income. Even though large number of firms
had been constituted during the check period, it is proved in evidence that none of these firms transacted any business and there was
absolutely no income from any of these firms. On the other hand, it is established that, all these firms and companies had received
funds diverted from the bank account of A-1 and out of these funds, A-2 to A-4 acquired various properties described in Annx. II…"
Counha reiterates that all the funds came from A-1, that is Jayalalithaa, and not from Sasikala and her relatives.

A key factor also is whether the SC judges will not proceed with the conviction of Jayalalithaa since she has died. Does the appeal against the acqiuitaal also evaporate with the death of A-1, accused number one in this case? A view among legal experts that the case will no more lie as Jayalaihtaa, accused number one, is no more. 

Another view is that of the four accused, A-1 Jayalalithaa alonewas a public servant. The terms of punishment to the other three may not be the same as for A-1 who was a public servant, and the other three are only private individuals, that too, merely being benamis of the chief minister.  There could be an alteration in terms of these three Sasikala family membes, even if Jayalalithaa is held guilty and convicted.

There are any number of interpretations here but the burden of the song is that Sasikala has to be convicted, Jayalalithaa has to be found guilty.    

By R. Rangaraj