Selvi J Jayalalitha Case Judgement

Views:
 
Category: Celebrities
     
 

Presentation Description

Selvi J Jayalalitha Case Judgement full edition.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

slide 1:

IN THE COURT OF THE 36 TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST KUM. JAYALALITHA ORS AT BANGALORE. PRESENT: Sri. John Michael Cunha B.A- LL.B. Spl. Judge 36 th Addl. Sessions Judge at Bangalore. Dated this the 27 th day of Sept. 2014. SPL. C.C. 208 of 2004 COMPLAINANT: State by the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Anti-Corruption Special Investigation Cell Chennai. Vs. ACCUSED: 1. Selvi. J. Jayalalitha D/o. Thiru Late. R. Jayaram Occ:Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu R/o. Vedtha Nilayam 36 Poes Garden Chennai – 86 2. Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan W/o Thiru. M. Natarajan Occ: Nil R/o. No.18 III Street East Abiramapuram Chennai – 4. 3. Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran S/o Tr. T.T.Vivekanandan Occ: Nil Now R/o. No.66 Habibullah Road T. Nagar Chennai – 17.

slide 2:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 2 4. Tmt. J. Elavarasi W/o. Late Tr. N. Jayaraman Occ: Nil R/o. No.31 Mannai Nagar Mannargudi A-T. Pannerselvam Dist. Date of commission of offence Between 1.7.1991 and 30.4.1996. Date of report of offence 14.06.1996 Date of arrest of A-1 Date of arrest of A-2 Date of arrest of A-3 Date of arrest of A-4 Surrendered in Court on 21.12.96 Surrendered in Court on 31.01.97 23.01.97 Released on Anticipatory Bail. Date of release of A-1 on bail Date of release of A-2 on bail Date of release of A-3 on bail Date of release of A-4 on bail 03.01.1997 12.02.1997 31.01.1997 Released on Anticipatory bail. Name of the complainant Tr. V.C.Perumal I.P.S. Inspector General of Police D.V. A-C. Chennai-6. Date of commencement of evidence 28.12.1998 Date of closure of evidence 29.07.2013 Date of pronouncement of Judgment 27.09.2014 Opinion of the Judge A-1 is found guilty of the offence u/Sec. 13 1 e

slide 3:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 3 R/w. Sec. 13 2 of P.C. Act and Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 2 of P.C. Act. A-2 A-3 and A-4 are found guilty of the offences punishable u/Sec. 109 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 1 e R/w. 132 of P.C. Act. Sri. G. Bhavani Singh Spl. P.P. for State of Tamil Nadu D.V. A-C. Sri. Murugesh Shivaray Maradi Asst. Advocate. Sri. B. Kumar Senior Counsel for Sri. K.C. Panneerselvam Adv. for A-1 Selvi. J. JayalalithA- Sri.C. Manishankar Adv. for A-2 Smt. Sasikala Natarajan. Sri. Amit Desai Senior Counsel for Sri. G. Anbu Karasu Adv. for A-3 Sri. V.N.Sudhakaran. Sri. Amit Desai Senior Counsel for Sri. Asokan Adv. for A-4 Smt. J. Elavarasi. J U D G M E N T A-1 former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and her associates viz A-2 A-3 and A-4 are prosecuted before this Court for the alleged offences punishable u/Sec.131e R/w.132 of the Prevention of

slide 4:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 4 Corruption Act 1988 and Sec.120-B and Sec.109 of I.P.C. 2. OVERVIEW OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: A-1 Selvi J. Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24.6.1991 till 13.5.1996. Prior to this she was a Member of Rajya Sabha from April 1984 till 27.1.1989 and the Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 27.1.1989 till 30.1.1991. She is the daughter of Late Smt. N.R. Sandhya who was acting in films during 1960’s. A-1 was also acting in films during 1964-1972. Smt. N.R. Sandhya died in the year 1971 and as per her Will dt. 01.11.1971 she bequeathed her share to A-1 in the properties belonging to Natya Kala Nikethan in which both were the partners. On her mother’s death A-1 came to own the following properties viz. i. Land and building at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai-86 ii. House at Plot No. 36 Door No. 8/3/1099 in Sri Nagar Officer’s Colony at Hyderabad city iii. Lands totally measuring 10.20 acres in Sy. No. 52 and Sy. No. 50 of Jeedimetla village and Sy. No. 93/1 of Pet Basheerabad Village in Metchal Taluk in Ranga Reddy Dist. of Andhra Pradesh with Grape Garden Farm House and Servants quarters

slide 5:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 5 iv. Land in Sy. No. 93/2 to the extent of 3.15 acres in Pet Basheerabad village in Andhra Pradesh In addition to the above properties A-1 was also in possession of – v. Agricultural land measuring 3.43 acres in Cheyyur Taluk now in Anna Dist. as per Doc. No. 4564/81 dt. 16.12.1981 of SRO North Madras vi. An old Ambassador car and an old Contessa car vii. A new Maruti car bearing registration No. TMA-2466 worth Rs. 60435/- and viii. Company shares Thus the assets which were in the possession of A-1 up to 1987 were found to be worth only Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Besides she also claimed to have possessed balance in her bank accounts to the extent of Rs.1 lakh and certain items of jewellery. 3. A-2 Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan is the wife of one Mr. Natarajan. The said Natarajan had joined Government service as a Publicity Assistant in the Information and Public Relation Department of Government of Tamil Nadu on 13.7.1970 and was later promoted as Assistant Director in 1984 and as Deputy Director in 1986 in the same department. He tendered his resignation from Government service on 01.11.1988

slide 6:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 6 but his resignation was accepted by the Government of Tamil Nadu only on 03.04.1991 with retrospective effect. A-2 is the daughter of one C. Vivekanandan a Medical Compounder doing private practice who was living in a small house at Thattara Street in Thiruthuraipoondi. He had acquired the said house and 7 acres of land through inheritance. A-2 was given in marriage to the said Natarajan in the early 1970’s at Thanjore. A-2 who was initially an occasional visitor to the residence of A-1 at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai-86 came to be permanently accommodt. by A-1 from 1988 onwards and acknowledged by A-1 as her friend-cum- sister Udanpiravatha Sagothari. A-2 continued to live with A-1 at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai-86 till the year 1996. 4. A-3 Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran is the son of A-2’s elder sister Smt. Vanithamani and T.T. Vivekanandan. He came to reside at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai-86 in the year 1992 while pursuing his studies at New College Chennai and stayed there till the 1 st quarter of 1997. A-1 had acknowledged and proclaimed A-3 as her “Foster son” and had conducted the latter’s marriage with one Sathiyalakshmi at Chennai on 7.9.1995 on a very lavish scale. 5. A-4 Tmt. J. Elavarasi is the wife of Late. V. Jayaraman the elder brother of A-2. The said

slide 7:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 7 V. Jayaraman was a Government servant in the Civil Supplies Department he died in December 1991 due to electrocution while attending to works in the Grape Garden of A-1 at Hyderabad. Following her husband’s death A-4 came to live at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai-86 from the beginning of 1992. 6. The case of the prosecution is that as on 1.7.1991 A-1 was found in possession of properties and pecuniary resources in her name and in the name of A-2 Smt. N. Sasikala who was living with A-1 at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai to the extent of Rs. 20183957/- including the properties acquired in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications M/s. Sasi Enterprises and Namadu MGR which had been floated by A-1 and A-2 with themselves as partners. But after 1.7.1991 there was sudden spurt in the acquisition of assets and during this period A-1 and A-2 floated several firms in the names of A-2 A-3 and A-4 viz. i. M/s.J. Farm Houses ii. M/s.J.S. Housing Development iii. M/s.Jay Real Estate iv. M/s.Jaya Contractors and Builders v. M/s.J.S. Leasing and Maintenance vi. M/s.Green Farm Houses vii. M/s.Metal King viii. M/s.Super Duper TV P Ltd. ix. M/s.Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. x. M/s.Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd. xi. M/s.Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. xii. M/s.Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd.

slide 8:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 8 xiii. M/s.Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. xiv. M/s.Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. xv. M/s.Indo Doha Chemicals Pharmaceuticals Ltd. xvi. M/s.A.P. Advertising Services xvii. M/s.Vigneswara Builders xviii. M/s.Lakshmi Constructions xix. M/s.Gopal Promoters xx. M/s.Sakthi Constructions xxi. M/s.Namasivaya Housing Development xxii. M/s.Ayyappa Property Developments xxiii. M/s.Sea Enclave xxiv. M/s.Navasakthi Contractors and Builders xxv. M/s.Oceanic Constructions xxvi. M/s.Green Garden Apartments xxvii. M/s.Marble Marvels xxviii. Vinod Video Vision xxix. Fax Universal xxx. Fresh Mushrooms xxxi. M/s.Super Duper TV. and xxxii. M/s.Kodanadu Tea Estate 7. The further case of the prosecution is that during the check period i.e. from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996 there were no business activities at all in respect of many of the above Firms and in respect of others the activities were more in the nature of acquiring assets like lands machinery building etc. which were not production oriented. No income-tax returns were filed by these Firms. No assessment for commercial tax has also been done with respect to the business of these Firms. A-1 also did not file her Income-tax returns for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 till November 1992 and when this issue was sought to be raised in Parliament A-1 filed the Income-tax returns

slide 9:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 9 for the above period in November 1992. Subsequent to 1.7.1991 assets in the form of movable and immovable properties and pecuniary resources like bank deposits etc. were found acquired not only in the name of A-1 but also in the names of A-2 A-3 and A-4 and the Firms floated in their names. Scrutiny of various bank accounts maintained in the names of A-1 to A-4 and in the names of the above Firms disclosed huge credits in cash had been frequently made into various accounts which were not commensurate with the income of the individuals and of the Firms concerned. There were frequent transfers of amounts between one account to the others to facilitate illegal acquisition of assets. The huge quantum of such assets when viewed in the context that A-1 was holding the office of the Chief Minister and that A-2 A-3 and A-4 were living under the same roof with A-1 and not having sufficient means to acquire the assets in their names established that the assets were actually acquired by A-1. 8. It is further alleged that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between A-1 a public servant and her associates viz. A-2 A-3 and A-4 to acquire and possess properties and pecuniary resources by A-1 in her name and in the names of A-2 A-3 and A-4 and in the names of various Firms floated by them amassed properties and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.666473573/-later corrected as Rs.666520395/-

slide 10:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 10 grossly disproportionate to the known source of income of A-1 and A-2 to A-4 during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. According to the prosecution the income from the known sources of A-1 during this period such as rental income interest derived from various bank deposits and other deposits held by her in her name and in the names of A-2 A-3 and A-4 agricultural income loans and the salary received by her as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu worked out to a total of Rs. 93426054/- whereas during this period the expenditure incurred by A-1 including repayment of principal amount and interest on loan and other outgoings were assessed at Rs.115656833/-. Thus as on 30.4.1996 A-1 being a public servant was found to have acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in her name and in the names of A-2 A-3 and A-4 and the Firms floated by them which were disproportionate to her known sources of income to the extent of Rs.666520395/- Rupees Sixty Six Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three hundred and Ninety Five onlywhich is an offence of criminal misconduct within the definition of Sec.131e punishable u/Sec.132 of the Prevention of Corruption Act1988 and A-2 A-3 and A-4 conspired with A-1 and abetted the commission of the above offence.

slide 11:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 11 9. REGISTRATION OF F.I.R. : Criminal law was set in motion against A-1 by PW.232 Dr. Subramanian Swamy the then President of Janata Dal. He lodged a complaint before the Prl. Sessions / Spl. Judge Madras on 14.06.1996 u/Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that subsequent to the assumption of the Public office of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu A-1 acquired properties and earned income disproportionate to her known source of income in as much as her declared wealth during 1989-90 was Nil and it increased to Rs.1.89 crores in 1990-91 Rs. 2.60 crores in 1991-92 Rs.5.82 crores in 1992-93 Rs.91.33 crores in 93-94 and Rs.38.21 crores during 94-95 though she was receiving only 1/- Rupee per month towards her salary as Chief Minister. The said complaint was registered as Crl.M.P. 3238 of 1996. The Prl. Sessions Judge/ Spl. Judge recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and by order dt. 21.06.1996 directed investigation u/Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec.202 Cr.P.C. and directed Smt. Letika Saran PW.240 a senior IPS Officer in the cadre of D.I.G Madras to investigate the matter collect necessary materials in a fair and impartial manner and submit a report to the Court within a period of two months. The Director General of Police was directed to give necessary assistance to the said officer.

slide 12:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 12 10. Pursuant to this Order PW.240 took up investigation collected records and documents from various Banks Registration Offices and from the Registrar of Firms pertaining to the investments and properties standing in the name of A-1 and A-2 and their close-relatives. While investigation was in progress A-1 and A-2 challenged the order of the Prl. Sessions Judge / Spl. Judge before the High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P. No.5755/96 and by order dt. 14.08.1996 the investigation was stayed for a brief period but by a subsequent order dt. 04.09.1996 the Honble High Court was pleased to direct the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Madras to take appropriate steps to investigate into the allegations made in the complaint in accordance with law by any person of his choice. In compliance of this order the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai Sri. V.C. Perumal PW.241 on 07.09.1996 directed Sri. Nallamma Naidu PW.259 the then Additional Supdt. of Police D.V. A-C. to investigate the case. Based on the documents and materials so far collected Sri. V.C.Perumal PW.241 who was by then promoted as I.G. filed FIR against A-1 as per Ex.P.2266 on 18.9.1996 registered as Crime No.13/AC/96/HQ u/Sec. 13 2 R/w 13 1e of P.C. Act. In the same FIR Sri. Nallamma Naidu PW.259 was appointed as Investigating Officer.

slide 13:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 13 11. INVESTIGATION : PW.259 took up further investigation and in the course of investigation obtained search warrants conducted search of the residential premises of A-1 situate at No.36 and 31-A and various other locations suspected to contain incriminating materials and seized voluminous documents and material objects and recorded the statements of large number of witnesses. The incriminating evidence collected during the investigation having disclosed the complicity of A-2 to 4 in the alleged offence PW.259 made an application to the Special Judge on 22.01.1997 as per Ex.P.2316 for addition of A-2 3 and 4 as co-accused and for incorporation of additional offences u/Sec. 120-B of Indian Penal Code r/w Sec.13 2 and 13 1e of PC Act 1988 and Sec.109 of Indian Penal Code. On completing the investigation PW.259 laid the charge sheet against all the accused on 04.06.1997 which came to be registered as Spl.C.C. No.7/97 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge Special Court I Chennai. 12. CHARGES: On 5.6.1997 the Special Judge Chennai took cognizance of the offences and directed summons to the accused persons. Upon service of summons A-1 to A-4 appeared before the learned Special Judge engaged the services of counsels of their choice and were furnished

slide 14:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 14 with the copies of the Charge Sheet and the accompanying documents as per Sec.207 of the Code and on their request even the Tamil translation of documents were supplied to the accused. A-2 to A-4 moved applications u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. After hearing the parties the Special Judge Chennai dismissed the said applications by order dt. 21.10.1997 and framed the following charges against the accused which read as under: Firstly :- That you A1 to A4 during the period between 1.7.1991 and 30.4.1996 in Chennai and other places in Tamil Nadu you A1 being a public servant along with you A2 to A4 were parties to a criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possession pecuniary resources of income to the extent of rs.666520395/- in the names of you A1 and in the names of you A2 to A4 and the thirty two 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to A4 for which you A1 could not satisfactorily account and you A2 to A4 abetted A1 by holding a substantial portion of the pecuniary resources and property in your names A2 to A4 on behalf of you and thereby you A1 to A4 committed an offence punishable u/Sec.s 120-B I.P.C. r/w 132 r/w 131e of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.

slide 15:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 15 Secondly:- That you A1 in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during the said period and the said places being a public servant to wit the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu acquired and possessed in your name and in the names of A2 to A4 and in the names of the business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to A4 pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to your known sources of income to the extent of Rs.666520395/- for which you could not satisfactorily account and thereby you A1 committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 132 r/w 131e of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly:- That you A2 to A4 in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during the said period and the said places abetted A1 who was a public servant by intentionally aiding her in the possession of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to her known sources of income and for which she could not satisfactorily account by holding a substantial portion of the said pecuniary resources and property in your names and in the names of the business enterprises floated in your names and thereby you A2 to A4 committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 109 I.P.C. r/w 132 r/w 131e of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.

slide 16:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 16 All the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 13. REGISTRATION OF SPL. C.C. No.2/2001: It needs to be mentioned here that during the pendency of the trial in Spl. C.C. No.7/1997 the D.V. A-C. was permitted further investigation u/Sec. 173 8 of Cr.P.C. and was granted letters rogatory by the Designated Court for collecting evidence and material relating to the alleged accumulation of disproportionate wealth by A-1 in conspiracy with A-2 outside the country viz. Sri Lanka Dubai Malaysia Singapore Hong Kong British Origin Islands and the United Kingdom. Based on the evidence collected during further investigation the prosecution filed a separate FIR in Crime No. 2/AC/2000 on 2.9.2000 against A-1 and A-2 which culminated into a Charge Sheet dt. 23.3.2001 registered as Spl. C.C.No.2/2001. After service of summons in the said case A-1 and A-2 preferred Crl.O.P.No. 21969 and 22506 of 2001 challenging the issuance of process in the second case. These petitions were disposed of by the Honble High Court of Madras on 10.1.2002 with a direction to deal with the main case after treating the Charge Sheet dt. 23.3.2001 in the second case as a further report. When both these cases were pending on the file of the

slide 17:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 17 Designated Court at Chennai accused moved a petition for amalgamation of both the cases and to hold a joint trial. 14. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE : Recording of evidence in Spl. C.C. 7/97 commenced on 28.12.1998 and by 24.08.2000 the prosecution examined as many as 258 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.258 and admitted in evidence Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.2282 and the Material objects at MOs. 1 to MOs.1603. On the subsequent adjourned dates 76 prosecution witnesses who were already recalled and cross-examined in full were got recalled by the accused for the purpose of further cross-examination and 64 of them substantially resiled from their earlier statements made on oath. The learned Spl.P.P. conducting the prosecution did not choose to treat any of these witness as hostile instead proceeded with the examination of the Investigating Officer as P.W.259 and produced in evidence in all 2341 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.2341 and the material objects as M.Os.1 to M.Os.1606. During the examination of the witnesses the documents produced by the witnesses came to be marked as Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.25 and Ex.C.1 to C.3 as Court documents.

slide 18:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 18 15. With the above oral and documentary evidence the prosecution closed its side on 24.2.2003. On the same day A-1 was permitted to answer a questionnaire in-lieu-of her personal examination u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and a questionnaire was delivered to her with a direction to answer it on 25.02.2003 by 5.00 P.M. On 25.02.2003 A-1 returned the questionnaire duly answered by her and on the same day A-2 to A-4 were partly questioned as per Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their further examination was concluded on 26.02.2003. On 26.2.2003 counsel for A-1 A-2 A-4 Mr.N.Jothi filed a petition seeking to examine 5 witneses on defense side and Mr. Saravana Kumar the learned counsel for A-3 filed a petition seeking leave to examine one witness by name Tr. Ramkumar and the matter was adjourned for defense evidence. On 27.02.2003 DW.1 and DW.2 were examined on behalf of the accused and Ex.D.15 came to be marked and the accused closed their evidence. Arguments of the accused were heard in part on the same day and the matter was adjourned to 28.02.2003 for continuation of the arguments. When the matter was called on 28.02.2003 counsel for A-1 A-2 and A-4 filed a petition u/Sec. 309 Cr.P.C. bringing to the notice of the Court the stay order passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition Criminal No.77-78/03 filed by one Sri.K. Anbazhagan General Secretary DMK Party.

slide 19:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 19 16. TRANSFER OF THE CASE : By its Judgment dt. 18.11.2003 in Transfer Petition Criminal Nos.77-78/2003 the Honble Supreme Court ordered transfer of the case to the State of Karnataka with the following directions “a The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall constitute a Special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to whom CC No.7 of 1997 and CC No.2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XI Addl. Sessions Judge Special Court No.1 Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu shall stand transferred. The Special Court to have its sitting in Bangalore. b As the matter is pending since 1997 the State of Karnataka shall appoint Special Judge within a month from the date of receipt of this Order and the trial before the Special Judge shall commence as soon as possible and will then proceed from day to day till completion. c The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as public prosecutor to conduct these cases. The public prosecutor so appointed shall be entitled to assistance of another lawyer of his choice. The fees and all other expenses of the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant shall be paid by the State of Karnataka who will thereafter be entitled to get the same reimbursed from the State of Tamil Nadu. The Public Prosecutor to be appointed within six weeks from today

slide 20:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 20 d The investigating agency is directed to render all assistance to the public prosecutor and his assistant. e The Special Judge so appointed to proceed with the cases from such stage as he deems fit and proper and in accordance with law. f The Public Prosecutor will be at liberty to apply that the witnesses who have been recalled and cross-examined by the accused and who have resiled from their previous statement may be again recalled. The Public Prosecutor would be at liberty to apply to the court to have these witnesses declared hostile and to seek permission to cross-examine them. Any such application if made to the Special court shall be allowed. The public prosecutor will also be at liberty to apply that action in perjury to be taken against some or all such witnesses. Any such application/s will be undoubtedly considered on its merit/s. g The State of Tamil Nadu shall ensure that all documents and records are forthwith transferred to the Special Court on its constitution. The State of Tamil Nadu shall also ensure that the witnesses are produced before the Special Court whenever they are required to attend that Court. h In case any witness asks for protection the State of Karnataka shall provide protection to that witness. i The Special Judge shall after completion of evidence put to all the accused all relevant evidence and documents appearing against them whilst recording their statement u/Sec. 313 Criminal Procedure Code.”.

slide 21:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 21 In obedience to the above directions the Government of Karnataka by its Order dt. 27.12.2003 in Proceedings No. LAW 151 LCE 2003 Bangalore accorded sanction for establishment of the Special Court at Bangalore and by Notification dt. 19.02.2005 bearing No. LAW 151 LCE 03 appointed Sri. B.V. Acharya Sr. Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka as Public Prosecutor to conduct C.C.No.7/97 and C.C.No.2/2001. By Notification dt. 5.3.2005 in LAW 42 LCE 2005 Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta Advocate Bangalore was appointed as Jr. Advocate to assist Sri.B.V. Acharya. 17. Upon securing the records the Spl. C.C. No. 7/1997 was renumbered as Spl.C.C. No.208/2004 and Spl.C.C. No. 2/2001 was renumbered as Spl. C.C. No.209/2004 on the file of this Court. 18. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS : The Government of Karnataka vide the decision of the Cabinet in Ref. No. C-300 of 2004 dt. 30.9.2004 directed the Prl. Secretary to Government Higher Education Department to depute the services of the senior most 20 Assistant Professors/Lecturers proficient in Tamil and English language to the Special Court Bangalore for translating the documents from Tamil to English. Accordingly the services of Translators were

slide 22:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 22 made available. The translation work was completed by 2005 and the copies of the English translation of the deposition and the exhibits were furnished to A-1 to A-4 by 28.3.2005 as recorded in the Order-sheet dt. 28.3.2005. 19. STAY ORDER: The decks having been cleared for resumption of trial my Predecessor-in-office took up the pending application filed by the accused for holding joint trial of Spl. C.C. No.2/2001 and Spl.C.C. No.7/1997 renumbered as Spl. C.C. No. 208/2004 and Spl. C.C. No. 209/2004 and by order dt. 27.06.2005 both the cases were ordered to be clubbed. This order came to be challenged before the Honble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. Crl Nos. 3829 – 3830 of 2005 by the petitioner in the Transfer Petition viz. Sri. K. Anbazhagan and by order dt. 03.08.2005 the further proceedings in both the cases came to be stayed. In the meanwhile the Spl. P.P. himself having approached the Honble High Court of Karnataka against the orders of this Court refusing to grant consent for withdrawal of the prosecution in respect of the charges covered by the second Charge Sheet in Crime No.2/AC/2000HQ the Honble High Court of Karnataka by order dt. 07.12.2009 permitted the withdrawal of the prosecution launched against A-1 and others in Spl. C.C. No.209/2004. Accordingly a

slide 23:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 23 memo having been filed before the Honble Supreme Court of India by order dt. 22.01.2010 Spl. Leave Petition Nos. 3829-3830/2005 were disposed of as withdrawn and the order dt. 05.08.2005 granting stay of further proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.208 and 209 of 2004 pending on the file of this Court was vacated. In terms of this order Spl. C.C. No.209/2004 was de-linked and the proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.208/2004 continued before this Court. 20. RESUMPTION OF TRIAL : It is borne out from the records that after the trial resumed before this Court the accused moved applications after applications before this Court at every stage of the proceedings raising different interlocutory issues purportedly to vindicate different facets of their right to a free and fair trial and virtually every order passed by this Court was carried in Appeal or Revision to the Honble High Court of Karnataka and then to the Honble Supreme Court of India resulting in considerable delay in the progress of the case. In March- 2010 Crl.P.79/2010 was filed before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order dt. 5.6.1997 passed by the Spl. Judge Chennai taking cognizance. On 10.3.2010 the said petition was dismissed by the High Court against which SLP No.2248/2010 was preferred and even this special leave petition came to be

slide 24:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 24 dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by order dt. 19.3.2010. In the meanwhile the learned Spl. P.P. sought to recall 45 witnesses for cross-examination. At that stage on 14.07.2010 A-1 filed an application in I.A-No.396 seeking to scrap the English translations of the depositions of all the witnesses and to hold a de novo translation by summoning all the witnesses before the Court. The said application was rejected by a considered order with certain directions on 22.07.2010. Aggrieved by the said order A-1 preferred Crl. Petition No. 3748/2010 before the Honble High Court of Karnataka and the learned Spl. P.P. also filed Crl. Petition No. 3766/2010 challenging the part of the directions issued by this Court. Both the Crl. Petitions were heard and disposed of by a common order dt. 23.10.2010. The said common order was assailed before the Honble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No.10324 and 10325 of 2010. The Honble Supreme Court in its order dt. 14.12.2010 observed as under : “Fair trial is part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. To ensure fair trial it is necessary that defects in the translation of the depositions be corrected and the witnesses which are going to be examined their depositions should be correctly translated. In the facts and circumstances of this case We deem it appropriate to permit the Presiding Officer to engage the services of a person who is well versed both in Tamil and English languages

slide 25:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 25 who should be available to the Presiding officer and to the parties as and when it becomes imperative. The State to bear the expenses of the expert. Mr. Nageshwara Rao further submits that 250 witnesses have already been examined and if there is any defect in translation of the depositions of those witnesses the Presiding Officer may pass necessary orders after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The prayer is reasonable and We order accordingly.” Pursuant to the above Order Sri. R. Rajagopal Advocate was appointed as an Interpreter vide order dt. 23.9.2010. But in view of his non-availability by a subsequent order the assistance of Sri. K.S. Harish Advocate was taken to translate the disputed portions of the translated depositions and the translations carried out by the Interpreter are made part of the English translation of the deposition of the respective witnesses. The counsel has also assisted the Court as interpreter in recording the evidence of the defence witnesses before the Court. 21. Here itself it needs to be mentioned that even though the learned Spl. P.P. was permitted to recall 45 witnesses for the purpose of cross- examination the learned Spl. P.P. chose to recall and re-examine only 23 witnesses and on 19.01.2011 filed a memo to the effect that the prosecution dispenses with the further examination of PW.256 and PW.51 and filed

slide 26:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 26 another memo stating that the prosecution does not choose to adduce any further evidence and accordingly prosecution side was closed and the case was posted for examination of the accused u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage the learned Counsel for the accused pointed out some more defects in the English translation of the depositions and the said mistakes defects and omissions as shown by the counsels for the accused were also got rectified by calling for fresh translation of the portions of the depositions. 22. EXAMINATION U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C: Examination of A-1 u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. commenced on 20.10.2011. A-1 answered as many as 1337 questions and on completion of her examination on 23.11.2011 submitted a written statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. along with IX Annexures. When the examination of A-2 was half way through on 29.02.2012 A-2 moved a petition for supply of copies of unmarked and un-exhibited documents filed u/Sec.207 and 2432 Cr.P.C. as described in Annexures I to VII attached thereto. By a considered order dt. 03.04.2012 in I.A.No.711 the said application having been rejected A-2 carried the matter to the High Court of Karnataka by way of Crl. Petition No.1840/2012. The said Crl. Petition also having been dismissed A-2 approached the Honble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal

slide 27:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 27 No.1497/2012. By its judgment dt. 27.09.2012 the Honble Supreme Court of India disposed of the appeal with a direction that A-2 be allowed an inspection of the unmarked and unexhibited documents referred to by her in I.A-No.711 of 2012 and A-3 and A-4 were also granted liberty to inspect the unmarked and unexhibited documents if desired within a period of 21 days from the date of the receipt of the order. Accordingly A-2 to A-4 were permitted inspection of the unexhibited documents whereafter A-2 answered the remaining questions put to her in her examination u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and filed a written statement u/Sec.2431 Cr.P.C. with one Annexure on 21.01.2013. 23. A-3 and A-4 are also examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. A-3 has submitted a written statement dt. 21.01.2013 u/Sec. 243 1 R/w. 313 5 Cr.P.C. A-4 however has not chosen to submit any written statement or documents in support of her defence. 24. DEFENCE EVIDENCE: The accused were thereafter called upon to give in writing the list of persons whom they propose to examine as witnesses and the documents on which they propose to rely as required u/Sec. 22 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused however moved an application u/Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summons to the

slide 28:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 28 Director General of Income Tax Chennai to cause production of documents and records listed in the applications and accordingly summons were issued and the counsel representing the Income Tax Department produced the documents sought for by the accused and submitted that the other documents could not be traced. Likewise summons were issued to the office of the Registrar of Companies to produce the copies of the annual returns sought for by the accused and the same were also produced before the Court. The accused submitted a list of 128 defence witnesses and amongst them examined 99 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.99 and produced in evidence Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.384. 25. ARGUMENTS: On 29.07.2013 counsel for A-1 to A-4 filed a memo stating that the persons named at Sl. Nos.5 and 29 are no more and the accused do not propose to examine the other witnesses named in the list and sought to close defence evidence. On the same day the accused filed a memo seeking to commence their arguments as contemplated u/Sec. 314 of Cr.P.C. Upon hearing the parties my Predecessor in office permitted the defense to open their arguments and the learned Counsels for A-1 and A-2 submitted oral arguments between 05.08.2013 and 14.08.2013. During this time the aforesaid Mr. Anbazhagan filed an application

slide 29:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 29 u/Sec. 301 2 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the prosecution. On hearing the parties and considering the objections thereto the said application numbered as I.A-No.1143 was partly allowed and the applicant intervener was permitted to file memo of arguments and present the same to the Court and to render such assistance which the learned Spl. P.P. may require. 25.1 On behalf of A-3 and A-4 Sri. Nageswar Rao the Sr. Advocate submitted arguments whereafter the learned Spl. P.P. commenced his arguments on 23.08.2013. While Spl. P.P. was half way through his arguments on 27.08.2013 Court received the copy of the Government order No.LAW/149/LCE/2012 dt.26.08.2013 withdrawing the Notification dt. 2.2.2013 appointing Sri. G. Bhavani Singh as Spl. P.P. That was followed by another order dt. 10.09.2013 passed by the Government of Karnataka asking Sri. G. Bhavani Singh the Spl. P.P. not to appear in the matter. The accused challenged both the communications before the Honble Supreme Court of India by filing Writ Petition Crl No.166/2013. The Honble Supreme Court of India disposed of the Writ Petition by order dt. 30.09.2013 holding that the order of removal of Sri. G. Bhavani Singh is a product of mala-fides and the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and quashed the same. In the said order the Honble Supreme Court referred the matter to the Honble High Court of

slide 30:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 30 Karnataka to decide on the administrative side as to whether in order to conclude the trial expeditiously as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution requires the extension of the service of the learned Spl. Judge who was due to retire by the end of September 2013. However in due course the then Presiding Officer having retired on reaching superannuation by Notification dt. 31.10.2013 No:DPAR 10 Se Vu Nya 2013 the incumbent is appointed as the Special Judge to conduct the trial. 25.2 On assuming the charge steps were taken to shift the material objects and the valuable properties lying in the custody of the Spl. Judge Chennai and on taking charge thereof the case was rescheduled for arguments on 07.03.2014. At that stage on behalf of the five companies by name Lex Property Development P Ltd. Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. separate applications were filed seeking to take up their pending applications for lifting the order of attachment passed by the Chief Judge Small Causes Court Chennai under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 before hearing the final arguments in Spl.C.C. No.208/2004. The said applications were ordered to be heard simultaneous with the main arguments in

slide 31:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 31 Spl.C.C. No.208/2004 and for the third time the case was set down for arguments. 26 I have heard the arguments of the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned Counsel appearing for the accused at length. Learned Spl. P.P. merely read out the chief-examination of the prosecution witnesses and summed up his arguments. Learned Senior Counsel for A-1 Sri. B. Kumar however has addressed arguments for more than 80 hours elaborately dealing with every aspect of law and fact touching the points in controversy and has extensively dealt with each and every item of the income expenditure assets and pecuniary resources attributed to A-1 in an attempt to show that all the properties and assets held by A-1 are acquired out of her legitimate source known to law and that she is falsely implicated in the alleged offences at the behest of her political opponent. 26.1 In his prefatory submissions the learned Senior Counsel has strongly objected to the investigation conducted by the I.O. and has strenuously contended that these illegalities in the investigation and procedural infirmities go to the root of the matter vitiating the cognizance taken by this Court and the consequent trial held against the accused. I will be shortly dealing with the procedural illegalities

slide 32:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 32 highlighted by the learned Counsel before proceeding to discuss the merits of the case. 26.2 Placing reliance on large number of authorities on the question of burden of proof and appreciation of evidence the learned Senior Counsel has tried to impress upon the Court that the evidence adduced by the State in support of the charges leveled against the accused is highly discrepant unbelievable and suffer from irreconcilable contradictions especially in the contest of large number of prosecution witnesses turning hostile to the prosecution case and asserting in the cross examination that they were pressurized to depose against the accused thus demolishing the very foundation of the prosecution case. In his inimitable style the learned Sr. Counsel forcefully submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts required to be established by the prosecution to bring home the charge of disproportionate assets defined u/Sec. 13 1e of the Act with the standard of absolute proof and has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of conspiracy and abetment charged against the other accused. 26.3 It is the submission of the learned counsel that the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that A-1 being a public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused with the object of

slide 33:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 33 amassing wealth and she was found in possession of pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of Rs.666520395/-. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that in view of the charge of conspiracy and abetment leveled against A-2 to A-4 unless the prosecution is able to establish the benami character of the properties standing in the name of A-2 to A-4 and in the name of the alleged companies and the firms the burden of explaining the source for acquisition of these assets does not shift to A-1. The learned Senior Counsel has taken pains to take me through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused and has tried to impress upon the court that the explanation offered by the accused is plausible convincing and is sufficient to discharge the burden cast on the accused with the standard of preponderance of probabilities and under the said circumstance the accused are entitled for honorable acquittal. 26.4 In the course of the arguments the learned senior Counsel has taken serious exception to the clubbing of properties standing in the name of the various companies and firms and has built up an argument that without making the said companies party to the prosecution the prosecution itself is bad in law. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that criminality having been sought to be attributed to the companies without making them a party to the

slide 34:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 34 proceedings it would be travesty of justice to pass any adverse order against the said companies or in respect of the properties standing in the name of the said companies. 26.5 Dilating the above contention the learned Counsel would argue that by clubbing the properties purchased by the various companies out of their own funds an attempt is made by the prosecution to link these properties to the assets of A-1 which is not only illegal but belies the motive of the prosecution to secure the conviction of the accused by muddling unconnected properties with the assets of A-1. It is the submission of the learned counsel that no order for forfeiture of the properties belonging to the companies which are distinct legal entities in the eye of law can be validly passed by the court without holding the companies also guilty of alleged offence but such a course is not permissible unless the companies are also made parties to the prosecution. Referring to the various sale deeds registered in the name of the companies the learned Counsel would submit that the companies having been shown as the lawful owners of the properties covered therein any order passed against the persons whom the law regards as apparent owner would only be violative of Article 300-A and Art. 21 of the Constitution of India rendering the orders of this court unconstitutional and illegal in the eye of law. Thus the learned Counsel has

slide 35:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 35 made a fervent appeal to leave out all the properties registered in the name of the firms and the companies. 26.6 The learned Senior Counsel for A-1 has elaborately dealt with the individual items shown in annexure II to IV and has endeavoured to persuade the court that A1 was possessed with sufficient resources and properties inherited by her and during the check period she had received Rs.21500012 by way of presents on her 44 th Birthday and had also derived large income from her agricultural properties and from the business run by her in partnership with A-2. The said income was duly declared before the Income Tax Authorities as required under law and was accepted by the Statutory Authorities after due inquiry as evidenced in the various documents produced by the accused by way of the income tax returns and the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities which clearly indicate that A-1 was possessed with ample resources for the acquisition of the properties in her name but the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the real income of A-1 and has maliciously inflated the value of the assets by fabricating the valuation reports through PWD Engineers who were at the beck and call of the then Government in power only with a view to ruin the political career of A-1 by foisting a false case against her.

slide 36:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 36 26.7 Commenting on the credibility of the evidence of the Engineers of the P.W.D examined by the prosecution as expert witnesses to determine the valuation of the structures and buildings the learned Counsel has forcefully argued with reference to large number of decided cases that none of these Engineers qualify as experts within the meaning of Sec.45 of the Evidence Act and their reports suffer from serious defects rendering the testimony of these witnesses totally unreliable and susceptible to doubt. The learned counsel has relied on large number of authorities in support of his argument which will be referred to while dealing with the above contentions in the course of this judgment. 26.8 Sri. C. Manishankar learned Counsel for A-2 has submitted his arguments in line with the contentions urged by A-2 in her written statement filed u/Sec. 2431 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel has taken me through each items of the assets income and expenditure attributed to A-2 with reference to the evidence brought on record and has emphasized that A-2 was a businesswoman having independent source of income. She was carrying on independent business as proprietrix of Vinod Video Vision Fresh Mushrooms and Metal King and as partner of Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises. Much before the check period Jaya Publications of which she is one of the partners had

slide 37:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 37 introduced a scheme by name Namadhu MGR and had raised Rs.143035000.00 by way of refundable deposit the amount received by A-1 by way of gift was also available with them as valuable resource for acquisition of the various assets. It is the submission of the learned counsel that A-2 was also a partner of M/s. Sasi Enterprises and various other firms floated during the check period which were in regular business earning independent income and therefore there is no basis for the prosecution to contend that A-2 and other accused had abetted the alleged offence or had entered into conspiracy with A-1 to amass illegal assets as sought to be made out by the prosecution. In the course of the argument the learned Counsel has made an attempt to explain the source for payment of the consideration and the expenses incurred for the registration of the various items of the properties purchased in the name of A-2 and has also endeavoured to persuade the Court that in addition to the business income A-2 had agricultural income rental income and had also raised loans which were duly disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities who have accepted the returns filed by A-2 in her individual capacity and as partners of the aforesaid firms therefore the charges leveled against A-2 cannot stand the test of scrutiny either on law or on the facts of the case. The learned counsel has also referred to large number of case laws which I will be referring at the appropriate stage of this judgment.

slide 38:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 38 26.9 Sri. Amit Desai learned Senior Counsel appearing for A-3 and A-4 at the outset has taken serious exception to the charges framed against A-3 and A-4 u/Sec. 109 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code contending that the said charges do not indicate which pecuniary resources or property is the subject matter of the alleged disproportionate assets. It is the submissions of the learned counsel that the above charges do not segregate the alleged pecuniary resources or property accused wise they do not identify the number or names of the business enterprises which are alleged to have been floated in the names of A-2 to A-4 or by which of the accused as a result the accused are seriously prejudiced and are misled in defending the charge leveled against them. In support of this argument the learned Counsel has referred to number of authorities which will also be considered while answering this contention. 26.10 Dealing with the charge of conspiracy the learned counsel has emphatically argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that A-2 A-3 and A-4 had knowledge of the dominant object of the alleged conspiracy or that there was any consensus-ad-idem between the parties to do the alleged illegal acts. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that agreement must precede the overt acts but in the instant case the evidence produced by the prosecution suggest that the

slide 39:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 39 properties were registered in the name of A-3 and A-4 subsequent to 1994 and the various firms were also constituted subsequent to 1994 which implies that these accused were not parties to the alleged conspiracy which is stated to have originated at the commencement of the check period in 1991. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the umbrella of conspiracy is opened up by the prosecution only to cover up the lapse in the investigation and to magnify the assets of A.1 by introducing unconnected sets of properties belonging to third parties and by associating unrelated business activities of the accused so as to bring in all kinds of evidence on record on the guise of invoking the concept of criminal conspiracy which is totally illegal and mala-fide in the eye of law. The learned Counsel has addressed lengthy argument on this point which will be considered in detail while dealing with the validity of the charges in the course of this judgment. Suffice it to note for the present that in addition to the legal contentions urged by the learned Counsel regarding the alleged defects in the charge the learned Counsel has made elaborate submissions on the individual assets and properties standing in the name of A-3 and A-4 and the income and expenditure attributed to them. 27. On completion of the oral arguments memorandum of written arguments u/Sec. 314 Cr.P.C are filed on behalf of A-1 and A-2 and a common

slide 40:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 40 memorandum of argument is submitted on behalf of A-3 and A-4 along with 2 enclosures. A chart of disputed items is also filed by A-1. 28. Learned counsel for the accused have relied on the following citations in support of their arguments: 1 1976 3 SCC 252 - Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy others Vs. V. Narayana Reddy Others 2 2006 1 SCC 627 - Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan Another 3 2007 12 SCC 641 – Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi 4 AIR 1954 SC 300 – M.P. Sharma Others Vs. Satish Chandra Dist. Magistrate Delhi Others 5 AIR 1965 SC 1039 – Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 6 1976 1 SCC 15 – Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan 7 2014 3 SCC 502 – Dipak Babaria Another Vs. State of Gujarat Others 8 1997 4 SCC 770 – Union of India Others Vs. Sushil Kumar Modi Others 9 1998 1 SCC 226 - Vineet Narain Others Vs. Union of India Another 10 AIR 1955 SC 196 – H.N. Rishbud Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi 11 AIR 1964 SC 221 – State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi 12 1992 SUPP 1 SCC 335 – State of Haryana Others Vs. Bhajan Lal Others 13 2013 4 KCCR 3245 – Babu Rao Chinchanasur Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police B’lore Urban Dist. B’lore Another 14 AIR 1956 SC 238 – Tilkeshwar Singh Others Vs. State of Bihar 15 2006 7 SCC 172 – State Inspector of Police Vishakapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri 16 1970 1 SCC 595 – P. Sirajuddin etc. Vs. State of Madras etc. 17 1994 6 SCC 632 – R. Rajagopal R.R. Gopal another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Others 18 2012 3 MWN Crl. 380 – P. Palraj Vs. State rep. by

slide 41:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 41 Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing Thoothukudi 19 1974 1 SCC 3 – Jaydayal Poddar Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra Others 20 AIR 1947 PC 67 – Pulukuri Kottaya others Vs. Emperor 21 2005 7 SCC 605 – Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra Others 22 2012 1 SCC 476 – Union of India others Vs. Ramesh Gandhi 23 2012 5 SCC 661 – Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels Tours Pvt. Ltd. 24 2014 2 SCC 1 – Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP Others 25 1972 4 SCC 150 – Rameshwar Prasad Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Bihar 26 1977 1 SCC 816 – Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 27 1981 3 SCC 199 – State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar 28 1987 Supp. SCC 379 – State of Maharashtra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla 29 1992 4 SCC 45 – M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police Hyderabad 30 AIR 1959 SC 488 – Haji Mohammed Ekramul Haq Vs. State of West Bengal 31 1999 7 SCC 280 – State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal Others 32 2009 9 SCC 709 – Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. Others 33 2012 8 SCC 263 – Dayal Singh others Vs. State of Uttaranchal 34 2009 9 SCC 221 – Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee 35 2010 9 SCC 286 – Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana 36 1996 9 SCC 1 – P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar 37 2002 8 SCC 87 – K.G. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police Another 38 2004 SCC Crl. 1092 – K.C. Builders another Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 39 2006 1 SCC 420 – DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran 40 2011 3 SCC 581 – Radeshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal Another

slide 42:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 42 41 2011 4 SCC 402 – Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim 42 AIR 1964 SC 1563 – Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat 43 2004 SCC Crl. 882 – K. Anbazhagan Vs. Superintendent o Police Others 44 2010 6 SCC 1 – Manu Sharma Vs. State 45 2013 7 SCC 622 – Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanras Vs. Ved Prakash Others 46 Crl. Appeal MD No. 1472 of 2002 – R. Markandan died Vs. Inspector of Police CBI Chennai 47 AIR 1934 P.C. 157 – Collector of Gorakhpur as Manager Court of Wards Majhauli Estate Vs. Ram Sundar Mal Others 48 AIR 1948 Mad. 388 – Ramaswami Goundan Vs. Subbaraya Goudan 49 Crl. Appeal Nmo. 1614 of 1963 – Shiv Charan Others Vs. State of Allahabad 50 Crl. R.C. Nos. 811 to 813 of 2005 – T.T.V. Dinakaran Vs. The Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate Govt. of India Chennai 51 2004 7 SCC 33 – Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja another Vs. Union of India Others 52 1999 5 SCC 30 – Ramprasad Vs. State of Maharashtra 53 1972 4 SCC 71 - Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar Vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 54 2008 3 MLJ Crl. 635 SC Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab Another 55 1988 173 ITR 206 Mad - Union of India Vs. Gopal Engineering Works Others 56 The Smugglers Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act 1976 57 2012 9 SCC 771 – V.K. Sasikala Vs. State Rep. by Superintendent of Police 58 2014 2 SCC 401 – J. Jayalalitha Vs. State of Karnataka 59 1975 3 SCC 495 – Shri Ram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh 60 2001 1 SCC 378 – Saju Vs. State of Kerala 61 2004 12 SCC 521 – Ranganayaki Vs. State 62 2005 12 SCC 631 – K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala 63 1984 4 SCC 116 – Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra

slide 43:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 43 64 1995 Supp. 3 SCC 333 – A. Jayaram another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 65 1981 3 SCC 199 – State of Maharashta Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar 66 2010 2 KLJ 1 – Babappa Vs. State by Lokayukta Police Gulbarga 67 2013 2 LW Crl. 358 – A.P. Pillai Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police 68 1992 4 SCC 39 – P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 69 1976 1 SCC 31 – Karuppanna Thevar Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu 70 1976 1 SCC 727 – Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Admn. 71 2002 9 SCC 639 – Jagan M. Seshadri Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 72 2005 5 SCC 272 – Rajaram Vs. State of Rajasthan 73 2004 9 SCC 193 – Kunju Muhammed Khumani another Vs. State of Kerala 74 1984 2 SCC 350 – Vinod Chaturvedi Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 75 1987 1 SCC 533 – Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 76 2010 9 SCC 286 – Keshav Dutt Vs. Stae of Haryana 77 1973 2 SCC 808 – Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradersh 78 2003 6 SCC 595 – Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani 79 2004 2 SCC 283 – Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badavun Vs. Bipin Kumar Another 80 2007 3 SCC 163 – Bhandari Construction Co. Vs. Narayan Gopal Upadhya 81 1966 3 SCR 400 – Addanki Narayanappa another Vs. Bhaskara Krishtappa 13 Others 82 1969 3 SCC 555 – Arjun Kanoji Tankar Vs. Santram Kanoji Tankar 83 1989 3 SCC 56 – Gopal Saran Vs. Satyanarayana 84 1994 Crl.L.J. 12 Gau – Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India 85 2000 6 SCC 338 – State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohanlal Soni 86 1999 3 SCC 247 – M. Krishna Vs. State o Karnataka 87 2005 11 SCC 600 – State NCT of Delhi Vs. Navjot

slide 44:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 44 Sandhu Afsan Guru 88 2004 8 SCC 270 – Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Purya Others 89 2011 4 SCC 240 – H. Siddiqui dead by LRs. Vs. A. Ramalingam 90 AIR 2013 SC 1048 - Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh Others 91 AIR 1969 SC 961 – Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 92 AIR 1976 SC 975 – Bhagirath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 93 1998 3 SCC 410 – CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla Others 94 1997 1 CAL. 255 HC – Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghavachari Narasinhan Others 95 AIR 1955 SC 74 – Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay 96 1970 1 SCC 248 – Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India 97 1998 1 SCC 86 – Employees State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Apex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 98 1994 2 SCC 14 – Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair 99 1991 3 SCC 655 – K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India Others 100 All England Law Reports 1982 1 All ER Practice Note 101 2013 10 SCC 192 – Hema Vs. State through Inspector of Police Madras 102 2014 5 SCC 108 – State of Gujarat Vs. Krishna Bhai Others 103 2010 2 SCC 748 – Musheer Khan Badshah Khan Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 104 AIR 1964 SC 529 – Shashi Kumar Banerjee Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee 105 1977 2 SCC 210 – Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab 106 2011 Crl. L.J. 2860 – O.T. Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim 107 2001 6 SCC 145 – Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kuber Singh Chaman Singh Others 108 AIR 1968 SC 1402 - Kamesh Kumar Singh Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 109 1996 4 SCC 596 – S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 110 1977 2 SCC 699 – State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy Others

slide 45:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 45 111 2010 9 SCC 567 – C. Muniappan Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 112 AIR 1976 SC 980 – Karuppanna Thevar Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu 113 1979 4 SCC 312 – Chonampara Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala 114 AIR 1977 SC 170 – Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa 115 AIR 1996 SC 2766 – State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra Another 116 AIR 2009 SC 2238 – Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra 117 1997 6 SCC 41 – Spl. Dy. Collector Another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao Others 118 AIR 1995 SC 840 – The Spl. LAO Another etc. Vs. Siddappa Omanna Tumari Others etc. 119 1988 3 SCC 609 – Kehar Singh Others Vs. State Delhi Admn. 120 AIR 1996 SC 1744 – State of Maharashtra Etc. Vs. Somnath Thapa Etc. 121 AIR 1963 SC 200 – M.G. Agarwal Another Vs. State of Maharashtra 122 AIR 1952 SC 343 – Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 123 AIR 1979 SC 826 – S.P. Bhatnagar Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra 124 2012 9 SCC 512 – CBI Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao 125 1970 1 SCC 696 – Noor Mohd. Yusuf Momin Vs. The State of Maharashtra 126 2003 3 SCC 641 – Ram Narayan Popli Vs. CBI 127 AIR 1956 SC 116 – Willie William Slaney Vs. State of M.P. 128 AIR 1968 SC 117 – Abhinandan Jha Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra 129 2013 2 SCC 1 – Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi Others 130 1977 7 SCC 622 – Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat 131 1975 4 SCC 761 – Trilok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi 132 1960 1 SCR 461 – C.S.D. Swamy Vs. The State 133 1964 4 SCR 630 – Sajjan Singh Vs. The state of Punjab

slide 46:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 46 134 SC WP Crl. No. 120 of 2012 – Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Prl. Secretary Others 135 AIR 1959 SC 707 – The State of M.P. Vs. Mubarak Ali 136 AIR 39 1952 SC 16 – Commissioner of Police Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji 137 1998 SCC Crl. 1625 – Suresh Budharmal Kalani Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra 138 2006 EWCA Civ. 1028 – Arpad Toth Vs. David Michael Jarman 139 2000 4 SCC 459 – R. Sarala Vs. T.S. Velu Others 140 1998 SCC Crl. 307 – Vineet Narain Others Vs. Union of India Another 141 2002 9 SCC 639 – Jagan M. Seshadri Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 142 1981 1 WLR 246 – White House Vs. Jordan Another 143 2005 5 SCC 272 – Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 144 1993 Supp. 3 SCC 745 – Varkey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala 145 1986 1 SCC 133 – Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Others Vs. Union of India Others 146 2004 10 SCC 1 – Union of India Another Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan Another 147 AIR 34 1947 PC 75 – Zahiruddin Vs. Emperor 148 1974 3 SCC 388 – Ram Prasad Others Vs. The State of U.P. 149 1982 AIR 697 1982 SCR 2 – Western Coal fields Ltd. Vs. Spl. Area Development Authority Korba Another 150 1951 1 SCR 876 AIR 1955 SC 74 – Bacha F. Guzdar Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay 151 2004 10 SCC 562 – Jitendra Another Vs. State of M.P. 152 2004 2 SCC 731 265 IJR 362 – K.C. Builders Another Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 29. The intervenor has filed a detailed written arguments u/Sec. 314 of Cr.P.C. R/w. Sec.3012 Cr.P.C. as permitted by the Court.

slide 47:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 47 30. In his brief reply the learned Sp.P.P. countered the contentions of the defence counsel and submitted that all the required formalities and procedures contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code and D.V. A-C. Manual are duly followed by the investigating agency and the F.I.R. in the instant case is filed by PW.241 pursuant to the orders of the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras and therefore there is no illegality whatsoever either in the registration of the F.I.R. or in the investigation of the offence. The learned Spl. P.P. pointed out that the enquiry initiated u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. was merged with Spl.C.C.No. 7/1997 arising out of Cr.No.13/AC/96 by orders of the Court in Crl. M.P. No.3238/96 dt. 26.6.97 and consequently all the documents produced before the Court having been forwarded to the Spl. Court dealing with Spl. C.C. No. 7/1997 no objection could be raised on the purported ground at this stage. The learned Spl. P.P. also pointed out that on conclusion of the investigation the copies of the statements namely Annexures I to VII were furnished to A-1 as required under law calling for her explanation as per Ex.P.2318 but A-1 did not chose to offer any explanation thereto instead sent a reply through her advocate which is marked in evidence as Ex.P.2319 and therefore even on this score A-1 cannot raise any grouse at this stage.

slide 48:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 48 30.1 The learned Spl. P.P. has argued in support of the evidence given by the Engineers of the P.W.D and the valuation reports prepared by them and has submitted that the accused themselves having relied on the valuation reports prepared by the Engineers who were the members of the very same team cannot be heard to say that the PWD Engineers examined by the prosecution were not competent to value the structures and that the yardsticks adopted by them for determination of the valuation of the buildings is contrary to the accepted norms and standards. Disputing the genuineness of the large number of documents produced by the accused in support of their defence the learned Spl. P.P. pointed out that almost all the documents relied on by the accused in relation to the Income Tax proceedings assessment orders auditor’s reports etc. have come into existence subsequent to 25.06.1997 much after the lodging of the F.I.R. and subsequent to the filing of the Charge Sheet therefore no credence could be given to these documents. Even otherwise it is the submission of the learned Spl. P.P. that the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are not binding upon a criminal Court and such findings cannot be held to be conclusive on the ground that returns were filed much earlier to the F.I.R. The learned Spl. P.P. specifically referred to the volumes of the applications purported to have been submitted by various subscribers to Namadhu MGR

slide 49:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 49 and emphasized that these documents have come into existence under mysterious circumstances as the auditors of A-1 and A-2 themselves had stated before the Income Tax authorities that the documents pertaining to the receipt of deposits by Namadhu MGR were lost in transit and therefore could not be produced but surprisingly during the examination of the defence witnesses the accused have got summoned these documents from Income Tax Department which speaks in volume about the manner in which the accused have fabricated evidence in support of their false defence. 30.2 Further it is argued that the accused have not produced any reliable and acceptable evidence which could be treated as satisfactory explanation even with standard of preponderance of probability in respect of the staggering amount of disproportionate assets stacked by A-1 in conspiracy with the other accused. The explanation attempted through the Chartered Accountants of the accused is totally unacceptable for the reason that none of these Chartered Accountants were appointed by the accused and there is no material to show that at the relevant point of time these witnesses either handled the accounts of the accused or filed any returns or balance sheet on behalf of the accused. It is the submission of the learned Spl.P.P. that the balance sheet and profit and loss account statement on which the accused have profusely relied

slide 50:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 50 have been concocted by the accused for the purpose of this case and none of these documents being the certified copies of the records maintained by the Income Tax Department deserve credence. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Cable T.V. Network Rules of 1994 the learned Spl. P.P. would submit that A-3 was not entitled to receive any deposits from cable operators without complying with the requirements of the said rules and therefore in the absence of any acceptable evidence to show that at the relevant time the accused were in possession of sufficient sources for the acquisition of large extent of properties and assets it has to be held that all the acquisitions made by the accused either in their individual names or in the name of the firms or companies are illegal and acquired from the ill gotten wealth of A1.thereby establishing the charges leveled against the accused. 30.3 In support of the above argument the learned Spl. P.P. has relied on the following decisions. 1 K.Veeraswami vs. Union of India and others. 2 State of Bihar vs. Lalu Prasad others. 3 Sasi Enterprises Vs. Asst. Commissioenr of Income Tax 4 Circular No.611 reg. Remittance in Foreign Exchange Immunities Scheme 1991 5 Mr. N. Ramakrishnaiah Dead thr. LRs. Vs. State of A.P. 6 R. Janakiraman vs. State 7 P. Nallammal etc. vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police 8 Republic of India vs. Raman Singh

slide 51:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 51 31. I have bestowed my careful thought to the elaborate arguments canvassed at the Bar and have carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties in the backdrop of the defence set up by the accused as spelt out in the written statement filed u/Sec. 313 and Sec. 243 1 of Cr.P.C and have also referred to the proposition of law enunciated in the large number of decisions relied on by the learned counsel and the memorandum of argument submitted by the Intervenor. 32. The legal contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the accused raises the following questions of law and fact which are taken up for consideration first. They are: i Whether the sanction for prosecution of A-1 is in accordance with law ii Whether the investigation is tainted by illegalities and procedural defects as contended by the accused iii Whether the investigation conducted by PW.259 is bad in law for lack of authorisation u/Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act iv Whether charge No.2 and 3 as framed are void ab-initio and violative of

slide 52:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 52 Sec.211 212 213 and 218 of Cr.P.C. and also violative of Article 300-A Article 21 of the Constitution of India v Whether the trial is vitiated on account of clubbing of properties belonging to several companies and firms which are not parties to the prosecution vi Whether the prosecution of the accused is motivated by political vendetta 33. POINT NO.1 : SANCTION: The fact that A-1 was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996 is not in dispute. It is a settled position of law that a person holding the office of the Chief Minister is a “Public Servant” within the meaning of Sec. 2c of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the case of M.Karunanidhi vs. Union of India and others AIR 1979 SC 898 Constitution Bench of the Apex Court on a consideration of the Constitutional provisions and in particular to Article 164 and 167 has laid down that a Chief Minister or a Minister is a public servant in respect of whom the Constitution provides that he will get his salary from the Government Treasury so long as he holds his office and he is also a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the

slide 53:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 53 Penal Code. Sec.2c of the P.C.Act also provides that any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty is a public servant. 33.1 Though as on the date of taking cognizance of the offence A-1 had ceased to be the Chief Minister yet the investigating agency has obtained the requisite sanction for prosecution of A-1 for the offences punishable u/Sec. 120-B I.P.C. R/w.Sec. 132 and Sec. 131e of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The said sanction is produced in evidence and is marked as Ex.P.2223. In proof of the said sanction the prosecution has examined the Secretary Public Administration Department PW.229. He has spoken about the material placed before the Governor of Tamil Nadu for according the sanction sought for by the investigating agency. A-1 has not disputed the competency of the Governor to issue the sanction but in the course of the argument the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A-1 raised the question of legality and validity of the sanction order Ex.P.2223. But on going through the records I find that as back as in 1997 itself A-1 had challenged the validity and legality of the sanction order by filing a petition u/Sec. 197 i b Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.123/1997 before this court. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the sanction order and in the

slide 54:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 54 light of the proposition of law laid down in the decisions reported in 1990 1 Crl.Law Cases 70 B.C. Behera Vs. State 1995 Crl.L.J. 3424 CBI vs. Rabinder Singh 1996 Crl.L.J. 1127 State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1945 Madras 284 1992 Supp 1 SCC 222 State of Bihar Vs. Sharma and 1997 5 SCC 326 my predecessor in office answered the issue against A-1 holding that the sanction accorded by the Governor for prosecution of A-1 is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 33.2 It is borne on record that A-1 preferred a Writ Petition No. 14644/97 before the Honble High Court of Madras seeking to quash the sanction issued by the Governor for the prosecution of A-1. This petition came to be dismissed with the observation that “A perusal of sanction proceedings themselves would show that the Governor of Tamil Nadu had independently applied her mind to every aspect of the material and had granted sanction.” Further the Honble High Court has held in the said order that “The impugned sanction proceedings to prosecute the A-1 cannot be challenged in view of the Constitutional immunity provided under Article 361 of the Constitution besides holding that her Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu is the authority and competent to sanction the prosecution and the proceedings are in no way vitiated or suffer with any illegality.” Hence the dispute regarding the legality and validity of the sanction having been set at rest A-1

slide 55:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 55 is estopped from agitating the matter over again. That apart in a recent decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 3 SCC.1 it is held that “In the matter of according sanction to prosecute Chief Minister or State Ministers the Governor can act upon his own discretion.” Hence the determination of the legality and validity of the sanction order having already attained finality without entering into any further discussion I hold that the sanction for the prosecution of A-1 is valid and in accordance with law. 34. POINT NO.2: LEGALITY OF INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION OF THE CASE One of the main objections raised by the learned counsel for A-1 is that the investigation conducted by the DV AC suffers from serious illegalities and infirmities which has resulted in grave prejudice to the accused and has vitiated the cognizance taken by the court and the consequent trial held against the accused. In his oral submission as well as in the written arguments the learned counsel has highlighted the following illegalities in the investigation and cognizance of the case viz. i Shri V.C. Perumal PW 241 IGP Vigilance Anti-Corruption who registered the FIR was

slide 56:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 56 not the officer in-charge of the police station as contemplated u/Sec. 154 of Cr.P.C. Hence registration of the FIR by Mr. V.C. Perumal is against law ii Upon registration of the FIR Shri V.C. Perumal PW.241 directed Mr. Nallamma Naidu PW.259 to take up the investigation. This direction in the FIR is bad in law and contrary to the settled principles governing the investigation of the offence u/Sec. 13 1 e read with Sec. 13 2 of the Act iii Registration of FIR Ex.P-2266 is fraught with mala-fides in as much as the said FIR was registered on the directions of the government to prevent the possibilities of the Prl. Sessions Judge dropping the proceedings in the inquiry initiated u/Sec.202 Cr.P.C. iv Much before registration of the FIR the Prl. Sessions Judge had ordered an inquiry u/Sec.202 Cr.P.C. based on the private complaint filed by PW 232 Dr. Subramanian Swamy in Crl.M.P. No. 3238 of 1996. Investigation envisaged u/Sec.202 contained in Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation contemplated u/Sec. 156 of the

slide 57:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 57 Code. Therefore whatever statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. could not have been made part of the final report filed u/Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. v The material gathered during the investigation under Chapter XV has been used by the prosecution as if it were done under Chapter XII. Thus the prosecution has deliberately misguided and misled the Court in taking cognizance of the offence. They have also misled the accused by forwarding all the materials to them u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. This is a total negation of the Code vi The statements of 300 witnesses recorded during the enquiry u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. are treated by the prosecution as the statements recorded under chapter XII of the Code. Those 300 persons were not examined again after registering the FIR. Hence cognizance taken on the basis of the said statements and the subsequent production of these statements in evidence is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code

slide 58:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 58 vii The Investigating Authority failed to conduct the preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Sirajuddin’s case 1970 1 SCC 595 and the failure to observe this mandatory requirement has resulted in gross violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India viii In case of offence u/Sec.13 1 e of the PC Act the accused has a statutory right to satisfactorily explain the assets in her name. Such a right has been denied to the accused by not affording an opportunity to explain the acquisition of the assets in her name ix There was no authorization to PW 259 to conduct the investigation of the offence u/Sec. 13 1 e of the P.C.Act as required under sec. 17 and 18 of the Act. Hence the investigation conducted by him and the consequent charge sheet filed by him before the court are illegal and amount to violation of the mandatory provisions of Sec.17 Sec.18 of the P.C. Act x There has been a total breach of the mandatory provisions of Sec.17 Sec.18 of the Act in as much as the huge volume of

slide 59:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 59 documents bank records and records from Registration department and Income-tax Department collected during the course of investigation under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. are eventually relied upon when the charge sheet was filed 34.1 The learned counsel has made elaborate submissions on each of these aspects with reference to number of decided cases. But on going through the records it is noticed that during the pendency of trial A-1 herself had moved an application under Sec.17 read with Sec. 13 1 e of the Act and under Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. numbered as I.A.No. 359 raising the very same contentions based on the alleged illegalities in the registration of the FIR and collection of evidence and the lack of authority to PW.259 to investigate into the alleged offence. On detailed consideration of the objections and placing reliance on the very same authorities which are now relied on by the learned counsel for A-1 by a considered Order dt. 27.4.2010 the said application was rejected. In the said Order it is specifically noted that by virtue of the Notifications issued by the government of Tamil Nadu as per G.O. No. MS. 963 Public SCR.B DT. 25.5.196 and G.O. No. MS. 449 P AR dt. 14.5.1982 the office of the Directorate of Vigilance Anti-Corruption Madras is declared as a police station and the Inspectors of Police of the

slide 60:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 60 Directorate of Vigilance Anti-Corruption are empowered to exercise the powers of the investigation and arrest as specified in the proviso to the notifications. Further under the said notification all the police offices of the Directorate of the above rank of Inspector of Police are granted the powers of an officer in-charge of the police station. In view of these notifications the objection regarding the competency of P.W.241 to register the F.I.R. is liable to be rejected. 34.2 The contention regarding the non- authorization to PW 159 under Sec. 17 Sec.18 of the Cr.P.C. and the legality of the investigation conducted by him are also answered by this Court in the above order. It is a matter of record that A-1 challenged the said Order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing a Spl. Leave Petition numbered as SLP Crl. No.3836 of 2010 and by Order dt. 11.5.2010 even the said SLP came to be dismissed as withdrawn. The order reads as under “The SLP is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner intends to move the High Court in which event the matter shall be considered on its own merits.” 34.3 There is nothing on record to show that subsequent to this Order A-1 approached the High Court questioning the findings recorded by this Court

slide 61:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 61 on the issues now sought to be agitated by the learned counsel. Therefore even on this score the contentions are liable to be dismissed as legally untenable. 34.4 In the above context it is pertinent to note that after transfer of the case to the State of Karnataka A-1 approached the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore u/Sec. 482 of the Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings launched against her on the ground that the Order dt. 5.6.1997 passed by the Spl. Judge taking cognizance of the offence is passed routinely mechanically and without application of judicious mind to the contents of the charge sheet and therefore the entire proceedings is a nullity and is liable to be quashed. This Crl. Petition No. 79 of 2010 along with Misc. Crl. 731 of 2010 came to be dismissed by a considered order dt. 10.3.2010 against which A-1 preferred SLP No. 2248 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 19.3.2010. In view the above order the objection regarding the alleged illegality in taking the cognizance deserves to be dismissed as barred by the principle of estoppel. 34.5 Even otherwise it is a settled proposition of law that any complaint about illegalities or irregularities in the investigation has to be raised at the earliest opportunity before charges are famed. Such a ground

slide 62:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 62 cannot be urged at the fag end of the trial unless it is shown that the accused has been prejudiced by the alleged illegalities or irregularities and the continuation of the proceedings has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 34.6 In the case of H.N. Rishbud Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1955 SC 196 it is held that defect or illegality in investigation however serious has no direct bearing on the competence of the procedure relating to cognizance or trial.” The aforesaid decision is followed in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Prl. Secretary 2014 2 SCC 532. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kanaiaya Lal 1976 Crl.LJ 1230 it is held that any such defect in investigation will affect the trial only if it could be shown that the accused been prejudiced on account of such defect. The accused can be said to have been prejudiced only if it can be shown that because of that defect he did not get a fair trial.” Therefore merely because there was some irregularity in the investigation which is not established in the present case or that the Investigating Officer had some animus against the accused or that the prosecution was initiated by a person at the behest of the political opponent cannot by itself lead to an inference that the accused has been subjected to prejudice or denied a fair trial. 34.7 In the instant case though the learned counsel for A-1 has vehemently argued that the statements of about 300 witnesses recorded during the

slide 63:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 63 inquiry u/Sec. 202 are incorporated in the charge sheet and the said statements are relied on by the prosecution during the evidence which has resulted in prejudice to the accused yet not a single statement has been confronted to the witnesses during their examination before the court and no previous statement of any witness is marked u/Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act so as to substantiate the above plea. Even though in the written arguments at page 12 the learned counsel has referred to the alleged statements of number of Charge sheet witnesses admittedly none of these witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Therefore there is absolutely no basis for the accused to contend that the prosecution has relied on the statements recorded under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. and on that account the accused are prejudiced in their defence. 34.8 In appreciating the above contention it is also relevant to note that in the written statement filed by A-1 u/Sec. 243 1 Cr.P.C. she has taken up a plea which reads as under “In this case in pursuant to an Order passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge City Civil Court Chennai statements have been recorded from about 300 witnesses. The examination and recording of statements of about 300 witnesses were done during an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code. The prosecution witnesses in this case have admitted that while the said 202 enquiry was pending the FIR was registered and the

slide 64:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 64 investigation done under Sec. 202 was merged with the investigation done in pursuant to the FIR which eventually lead to the filing of the final report. It is further in evidence that since the above said 300 witnesses were examined during the enquiry under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. they were not examined again after registering of FIR. Yet none of the statements of those 300 witnesses were furnished to me causing grave prejudice. It is submitted that the statements of the above said 300 witnesses ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the court along with the final report under Sec. 173 5 b of the Code.” 34.9 This plea is contrary to the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel that by incorporating the statements of the aforesaid 300 witnesses in the charge sheet the accused are being misled. Be that it may the accused do not dispute the fact that the inquiry initiated in Crl. M.P. No. 3238 of 1996 under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. was merged with Spl. C.C. No. 7 of 1997 as per the Orders dt. 26.6.1997 passed by the XI Addl. Judge/Spl. Judge Chennai–1. It has come in evidence that pursuant to the orders passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge P.W.259 conducted the investigation in both the proceedings simultaneously and submitted the charge sheet on 4.6.1997. The report of the inquiry was submitted to the Court on 17.6.1997 and is marked as Ex.P-2320. In the cross-examination of PW.259 at para 29 it is elicited that the documents produced before the Chennai Metropolitan Prl. Sessions Judge were sent to the Spl. Court which means that all the documents

slide 65:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 65 collected by PW 259 during the enquiry u/Sec. 202 were forwarded to the Court. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the documents which were collected during the enquiry u/Sec.202 Cr.P.C. were made part of the final report is factually incorrect. Even accepting for the sake of argument that the material collected during the inquiry u/Sec. 202 is relied on by PW.241 for the purpose of registering the FIR it cannot be considered as material irregularity much less an illegality which has the effect of nullifying the trial. 34.10 In answering the other objections raised by the accused it may be apposite to refer to the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalitha Kumari vs Government.of U.P. 2014 2 SCC 1 wherein it is held that “the registration of F.I.R. is mandatory u/Sec. 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.” 34.11 In the above decision it is further laid down as to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

slide 66:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 66 a Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes. b Commercial offences. c Medical negligence cases. d Corruption cases. e Cases where there is abnormal delay / laches in initiating criminal prosecution for example over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reason for delay. 34.12 In the case in hand it cannot be disputed that enquiry into the alleged offence was ordered by the Prl. Sessions Judge on 21.06.1996 itself and by the time F.I.R. came to be filed substantial enquiry has been completed and necessary information revealing the cognizable offence was collected as spoken to by PW.240 PW.241 and PW.259. It is held in the above decision: “The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.” It is further laid down that “while ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant a preliminary inquiry should be made time- bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days.” In the wake of this legal and factual position I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel that by not conducting the preliminary inquiry the safeguards provided under the Code are violated by the investigating agency affecting the rights of the accused as conternded.

slide 67:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 67 34.13 The learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of State of Inspector of Police Visakapattanam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri 2oo6 7 SCC 172. But in the said case the requisite authorisation to the subordinate officer was not made in writing the statements of the wife and sons of the public servant were not produced before the Court and their status before the Income Tax Department was not ascertained and under the said circumstance the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the investigation was illegal and the proceedings had caused mis-carriage of justice to the accused. But in the instant case the investigating agency has not only collected the incriminating evidence during investigation but has also produced them before the court along with the final report and the copies of all these documents and statements were furnished to the accused before hearing them on charge as required under the Code. It is borne on record that at the stage of Sec.313 Cr.P.C. A-2 moved two applications seeking certified copies or in the alternative for inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents. The said application having been rejected and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka having confirmed the said order A-2 approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing a Crl. Ap. No 1498/2012 and by order dt. 27.9.2012 A-2 was allowed inspection of unmarked documents referred in the application dt. 29.3.2012 IA-711/2012 and the 3 rd and 4 th accused were also

slide 68:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 68 permitted to inspect the unexhibited documents. Therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the accused now to contend that by not furnishing the documents produced before the court they are prejudiced in their defence. 34.14 The parameters governing the process of investigation of a criminal charge the duties of the investigating agency and the role of the Courts after the process of investigation is over are exhaustively discussed by the Hon’ble Suprme Court of India in the aforesaid Judgment in Crl. Ap. No.1498/2012 and it is observed that seizure of large number of documents in the course of investigation of a criminal case is a common feature. After completion of process of investigation before submission of the report to the Court u/Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. a fair amount of application of mind on the part of the investigating agency is inbuilt in the Code. Such application of mind is both with regard to the specific offences that the investigating officer may consider to have been committed by the accused and also to identity and particulars of the specific documents and records seized in the course of investigation which supports the conclusion of the investigating officer with regard to the offences allegedly committed.” It is observed therein that “Though it is only such reports which support the prosecution case that are required to the forwarded to the

slide 69:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 69 Court u/Sec. 173 5 in every situation where some of the seized papers and documents do not support the prosecution case and on the contrary supports the accused a duty is cast on the investigating officer to evaluate the two sets of documents and materials collected and if required to exonerate the accused at that stage itself.” In the instant case the Hon’ble Supreme Court having found that large number of documents were forwarded to the court which have remained unmarked and unexhibited in order to protect and preserve the right of the accused the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the accused to inspect the documents sought for by the accused. Pursuant to the said order A- 2 to 4 having inspected the documents and thereafter having produced the relevant documents in support of their defence there is no scope for the accused now to contend that by not furnishing the documents collected at the stage of enquiry u/Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. their valuable rights have been violated. Therefore viewed from any angle I do find any merit in the contentions raised in this regard. 35. POINT No.3: AUTHORISATION U/SEC.17 18 OF P.C. ACT : Dealing with the specific instances of alleged illegalities in the investigation the learned senior counsel has assailed the very competency of the

slide 70:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 70 investigating officer Sri. Nallamma Naidu P.W.259 to conduct the investigation contending that he was not duly authorized as per Sec.17 Sec.18 of the P.C. Act. This contention in my opinion is against the factual and legal matrix of the case and is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. The learned counsel appears to have built up this argument based on the portion of the cross-examination of PW.241 which reads : “In this case I gave power to 12 officers according to Sec.17 of the Anti Corruption and Prevention Act and Four officers u/Sec. 17 and 18 of Anti corruption and Prevention Act. But for Nallamma Naidu I did not issue any order to give power according to Sections 17 and 18 Anti Corruption and Prevention Act separately. Ex.P.2266 the F.I.R. also does not mention that I gave power to Nallamma Naidu u/Sec. 17 and 18 of Anti Corruption and Prevention Act.” 35.1 It is the argument of the learned Counsel that PW.241 the Director of D.V. A-C has admitted in his evidence that he did not authorise Sri. Nallamma Naidu to investigate into the allege offence therefore it follows that the entire investigation conducted by him is without jurisdiction and illegal in the eye of law. Commenting upon Ex.P.2308 and Ex.P.2309 produced by the prosecution the learned Counsel submitted that both these documents though purported to be the authorizations issued by PW.241 appear to have been fabricated at a later stage during the examination of PW.259 as they were not produced along with the

slide 71:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 71 Charge Sheet papers and do not bear the Court seal. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the above facts coupled with the testimony of PW.241 who has unequivocally stated on oath that he did not issue any authorization to PW.259 to investigate the offence leads to the inevitable conclusion that the entire investigation conducted by PW.259 is without authority of law and consequently the charge sheet filed against the accused the subsequent trial has to be held as illegal and void. 35.2 Regarding Ex.P.2265 the learned Counsel would submit that this authorisation was issued by PW.240 Letika Saran during the inquiry undertaken by her u/Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. and this document does not empower PW.259 to undertake investigation under Chapter 12 of Cr.P.C. Hence in the absence of specific authorisation as per Sec. 17 18 of the Act the investigation conducted by PW.259 is illegal and suffers from incurable defect. 35.3 In support of the above argument the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.N.Rishbud vs. State of Delhi-AIR 1955 S.C. 196 The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mubarak Ali-AIR 1959 SC 707 The State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal - AIR 1992 S.C. 604 State by Inspector of Police Visakapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri-2006 7 S.C.C.

slide 72:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 72 172 and has emphatically submitted that the provisions of Sec.17 are mandatory in nature non-compliance of which would vitiate the investigation and render the consequent trial illegal. 35.4 In answering this question it is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that the investigation was commenced by PW.240 as per the orders of the Principal Sessions Judge / Spl. Judge Madras in Crl.M.P. No.3238/1996 dt. 21.06.1996 on the basis of the Private Complaint filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy PW.232 against A-1 u/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 1 e of P.C.Act 1988. The Spl. Judge recorded the sworn statement of the complainant PW.232 and passed a considered order the operative portion of which reads as under: “In the result the issue of process to the accused is postponed u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. It is just and necessary to direct an investigation u/s 17 of the P.C.Act and under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. and as suchI direct Tmt. Letika Saran a Senior I.P.S. Officer in the cadre of D.I.G. in Madras to investigate the entire matter collect necessary materials in a fair and impartial manner and send a report to this Court within a period of two months. The Director General of Police is also directed to give necessary assistance to the said Officer and post necessary personnel as required by the Officer for effective investigation of the matter. A copy of the order will also be sent to the Officer for investigation and also to D.G.P. for effective implementation of the order. Call on 21.08.1996.”

slide 73:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 73 35.5 PW.240 Smt. Letika Saran who was then working as Dy. Inspector General of Police in the Vigilance Department has deposed that pursuant to the above order she took up investigation. She was assisted by Sri. Nallamma Naidu the then A.D.S.P. of DV AC PW.259 and other officers. She has specifically deposed that she issued an order u/Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 1.7.1996 as per Ex.P.2265. It is relevant to note this order – Ex.P.2265 is issued under the second proviso to Sec.17 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 wherein she has made reference to the order passed by the Court and the complaint received against A-1. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under the second Proviso to Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Central Act 49 of 1988 I Tmt. Letika Saran I.P.S. D.I.G. of Police D.V.A-C. Madras and Chief Investigating Officer in the above case do hereby direct and authorize Thiru N. Nallamma Naidu Addl. Supdt. of Police of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to conduct as a member of the investigating team the investigation in the case against Selvi J. Jayalalitha former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu for the offence u/s 131 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Central Act 49 of 1988. ” 35.6 PW.259 has corroborated the above testimony stating that he investigated the offence as

slide 74:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 74 per the authorisation given by PW.240 viz. Ex.P.2265. This authorisation is not withdrawn or superseded. PW.241 has also admitted in his evidence that PW.259 was issued with the authorisation as per Ex.P.2265 and he has further stated that apart from him 12 other Police officers were also authorized by PW.240 u/Sec.17 and Sec. 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and they collected documents from the Registration Department Sub-Registrar’s Office Banks Financial Institutions Revenue Departments Enforcement Offices and Registration of Institutions. 35.7 It is an undeniable fact that the order passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge/ Spl. Judge Chennai was challenged by A-1 before the Honble High Court of Madras and the Honble High Court stayed the investigation for a while and ultimately by order dt. 04.09.1996 in Crl.O.P. No.5755/1996 and 2633 2634 and 2834/1996 Ex.D.10 dismissed the petition with a direction to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to take such appropriate steps to comply with the order viz. to investigate the averments made in the complaint in accordance with law if he so chooses by any person of his choice including that of the person named by the learned Judge since there are no allegations made against the said officer if the officer is working in the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

slide 75:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 75 35.8 In terms of the above order PW.241 Sri. V.C.Perumal who had by then taken charge as I.G. filed F.I.R. against A-1 on 18.09.1996 in Crime No.13/AC/1996 under Sec.131 e R/w. 13 2 of P.C.Act as per Ex.P.2266. PW.241 has specifically deposed that in the same F.I.R. he appointed Tr. Nallamma Naidu Addl. Supdt. PW.259 as investigating officer and issued the order. The said portion of the F.I.R. reads as under: “13. Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offence s u/s as mentioned at Item No.2 registered the case and directed Thiru N. Nallamma Naidu Rank Addl. Supdt. of Police D.V. A-C. Madras to take up the investigation. Sd/- 18.09.1996” 35.9 This F.I.R. is seen to have been submitted to the Court on the same day and PW.259 has deposed before the Court that pursuant to the order passed by PW.241 he “took jointly the F.I.R. of this case and the petition u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. for investigation”. Further PW.240 has categorically stated in her evidence that after the Director nominated Nallamma Naidu to investigate the case she handed over all the records to Tr. Nallamma Naidu. PW.241 has also stated in the chief-examination that he advised Tr. Nallamma Naidu to investigate u/Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. along with the case

slide 76:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 76 in Crime No.13/AC/1996 which implies that PW.241 had authorized P.W.259 to conduct the investigation simultaneously u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. and u/Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This is evident from the further testimony of PW.259 who has unequivocally stated that pursuant to the enquiry conducted by him u/Sec.202 of Cr.P.C. he submitted a report on 17.06.1997 as per Ex.P.2320 before the XI Addl. Special and Sessions Judge Chennai. 35.10 The second proviso to Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under: “Provided further that an offence referred to in clause 3 of sub-section 1 of Sec.13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.” 35.11 Dealing with the scope and ambit of Sec.5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 corresponding to Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mubarak Ali AIR 1959 S.C. 707 the Honble Supreme Court has held that Sec. 5A was inserted in the Act to protect the public servants against harassment and victimization. To achieve this object Secs. 5A 6 introduced the following two safeguards.

slide 77:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 77 i No police officer below the rank – a in the presidency towns of Madras and Calcutta of Asst. Commissioner of Police b in the presidency towns of Bombay of a Supdt. of Police and c elsewhere of a Dy. Supdt. of Police shall investigate any offence punishable u/Sec. 161 165 or 165-A of Indian Penal Code or under Sub Sec 2 of Sec. 5 of the Act without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class as the case may be. It is further held that these Statutory safeguards must be strictly complied with for they were conceived in public interest and were provided as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. While in the case of an officer of assured status and rank the Legislature was prepared to believe them implicitly it prescribe an additional guarantee in the case of Police Officers below that rank viz. the previous order of Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class as the case may be. 35.12 In above case investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank of Dy.S.P. The said officer started the investigation 10 days before securing the permission of the Magistrate u/Sec. 5-A which was a mandatory requirement. Therefore investigation was held invalid. It was also held in the above decision that the permission granted by the Magistrate was mechanical and without application of mind. 35.13 In the case of State by Inspector of Police Visakapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Kari 2006 7 SCC

slide 78:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 78 172 it is held that authorisation by a Supdt. of Police in favour of an officer so as to enable him to carry out investigation in terms of Sec. 17 of the Act is a Statutory one. Authorising a person to carry out a public function like investigation into an offence an order in writing was required to be passed. 35.14 In State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal AIR 1992 S.C. 604 the Apex Court observed that the Supdt. of Police or any Police Officer of above rank while granting permission to a non-designated Police Officer in exercise of his power under the second Proviso to Sec.5A1 to satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient reasons to entrust the investigation with such Police Officer of a lower rank and record his reasons for doing so. But in the later decision viz. State of M.P. vs. Ram Singh AIR 2000 S.C.870 the Honble Supreme Court distinguished the facts of this case and observed that in Bhajanlal’s case i the Statutory legal requirement of disclosing the reasons for according the permission is not complied with ii prosecution has not satisfactorily explained the circumstances which impelled the S.P. to pass the order directing the SHO to investigate the case iii the said direction was manifestly seen to have been granted mechanically and in a casual manner by making an endorsement on the complaint to the effect “please register the case and investigate” iv the SHO had got neither any order

slide 79:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 79 from the Magistrate to investigate the offence u/Sec. 161 and 165 Indian Penal Code nor any order from the S.P. for investigation of the offence u/Sec. 51e of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus distinguishing the case on facts the Honble Supreme Court in Ramsingh’s case observed that after registration of the F.I.R. the S.P. was shown to be aware and conscious of the allegations made against the respondents the F.I.R. registered against them pending investigation. It is further observed that the reasons for entrustment of investigation to the Inspector could be discerned from the order itself and accordingly the facts of Bhajanlal’s case were distinguished. 35.15 In 1999 Crl.L.J. 247 Kar it is held that illegality in investigation is to be pointed out before taking cognizance whereafter it is relevant only for purposes of finding out whether the accused has suffered any prejudice on that account. 35.16 In Mahaveer Prasad Srivatsava vs. State of M.P. 2000 Crl.L.J. 1232 it is held that S.P. is not required to write a judgment or a reasoned order. He is to satisfy himself that it is necessary to investigate but he need not record the reasons of that satisfaction. 35.17 In the case in hand it is proved in evidence that PW.259 was initially authorized by

slide 80:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 80 PW.240 as required under the second proviso to Sec.17 of the Act as per Ex.P.2265. This authorisation was in force until PW.241 issued the authorizations as per Ex.P.2308 and Ex.P.2309. Though it is argued by the learned Counsel for the A-1 that the said authorizations viz. Ex.P.2308 and P.2309 were got up later but there is nothing in the entire evidence to indicate that Ex.P.2308 and 2309 were fabricated by PW.259. No doubt it is true that while marking these documents in evidence objection is seen to have been raised by the learned Counsel for the accused but it is not clear from the deposition as to whether the said objection was raised for delayed production of the documents or on the ground of alleged fabrication of the documents as now sought to be contended. It cannot be believed that PW.259 a subordinate officer of PW.241 would go to the extent of forging the signature of I.G. of Police and create Ex.P.2308 and Ex.P.2309 solely to substantiate the case of the prosecution that too after retirement from service. Even assuming for the sake of argument though not conceding that PW.259 has resorted to such an act it was still open for the accused to recall PW.241 and confront these documents so as to impeach the testimony of PW.259. That apart the accused having failed to cross-examine PW.259 regarding the circumstance under which these authorization came to be issued cannot now build up the argument contrary to the documents which are duly proved in evidence.

slide 81:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 81 35.18 In the above context it may be useful to refer to page 3 of the deposition of PW.241 wherein he has deposed: “As the investigation has to be carried out in many districts of Tamil Nadu and some other states I appointed some officers to be of help to Tr. Nallamma Naidu and passed order to this effect.” Through this witness prosecution has marked 14 authorisations issued by PW.241 u/Sec. 17 and 18 of Prevention of Corruption Act as per Ex.P.2267 to Ex.P.2271 and Ex.P.2272 series. It is important to note that the copies of all these authorizations are marked to Tr.N.Nallamma Naidu and to the Prl. Sessions and Spl. Judge Chennai. If PW.241 had not appointed Tr. Nallamma Naidu as Investigating Officer as now sought to be contended there was no necessity for PW.241 to mark the copies of these authorizations to PW.259. This is one of the strong circumstance to indicate that PW.241 had issued the authorizations to PW.259 as contended by the prosecution. 35.19 It is also necessary to note that Ex.P.2308 is dt. 18.09.1996 and it is issued by PW.241 under his signature in exercise of the powers conferred under second proviso to Sec.17 of the Act. Ex.P.2309 is also dt. 18.09.1996 and it is issued in exercise of the powers u/Sec. 18 of the Act. Both these documents are signed and dt. by PW.241 whose signatures tally with his signatures found in Ex. P.2267 to P.2272. The reasons

slide 82:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 82 for issuance of the authorizations are clearly spelt out in Ex.P.2308 and Ex.P.2309. All these circumstances therefore lead to the definite conclusion that these authorizations were issued by PW.241 in fulfillment of the requirement of Sec.17 Sec.18 of the Act. 35.20 No doubt it is true that a discordant note is struck by PW.241 during his cross-examination denying the issuance of any authorisation to Tr. Nallamma Naidu under Sec.17 and 18 of the Act but in appreciating this evidence it is relevant to note that the chief-examination of PW.241 was recorded on 17.08.2000 and he was cross-examined on 29.01.2003 and by then A-1 had assumed the office of the Chief Minister. It is seen from the records that there were serious allegations of subversion of justice which lead for the transfer of the case to the State of Karnataka. The change of stance of PW.241 during the cross- examination has to be understood in this background. A reading of the cross examination of P.W.241 undoubtedly indicate that PW.241 has buckled under pressure and has disowned his own testimony and denied the documents executed by him in his official capacity. In any case the hostile testimony given by PW.1 in this regard being inconsistent to the facts established by the prosecution and the unimpeachable documentary evidence produced before the Court the above portion the testimony of P.W.241 does not lead to

slide 83:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 83 the conclusion that PW.259 had no authorization to conduct the investigation as contended by the accused. Thus on cumulative consideration of the testimony of PW.240 241 and 259 coupled with the documentary evidence discussed above I do not have any hesitation to hold that PW.259 was duly authorized to investigate the offence as per Sec.17 and 18 of the Act and the said authorisations are in accordance with the provisions of Sec.17 18 of the Act and satisfy all the requirements laid down in the decisions referred above. 36. POINT NO.4: OBJECTION REGARDING CHARGE : At the fag end of the trial after the conclusion of the arguments by the learned Counsel for A-1 and A-2 Sri. Amit Desai the learned Senior Counsel for A-3 and A-4 raked up an issue touching the legality of the charges contending that the charges framed in respect of the alleged offences u/Sec. 109 and 120-B of I.P.C. are contrary to Secs. 211 212 and 218 of Cr.P.C. and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the said charges do not indicate which alleged pecuniary resource or property is the subject matter of the alleged disproportionate asset. The charge does not segregate the alleged pecuniary resources or property accused- wise. It does not identify the number or names of the

slide 84:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 84 business enterprises which are alleged to have been floated in the names of the A-2 to A-4 or by which of these accused. 36.1 It is the argument of the learned Counsel that the above charge do not mention the names of any of these enterprises. Whilst Charge No.1 states that there are 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A-2 to A-4 even that charge does not specify the names of the 32 enterprises which are the subject matter of the charge. The charge does not put A-2 to A- 4 on notice as to which alleged pecuniary resources or which property is being held as a disproportionate asset of A-1. It is argued that in an offence of disproportionate asset especially where such assets are alleged to have been held by non-public servants on behalf of the public-servant it is absolutely necessary to put such non-public servant on notice as to which of the assets of the non-public servant are being attributed to the public servant as distinct from the assets of the non-public servants themselves as otherwise such non- public servant Accused are seriously disadvantaged and misled whilst dealing with the charge. It is further submitted that in disproportionate asset cases it is for the prosecution to specifically identify the assets in order to enable the accused to discharge the burden if any cast upon them. More so regarding the assets standing in the names of non public servants for which

slide 85:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 85 there is an allegation that the said asset is not the asset of the non-public servant but in fact the asset of the public servant. There is no presumption whatsoever that the assets of a non public servant are those of a public servant even in respect of the family or relatives of a public servant. The burden is entirely on the prosecution. By not giving particulars the accused has been deprived of a full and complete opportunity to deal with the charge leveled against her. 36.2 In the course of argument the learned Counsel has referred to Sec.211 212 218 of Cr.P.C. and has emphatically submitted that the charges framed against the accused being contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure trial stands vitiated and therefore these charges are required to be held as void so as to ensure that the petitioners have a fair trial. In support of this argument the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision rendered in Willie William Slanley vs. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC 116 wherein it is held as under: “Except where there is something so vital as to cut at the root of jurisdiction or so abhorrent to what one might term natural justice the matter resolves itself to a question of prejudice. Some violations of the Code will be so obvious that they will speak for themselves as for example a refusal to give the accused a hearing a refusal to allow them to defend themselves a refusal to

slide 86:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 86 explain the nature of the charge to them and so forth. These go to the foundations of natural justice and would be struck down as illegal forthwith. It hardly matters whether this is because prejudice is then patent or because it is so abhorrent to well-established notions of natural justice that a trial of that kind is only a mockery of a trial and not of the kind envisaged by the laws of our land because either way they would be struck down at once. ”. 36.3 Though the observation in the above paragraph supports the view canvassed by the learned counsel it may also be pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the same decision it is observed as under: “6 Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine the provisions of the Code we will pause to observe that the Code is a code of procedure and like all procedural laws is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and well- understood lines that accord with out notions of natural justice”. If he does if he is tried by a competent Court if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself then provided there is ‘substantial’ compliance with the outward forms of the law mere mistakes in procedure mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the

slide 87:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 87 accused can show substantial prejudice. That broadly speaking is the basic principle on which the Code is based.” 36.4 Even though the accused have come up with the allegation that they are misled on account of non- disclosure of the names of the firms and the companies and the details of the assets alleged to have been held by them on behalf of A-1 in each of these enterprises records reveal that on registration of the case copies of the Charge Sheet and the accompanying documents were furnished to all the four accused. A-2 to A-4 even moved an application for their discharge and upon dismissal of the said application charges were framed against A-1 to A-4 on 21.10.1997 and the same were explained to the accused and only after ensuring that the accused fully understood those charges their plea was recorded. Further the accused having denied the charges evidence has been let in by the prosecution by examining as many as 259 witnesses during a span of five years from 1998 to 2003. The accused were even examined u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. before the transfer of the case to the State of Karnataka in 2003 and the accused did not even raise a little finger complaining any ambiguity in the charge. On the other hand after the transfer of the case the accused themselves have examined as many as 99 witnesses and have produced voluminous documents in support of their defence which include documents relating to the properties

slide 88:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 88 standing in the names of the 32 firms or companies named in the charge sheet making it evident that they were posted with all necessary particulars regarding the name and constitution of the firms / companies. In the course of putting questions to the accused in their examination u/Sec.313 before the Bangalore Court all the necessary information regarding the allegations which constitute the basis for the above charges have been conveyed. More importantly A-1 to A-3 have filed detailed statement u/Sec. 243 1 wherein the accused have taken specific defence in respect of each items of Annexures – I to VII including the properties standing in the name of the firms and companies. Therefore I do not find any propriety on the part of the accused now to contend that they are misled by the charges framed by the Court by not furnishing the details of the 32 firms / companies. 36.5 Viewed from another angle the wordings of the charge on the face of it give a clear indication of the acts committed by the accused during the check period pursuant to the alleged criminal conspiracy and abetment i.e. the acquisition and possession of assets either in their names or in the name of the firms or company. There may be some dispute as to whether the companies were floated by any of the accused as alleged by the prosecution as the evidence indicate that all these companies were incorporated earlier to the check

slide 89:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 89 period. But the charge having been framed on the basis of the accusations contained in the charge sheet and the accompanying documents the correctness of the charge cannot be challenged on that count. The charge as framed indicates that there was only one object of the conspiracy and that was to acquire assets for and on behalf of A-1. The argument of the learned counsel that the dominant object of the conspiracy was not within the knowledge of A-3 and A-4 as most of the properties were purchased by them subsequent to 1994 does not alter the nature of the charge. The particulars as to time place and the nature of the offence is clearly spelt out in the charge as required under Sec.212 and the name of the offence with refence to the provisions of the statute is also stated therein in compliance with the requirements of Sec.213 of the Code. There is no requirement under law to specify the individual instances of acquisitions or the modus- operandi adopted by the accused to effectuate the conspiracy. Moreover the nature of the offence is such that all the particulars of the transactions as sought for by the accused cannot be furnished in the charge. When conspiracy is alleged act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other. Therefore there is no necessity to specify the individual properties or assets held by the individual accused. The charge as framed informs the accused not only the offence for which he or she is proposed to be tried but also refers to the acquisitions

slide 90:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 90 made by them in the manner stated in the charge during the check period pursuant to the conspiracy in furtherance of the same transaction. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel that the charge in question is misleading and is contrary to the provisions of the code cannot be accepted. 36.6 The above argument appears to have canvassed by misreading the charge and on the erroneous assumption that the prosecution case is based on the premise that the assets of non public servant are attributed to the public servant. But it is not so. The assets of the non public servant are not attributed to A-1 as contended by the learned counsel rather the case of the prosecution is that all the acquisitions made by the accused during the check period in their names either in their individual capacity or as partners of the firms or Directors of the Company are the disproportionate assets of A-1. The accused have very well understood the charge in this manner and have let in evidence in disproof of this charge. This is evident from the conduct of the accused right from the date of framing the charge i.e. 06.10.1997 till the conclusion of arguments the accused did not raise any objection regarding charge either before this court or before the High Court or the Supreme Court even though the matter has traveled to the superior courts umpteen number of times during the last 16 years. All

slide 91:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 91 these circumstance go to show that there has been no defect in the charge and the accused were not subjected to any prejudice as now sought to be contended. 36.7 It is not the defence of the accused that they were not constituents of any of the 32 firms or the companies at any point of time. If the accused were not involved in any of the firms or the companies listed in the charge sheet accused would have been justified in contending that they are seriously prejudiced by the charge as framed. The very fact accused have taken up a specious plea that they have already resigned from the directorship of the companies and therefore they are not liable to answer the acquisitions made in the name of the respective companies there is no basis or justification for the accused to contend that by not specifying the name of the firms or the company they are disadvantaged or prejudiced in their defence. This argument suffers from inherent contradictions apart from being contrary to the facts of the case. 36.8 Needless to say the whole object of the charge is to inform both the prosecution and the accused particularly of the accusation the prosecution has to establish and the accused has to meet. So long as the accused knows fully the accusation he has to meet any error in the narrative of the charge does not become fatal to the trial. Sec. 215 of the Code saves the

slide 92:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 92 trial from being vitiated unless of course the accused has been prejudiced and failure of justice has taken place. In the instant case accused have not been able to point out any such instance or circumstance which could be termed as ‘prejudice’ leading to miscarriage of justice. Therefore viewed from any angle I do find any reason to uphold the contention urged in this regard. 36.9 For the aforesaid reasons I hold that the charges framed against the accused are in accordance with the requirement of the Code and do not suffer from any vice or illegality as contended by the accused. By the said charges the accused are clearly informed about the offence for which they are tried and the necessary facts constituting the offence u/Sec. 109 120-B of I.P.C. R/w.13 1 e R/w. 13 2 of P.C. Act have been conveyed to them and accused have not only understood the charge but have availed full opportunity to defend them. For all these reasons the objection raised in this regard is hereby rejected. 37. POINT No.5: CLUBBING OF PROPERTIES : Placing reliance on the decision reported in 2012 5 SCC 661 Aneeta Hada vs. God Fathers Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. the learned Counsel has put forward a plea that the prosecution has committed grave illegality

slide 93:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 93 by including large number of properties purchased by several companies as the assets of the accused without making the said companies parties to the prosecution. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that when a person or entity is not a party to the proceedings no adverse comment or order can be passed against such a person or entity without affording an opportunity of hearing whereas in the instant case the properties standing in the name of various companies are shown as the assets of the accused as a result if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the alleged offence there is a possibility of the properties belonging to the Company being forfeited in clear violation of the property rights of the companies guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution and further any order passed against the companies or its Directors without affording an opportunity of hearing would be a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 37.1 Dilating on the above point the learned Counsel further submitted that having regard to the allegations leveled against the accused Court cannot decide the guilt of the accused without holding the Companies also guilty of the alleged illegal accusations but such a course of action is not permissible unless the companies are also made parties to the proceedings. In the instant case the companies having not been made

slide 94:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 94 parties to the prosecution the whole procedure adopted by the prosecution is illegal and on this ground also the trial is vitiated. 37.2 In support of the above argument the learned Counsel has referred to another decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and another vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and another 2004 10 SCC.1 at para 61 it is held as under : “An assessment made in the case of a particular assessee is liable to be challenged by the Revenue or by the assessee by the procedure available under the Act. In a public interest litigation it would be most unfair to comment on the correctness of the assessment order made in the case of a particular assessee especially when the assessee is not a party before the High Court.” 37.3 I have carefully considered the submission made at the Bar. The learned Counsel for the accused appears to have built up the above argument on the supposition that it is a rule of universal application that in every case the state of affairs shown in the registered deed is the real state of affairs and a piece of property registered in the name of the Company unquestionably belongs to the Company and it is not amenable for challenge from any quarters. I do not think that this is the correct position of law. The learned Counsel has not

slide 95:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 95 been able to point out any judicial precedent in support of his contention that invariably in all cases the purchaser shown in the registered deed is the true owner thereof. If this argument is accepted no criminal prosecution would be maintainable for acquisition of disproportionate assets by the public servants as hardly any public servant would allow the illegally acquired properties stand in his or her name in the public records. In the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “It is well known fact that the persons indulging in illegal activities screen the properties acquired from such illegal activity in the names of their relateives or associates” 1994 5 S.C.C.54. 37.4 Dealing with the similar contention the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N. Suresh Rajan 2014 AIR SCW942 has observed thus “The property in the name of an income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee. In case this proposition is accepted in our opinion it will lead to disastrous consequences. It will give an opportunity to the corrupt public servant to amass property in the name of known persons pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law.” 37.5 It may also be useful to refer to the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court of

slide 96:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 96 India in the case of Jai Narain Parasurampriya vs. Pushpadevi Saraf 2006 7 S.C.C. 756 wherein it is held as under: “Sec.54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines ‘Sale’ and provides for procedure as to how the same would be made. It does not speak of conveyance of ownership. Sec.54 of T.P.Act does not lay down a law as to in all the situations an apparent state of affairs as contained in a deed of sale would be treated to be the real state of affairs. It does not bar a benami transaction. There is no embargo in getting the property registered in the name of one person although real beneficiaries would be another”. 37.6 Therefore merely because the properties in question are registered in the name of some Companies cannot be a ground to hold that the inclusion of the said properties as the assets of the accused is contrary to law or procedure as sought to be contended. 37.7 The decision relied on by the learned Counsel does not any way advance the argument canvassed before the Court. In the said case the question arose before the three judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of India was whether the complaint u/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act R/w. Sec.141 against the Director or authorized signatory of a cheque was maintainable without joining the company as an accused In the said case a finding

slide 97:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 97 was returned by the trial court that the Company had committed the offence but Company was not made a party to the proceeding u/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. In that context the Honble Supreme Court of India has held that “The language of Sec.141 of the Act being expressly plain and clear a finding has to be returned that the Company has committed an offence and such a finding cannot be recorded unless the Company is before the Court moreover when it enjoys the status of a separate legal entity.” 37.8 It is trite law that jurisdiction of the criminal Court extends over crime and the criminal. The question of trying the Company or its Director would arise only if the offence is alleged to have been committed by the Company or its Directors rendering them liable for prosecution. In the instant case there is no allegation of any offence being committed by the Companies. The prosecution is launched on the basis of the accusation that A-2 to A-4 have floated these companies in order to facilitate the acquisition and possession of properties for and on behalf of A-1. If the prosecution is able to establish that the said acquisitions were made solely and exclusively by A-2 to A-4 without any involvement of the Companies without the funds of the companies and that the properties in question were never treated as the properties of the said Companies there is no reason why the Companies should be made parties to

slide 98:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 98 the prosecution merely because accused used the name of the Companies as a cover or camouflage to justify the wrongs committed by them. The doctrine of lifting the corporate veil would come into play in such circumstances. Whether the prosecution would be able to prove this aspect of the case and whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a finding in this regard is a different matter altogether. As long as the prosecution case is rested on the allegations that A-2 to A-4 acquired the properties in question in the name of the Companies in my opinion the said Companies do not require to be made parties to the prosecution launched against A-2 to A-4. For example if a public servant enters into a conspiracy with a non- public servant to acquire illegal assets and the non- public servant acquires the property and registers it in the name of his or her minor nephew the said minor need not be made a party to the criminal proceedings launched against the public servant unless the beneficiary thereof is also accused of abetment or conspiracy. 37.9 The argument of the learned Counsel that in the event of the criminal court ultimately deciding to pass an order for forfeiture of the properties it would impinge upon the Costitutional right of the Companies guaranteed under Art.300A of the Constitution is misconceived premature and without any substance.

slide 99:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 99 The provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 provides for effective remedy to third parties whose properties are attached in connection with prosecution of the offence under the Act. It is borne on record that all the companies named in the charge sheet have taken recourse to the provisions of Sec.5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 and an adverse order has been passed against the companies holding that the properties involved in this proceedings standing in the name of the respective companies are not acquired out of the lawful resources of the companies and the consideration paid thereon do not represent the funds of the said companies. In this context it is pertinent to refer to another decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya vs. Union of India AIR 2014 S.C. 1003 wherein it is held “If a subject acquires property by means which are not legally approved sovereign would be perfect justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public interest in ensuring the persons who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth.” In the light of the above factual and legal position the contention urged by the accused in this regard is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

slide 100:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 100 38. POINT No.6: POLITICAL VENDETTA: Coming to the last contention urged by the learned counsel for the accused that the proceedings were launched against them out of political vendetta at the instance of the political opponent of A-1 is concerned it should be noted that this contention is already rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the Transfer Petition No.77-78 of 2003. Observing that the said argument is an argument of despair the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the order dt. 18.11.2003 that “In a democracy the political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House. They are the watchdogs of the Government in power. It will be their effective weapon to counter the misdeeds and mischieves of the Government in power. They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large if genuinely and unbiasedly projected. In that view of the matter being a political opponent the petitioner is vitally interested party in the run of the Government or in the administration of criminal justice in the State.” 38.1 It is trite that criminal law can be set into motion by any person. In Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar 1987 1 S.C.C 288 it is held that:

slide 101:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 101 “It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala-fides or political vendetta.”. 38.2 The very fact the private complaint lodged by P.W.232 has paved way for registration of case culminating in the Final Report and the prosecution of the accused reinforces to the plea that prosecution launched against the accused is not actuated by malice or political vendetta as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. This argument therefore is rejected. 39. Now coming to the charges framed against the accused these charges give rise to the following points for determination viz.: 1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that A-1 being a public servant acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and in the names of business enterprises floated in their names pecuniary resources and assets of the value of Rs.666520395/- disproportionate to her known source of income during the check period from 01.07.1991 and 30.04.1996 which she could not satisfactorily account

slide 102:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 102 2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 to 4 were parties to a criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of Rs.666520395/- in the names of A-1 and in the names of A-2 to 4 and the 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A-2 to 4 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of Indian Penal Code R/w. Sec.13 2 R/w. Sec. 13 1 e of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that A-2 to A-4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding A-1 in the acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income by holding substantial portion thereof in their names and in the names of 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A-2 to A-4 rendering them liable for conviction for the offence punishable u/Sec. 109 Indian Penal Code R/w. Sec. 132 R/w. Sec.131e of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 4. What order

slide 103:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 103 40. On careful and thorough analysis of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and in the light of the proposition of law enunciated in the several decisions relied on by the respective counsel for the accused and the learned Spl.P.P. and considering the written arguments of the intervenor my findings on the above points are as under Point No.1: Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that as against the income of Rs.99105094.75 and expenditure of Rs.84906833.00 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 floated in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of Rs.557908215/- which she could not satisfactorily account thereby rendering her liable for conviction u/Sec. 13 1 e R/w. 13 2 of P.C.Act. Point No.2: Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 to A-4 were parties to criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of Rs.557908215/- and thereby

slide 104:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 104 committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. 13 1 e R/w. 13 2 of P.C. Act. Point No.3: Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-2 to A-4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding A-1 in the acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income as above and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 109 of I.P.C. R/w. 13 1 e R/w. 13 2 of P.C. Act. Point No.4: As per the final order for the following: R E A S O N S 41. POINT NOs.1 TO 3: Though distinct and separate charges are framed against the accused in order to avoid overlapping of discussion all these points are taken up together for discussion. 41.1 The main charge is directed against A-1. As could be seen from the wordings of the charge it states

slide 105:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 105 that A-1 being a public servant acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of her associates viz. A-2 to A-4 and in the names of 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A-2 to A-4 pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income to the extent of Rs.666520395/- which she could not satisfactorily account. These allegations squarely fall within the definition of Sec. 13 1 e of the P.C.Act. Therefore before scrutinizing the evidence produced before the Court it is necessary to bear in mind the ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct defined u/Sec.131e of the P.C. Act 1988 hereinafter called the “Act”. Sec.131e of the Act reads as under: A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct - e if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has at any time during the period of his office been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

slide 106:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 106 41.2 Sec. 131e is a self-contained provision. The first part of the Section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second part on the accused public servant. The extent of burden of proof on the prosecution in proving the existence of property and pecuniary resources in the possession of an accused public servant and the extent and nature of the burden on the part of the public servant to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his/her known source of income are now well settled by catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts of the country. 41.3 In State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar 1981 3 SCC 319 it is held as under: “The expression ‘burden of proof’ has two distinct meanings 1 the legal burden i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt and 2 the evidential burden i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively on the prosecution in the case of certain offences the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is however not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged

slide 107:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 107 by proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct u/Sec. 52 read with Section 51e are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case u/Sec. 51e namely 1 it must establish that the accused is a public servant 2 the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession 3 it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution and 4 it must prove quite objectively that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established the offence of criminal misconduct u/Sec. 51e is complete unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets u/Sec. 51e cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in Jhingan case i.e. to establish his case by a preponderance of probability.” underlining supplied Sec. 51e of the Old Act corresponds to Sec.13 1e of the P.C. Act 1988 41.4 In view of the addition of the Explanation to Sec. 131e the source of income in order to qualify as a “known source of income” for the purpose of Sec.

slide 108:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 108 131 e of the Act it is essential that it should satisfy the following two conditions viz. i It should be a ‘lawful source of income’ and ii The receipt of income from such a source should have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. As a natural corollary of the above conditions it follows that i Any income received from a source which is not lawful cannot be considered for inclusion in the expression “known source of income” for the purposes of Sec. 131e of the Act even if such an income was actually received by the concerned public servant. ii Any income even though received from a lawful source cannot likewise be considered for inclusion in the expression “known source of income” for the aforesaid purposes if the receipt of such income has not been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. From the above explanation it further follows that “if a property is acquired from out of the ‘known source of income’ of the accused the income derived from such property can be added to the income of the accused.

slide 109:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 109 But if a particular property is acquired from out of the any ‘unknown source of income’ the income derived from such property cannot be shown as income of the accused.” Thus in view of the explanation appended to Sec.13 1 e of the Act of 1988 the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into the “source of income” of an accused to a large extent as it is stated in the Explanation that “known source of income” means income received from lawful source the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law rules orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. 41.5 In P. Nallammal Vs. State AIR 1999 S.C. 2556 the Honble Supreme Court has repelled the contention that u/Sec. 131e of the Act if a public servant is able to account for the excess wealth by showing some clear sources though not legally permissible he would be discharging the burden cast on him. It is held in the said decision that such a contention perhaps would have been advanced before the enactment of the Act because Sec.51e of the old Act of 1947 did not contain the “Explanation” as Sec.131e of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 now contains.

slide 110:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 110 41.6 It is also equally settled that the terminology ‘income’ used in the above Section so far as the public servant is concerned is understood as the ‘income’ attached to his office or post commonly known as remuneration or salary or other perquisites. It is explained that the term ‘income’ by itself is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But however wide the import and connotation of the term “income” it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one’s labour or expertise or property or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in the understanding the term “income.” From the above it follows that a receipt from a windfall or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima- facie would not be receipt from the “known source of income” of a public servant as held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta AIR 2004 S.C.517. 41.7 In the case of C.S.D. Swamy vs. State 1960 1 SCR 461 it is held that the source of a particular individual will depend upon his position in life with particular reference to his occupation or avocation in life. In the case of a Government servant the prosecution would naturally infer that his known source of income would be the salary earned by him

slide 111:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 111 during his active service. It is further held that “legislature by using the expression ‘satisfactorily account’ in Sec.53 of the Act cast burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth disproportionate to his known source of income but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of credence”. In the very same decision it is observed that the expression “known source of income” must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. It was not and it could not be contended that ‘known source of income’ means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters ‘specially within the knowledge’ of the accused and within the meaning of Sec.106 of the Evidence Act. 42. CHECK PERIOD: Now coming to the facts of the present case it should be noted that for the purpose of computation of the disproportionate assets of A-1 the prosecution has taken the check period from 01.07.1991 to 30.04.1997. Undoubtedly the selection of check period has important bearing in deciding the guilt of the public servant for the offence of disproportionate assets u/Sec.13 1e of the Act.

slide 112:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 112 42.1 Regarding the choice of the check period we have the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Pollongi Darabshaw Daruwalla AIR 1988 Supreme Court 88 wherein it is laid down as under: “. . . . . It is not imperative that the period of reckoning be spread out for the entire stretch of anterior service of the public servant. There can be no general rule or criterion valid for all cases in regard to the choice of the period for which accounts are taken to establish criminal misconduct under Sec. 5 1 e of the ‘Act’. The choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. However the period must be such as to enable a true and on comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling over from the anterior period if their existence is probabalised would of course have to be given credit to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportion.” In the very same judgment it is further observed “It is for the prosecution to choose what according to it is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public servant

slide 113:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 113 in amassing wealth characterize and isolate that period for special scrutiny. It is always open to the public servant to satisfactorily account for the apparently disproportionate nature of his possession. Once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct by proving by the standard of criminal evidence that public servant is or was at any time during the period of his office in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his sources of income known to the prosecution the prosecution discharges its burden of proof and the burden of proof is lifted from the shoulders of the prosecution and descends upon the shoulders of the defence. It then becomes necessary for the public servant to satisfactorily amount for the possession of such properties and pecuniary resources. It is erroneous to predicate that the prosecution should also disprove the existence of the possible sources of income of the public servant.” 42.2 In the instant case as I would presently discuss the prosecution has placed before the Court the details of all the assets and properties held by the accused right from the year 1970 and has taken into account the income derived from these properties in the form of rentals interest from deposits agricultural income etc. in order to enable the court to have a fair view of the controversy seized by the Court. There is no argument from any quarters that the choice of the check period has caused any prejudice or disadvantage to the accused in any manner. Hence in my view the period of 5 years selected by the prosecution is

slide 114:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 114 reasonably sufficient to give a fair and comprehensive picture of the known source of income and pecuniary resources and property in the possession of the accused so to arrive at a fair decision on the issues involved in this proceedings. 43. RE: ASSETS AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF CHECK PERIOD: Prosecution has listed the details of the assets held by the accused at the beginning of the check period in Annx. I marked as Ex.P.2327. For a comprehensive view of the resources available with the accused at the commencement of the check period the said list is reproduced here below. ANNEXURE – I ASSETS AS ON 1.7.1991 Sl. No Description of the property Standing in the name of Value of the property Rs. 1 Land and building at No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai-86 Sy. No. 1567 of Tenampet purchased from R. Sarala M/s Natya Kala Nikethan rep. by Smt. N.R. Sandhya and Selvi J. Jayalalitha 132009.00 2 Door No. 8/3/1099 Ward No. 8 Block No. 3 in plot No. 36 to the extent of 651.18 Sq. Mtrs. building in Sri Nagar Officers 50000.00

slide 115:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 115 Colony Hyderabad city purchased from Koka Sambasiva Rao S/o Hariprakash Rao at Door No. 8/3/1099 in Sri Nagar Officers Colony Hyderabad city 3 Two Farm houses Servant quarters and other buildings within the Grape garden compound in Jeedimetla village and Pet Basheerbad in Qut Bullapur Mandal of Ranga Reddy Dist. in Sy. No. 50 and 52/E of Jeedimetla village and Sy. No. 93E and 93 U of Pet Basheerbad village Total extent 11.35 acres 165058.50 4 Land in Sy. No. 93/3 to the extent of 3.15 acres1.36 Hectares at Pet Basheerbad village in Medchal Tq. in A-P. 13254.50 5 Agricultural land measuring 3.43 acres in Cheyyhur village in Sy. No. 366/256 purchased from M.N. Venkatachala Mudaliar S/o Natesa Mudaliar No. 1046/8 Thiruvotriyur Main Road Kaladipettai Chennai. Selvi J. Jayalalitha 17060.00 6 Land and flat No. 7 R.R. Flats 3/4 Antu Street Santhome Chennai-4 of Smt N. Sasikala C – Rs. 275000/- S – Rs. 35750/- F – Rs. 2780/- Smt. N. Sasikala 313530.00 7 Building at Door No. 19 Pattammal Street Chennai in Plot No. 83 R.S. No. 4087 Extent 18907 Sq. ft. purchased from V.H. Subramanian S/o H. Venkatasubban15 Venkatraman Street Srinivasa Avenue Chennai-28 M/s Jaya Publications Selvi J. Jayalaitha and Smt. N. Sasikala 570039.00 8 Shop No. 14 Ground Floor at 602 Anna Salai Chennai-6 purchased from Mohd. Hanif No. 7 Gulam Abbas Ali Khan 1 st Street Thousland Lights M/s Sasi Enterprises 98904.00

slide 116:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 116 Chennai-6 in the name of M/s Sasi Enterprises C – Rs. 85000/- S – Rs. 13045/- F – Rs. 859/- 9 Undivided share of land only at Door No. 14 Khadar Navaz Khan Road Nungambakkam in R.S. No. 58/51 to the extent of 68/12000 undivided share in 11 grounds and 736 Sq. ft. of land purchased from M/s Holiday Sports Pvt. Ltd. office at 14 Khadar Navaz Khan Road Chennai-6 210919.00 10 Land and building at Door No. 213/B St. Mary’s Road in Sy. NO. 72 New No. 212 Extent 1206 Sq.ft. Ft. purchased from K. Selvaraj S/o Munusamy Naidu 44 Vanniyampathy Street Mandaveli Chennai-28 Selvi J. Jayalalitha 360509.00 11 Shop No. 18 of 189 Sq. ft. in ground floor at Door No. 602 Mount Road together with 54/42656 th of undivided share of land in 17 grounds and 1856 Sq. ft. in R. S. No. 3/10 and 3/11 of Block No. 71 of Mylapore purchased from Mustafa M. Lohani S/o Moiz K. Lohani and 2 others of 134 Angappan Naikan Sreet 3 rd Floor Chennai-1 105409.00 12 Land and building at Tanjore in Sy. No. 1091 to the extent of 2400 Sq. Ft. purchased from V.N. Somasundaram S/o V. Namachiayam 14 Thilagar Street Ayyappa Nagar Trichy. M/s Sasi Enterprises partners – Selvi J. Jayalaalitha and Smt N. Sasikala 157125.00 13 Vacant site at H.D.Road in 3 rd Dvn 6 th Ward Haar Nombu Chavadi in Tanjore to the extent of 5100 Sq. ft. in T.S. No.1091 purchased from K Loganathan S/o K.N. Kuppusamy of 1279 M/s Sasi Enterprises 115315.00

slide 117:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 117 Old Nellu Mettu St. East Gate Tanjore. 14 Vacant site at Ward No. 6 in Mahar Nombu Chavadi to the extent of 8970 Sq. ft. in T.S. No. 1091 of Tanjore purchased from Muthu Lakshmi W/o V.N. Somasundaram of No. 11 Thilagara Street Ayyappan Nagar Trichy. 202778.00 15 Land and building at Abishekapuram Ponnagar in Trichy in plot No. 102 3 rd Cross Road New Ward No. K in Block No. 30 T.S. No. 107 totally measuring 3525 Sq. ft. purchased from Mirasi of 22-A Willion Road Cantonment Trichy. Smt. N. Sasikala 585420.00 16 Dry land to the extent of 3.23 acres in Sy. No. 402-2 of Sundarakottai village Mannargudi Tq. Tanjore Dist. purchased from Ummool Pajriya Ammal W/o Anwartheen Raouthar Naina Mohd. Raouthar S/o Anwardeen Raouthar No. 4 Hussain Road Koothannallore Needamangalm Tanjore. M/s Sasi Enterprises 75210.00 17 Land and building at Thiru Vi. KA- Industrial Estate Guindy in Sy. No. 55 56 Block No. VI Extent 5658 Sq. ft. Shed No. C-8 Adyar purchased from K. Viswanathan S/o S.K.R. Karuppan Chettiar 184 Vembuliamman Koil Street Union Carbide Colony Kottivakkam Chennai-41 – Sole prop. of M/s Heatex Equipments M/s Jaya Publications 528039.00 18 Maruthi car bearing Reg. No. TMA 2466 new Selvi J. Jayalalitha 60435.00 19 Contessa car bearing Reg. No. TN-09/0033 256238.00 20 Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. 176172.67

slide 118:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 118 No. TSI 9090 21 Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ 7299 104000.00 22 Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. No. TSR 333 299845.00 23 Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ 7200 104000.00 24 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank at Kellys branch with SB Acc. No. 38746 opened on 30.12.1988 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Smt. N. Sasikala 13601.98 25 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Central Bank of India Secunderabad with SB Acc. No. 20614 opened on 19.5.1989 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Selvi J. Jayalalitha 918210.29 26 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch with CA No. 1952 opened on 23.10.1989 in the name of Namadhu MGR in which Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala are partners Namadhu MGR 551826.94 27 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch with SB Acc. No. 23218 opened on 23.5.1990 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Smt. N. Sasikala 140198.25 28 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch with CA No. 2047 opened on 26.9.1990 on transfer from Kellys branch in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala M/s Jaya Publications rep. by Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala 783860.97 29 F.D. No. 451/1990 dt. 19.6.1990 with Canara Bank of Mylapore 64520.00 30 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in the Bank of Madurai Anna Nagar branch with SB Acc. No. 5158 opened on 28.2.1990 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Selvi J. Jayalalitha 257886.25 31 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch with CA No. 2018 opened on 12.10.1990 in the name of Selvi 240835.02

slide 119:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 119 J. Jayalalitha 32 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch with SB Acc. No. 23832 opened on 16.4.1991 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 520396.45 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch with CA No. 2061 opened on 21.3.1991 in the name of Sasi Enterprises in which both Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala are the partners M/s Sasi Enterprises 229578.49 34 FD in Kothari Oriental Finance in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Selvi J. Jayalalitha 100000.00 35 36 37 FD with Sriram Finance in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 300000.00 38 500000.00 39 2000000.00 40 700000.00 41 Investment in the form of Equity shares in Madras Oxygen and Acetylene Co. Ltd. Coimbatore by J. Jayalalitha’s mother during 1969 and 1971and inherited by Selvi J. Jayalalitha 42 Investment in the form of shares in Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. Ambattur Madras-58 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 22.5.1978 for 1000 shares which have secured 500 bonus shares on 18.2.1983 43 Value of 2140 old sarees and other dresses found at No. 36 Poes Garden at the time of search 421870.00 44 86 items of jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s VBC Trust on 31.3.1991 1750031.00 45 62 items of jewels claimed to be of Smt. N.Sasikala as evaluated by M/s VBC Trust on 31.3.1991 Smt. N. Sasikala 938460.00 46 Silver wear weighing 700 kgs as Selvi J. 2800000.00

slide 120:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 120 per the IT returns filed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha value worked out at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per kg. Jayalalitha 47 Amount deposited in MIDS No. 716767 dt. 30.4.1990 of Bank of Madurai Anna Nagar for 2 years by Selvi J. Jayalalitha which was in force as on 1.7.1991 1000000.00 48 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in CDS – ITP Acc. No. 32 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha in Central Bank of India T. Nagar branch Chennai- 17. 21389.00 49 FD of Rs. 5 lakh deposited in Sriram Investments Ltd. deposited on 12.11.1990 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha from her SB Acc. No. 5158 o BOM Anna Nagar branch which after subsequent renewals is to mature on 29.1.1998. 500000.00 50 Advance amount paid for purchase of 72/12000 undivided share of land in 11 grounds and 1736 Sq. ft. in R.S. No. 58/5 at 14 Gems Court Kadhar Navaz Khan Road Nungumbakkam paid by Ch. No. 513735 dt. 23.4.1990 of CB Madras which was registered as document No. 641/1993 of SRO Thousand Lights branch dt. 28.7.1993 M/s Sasi Enterprises 50000.00 51 MIDR No. 66/9 with Central Bank of India Secunderabad deposited on 2.5.1990 Selvi J. Jayalalitha 300000.00 52 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in SB Acc. No. 38671 of Canara Bank Kellys in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 180031.22 Grand Total 20183956.53 43.1 A bare perusal of Annexure-I indicates that the prosecution has furnished the details of the

slide 121:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 121 properties inherited by A-1 from her deceased mother N.R. Sandhya and also the properties acquired by her prior to the check period either in her individual name or in partnership with A-2. Annexure-I also contains the list of movables and the value thereof and cash balance in her bank account as on 01.07.1991 including the value of the gold and silver articles. These particulars indicate that A-1 was possessed with substantial means even before the check period. It is also relevant to note that the value of the immovable property is determined on the basis of the actual consideration shown in the respective deeds and not on the basis of the market value of the properties as on the date of the Charge Sheet. Hence the accused cannot have any grouse regarding the valuation of these assets as stated in Annexure-I. 43.2 However in her written statement A-1 has taken up a plea that the very same investigating agency had registered another case against A-1 and A-2 in Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ wherein the very same investigating officer PW.259 had computed the value of the total assets at Rs.26426295.13 and therefore the difference of Rs.6242338.60 should be added to the total value of the assets possessed by her at the beginning of the check period.

slide 122:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 122 43.3 A-2 in her written statement has taken up a plea that the number of jewellery shown in item No.45 should be 96 instead of 62. Further she has contended that in the Final Report filed by D.V. A-C. in the earlier complaint the amount available with A-2 was shown as Rs.935000/-. The opening cash balance available was at Rs.569014/-. Hence the cash on hand amounting to Rs.1514014/- ought to have been included in Annexure-I. 43.4 On going through the evidence of DW.99 and the documents produced by the accused as per Ex.D.370 to D.373 it is seen that subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet D.V. A-C. Chennai had registered an F.I.R. against A-1 and A-2 on the allegations that when A-1 served as a Member of Legislative Assembly Tamil Nadu from 09.09.1988 and 30.01.1991 she was found in possession of properties and pecuniary resources far beyond her known source of income with the active abetment of A-2 and hence a case in Cr. No. 14/AC/97/HQ was registered against A-1 and A-2 on 15.12.1997 u/Sec. 132 R/w.13 1e of P.C.Act 1988 and Sec.109 I.P.C. R/w.131e of P.C.Act. Ex.D.370 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.D.371 is the copy of the Confidential Report submitted by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai to the Vigilance Commissioner Chennai. DW.99 the Dy. Supdt. of D.V. A-C. has deposed that as per this

slide 123:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 123 document A-1 was found in possession of assets disproportionate to her known source of income to the tune of Rs.737735.37 for the check period from August 1988 to January 1991. 43.5 DW.99 is not the author of Ex.D.371. It is a unsigned document and does not bear any initial or signature of the person who prepared it nor does it contain the seal of D.V. A-C. as such no reliance could be placed on this document. However through this witness the accused has produced Ex.D.372 stated to be the Final Report submitted u/Sec. 173 Cr.P.C in the above Cr.No.14/AC/97. It bears the signature of the Supdt. of Police. It is not known how the original report could be available with the D.V. A-C. if the Final Report in the above crime was submitted to the Court as stated by DW.99. It is really shocking to note that the Dy.S.P. of D.V. A-C. who is the complainant in this case has given evidence on behalf of the accused. Though it is submitted that the D.V. A-C. has produced the above documents pursuant to the summons issued by the Court it is surprising to note that the D.V. A.C has produced only the xerox copy of the order said to have been passed by the Spl. Judge Chennai dt. 24.01.2005 in Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ R.C.63/97/ Misc/HQ knowing fully well that xerox copy is inadmissible in evidence. It is marked as Ex.D.373. By the said order the Spl. Judge is seen to

slide 124:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 124 have accepted the final Report and closed the case on 24.01.2005. I fail to understand why the certified copies of these documents could not have been produced by the accused instead of summoning DW.99 when it is the case of the accused that the complaint registered against A-1 and A-2 at the instance of the D.V. A.C. came to be closed by orders of the court. 43.6 Be that it may based on the Final Report Ex.D.372 the learned Counsel for A-1 has now put forth a contention that the very same investigating officer having submitted a report to the effect that A-1 and A-2 were in possession of total assets of Rs.26426295.13 as on 30.01.1991 this figure ought to have been taken into account for the purpose of fixing the value of the assets held by the accused at the commencement of the check period. I am not inclined to accept this argument for the following reasons : i From the documents produced before the Court it canot be known whether the very same Final Report now marked as D.372 was produced before the Court. ii The contents of the Final Report submitted u/Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of the correctness of the facts stated therein. Ex.D.372 is only the

slide 125:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 125 opinion of the investigating officer. It is not a legal evidence. iii From the reading of Ex.D.373 it cannot be gathered that the Spl. Judge has closed Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ based on the very same report Ex.D.372 as contended by the accused. iv The accused have not produced any independent evidence to show that A-1 and A-2 were in possession of any other assets and pecuniary resources than those described in Annexure-I. v According to DW.99 Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ relates to the check period between 01.09.1988 and 30.01.1991. Whereas the check period in the instant case commences from 1.7.1991. Unless it is shown that all the assets and pecuniary resources referred in Ex.D.372 were available in the same form and condition till 1.7.1991 the above plea cannot be accepted. In this context it is pertinent to note that in her written statement filed u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. A-1 has contended that the variation in the items of jewellery is on account of remaking of old jewellery into new patterns. This statement

slide 126:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 126 implies that the subject matter of Ex.D.372 were not available in the same form and extent as on 1-7-1991. That apart accused have not produced any independent evidence to show that they were in possession of cash and other items of property as on 1.7.91 as claimed by A-2. Therefore for want of necessary material in proof of the above contention we have to proceed on the basis that at the commencement of the check period as on 1.7.1991 the total value of the assets and pecuniary resources found in the possession of A-1 and A-2 is of the value of Rs.20183956.53 as described in Annexure-I. 44. RE: INCOME: The income derived by the accused during the check period is detailed in Annexure-III Ex.P.2329 as under : ANNEXURE – III Ex.P.2329 Income during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996 Sl. No Details of income Amount Rs. Exhibi ts 1 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of 2500000 P.1258 -

slide 127:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 127 M/s Sasi Enterprises of which the outstanding principal was Rs. 1355023/- P.1260 2 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of M/s J. Farm Houses of which the principal of Rs. 28 lakh was outstanding besides Rs. 123041/- as interest 2800000 P.1210 -1212 3 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of M/s J.S. Housing Development of which the principal of Rs. 7 lakh was outstanding besides Rs. 37184/- as interest 700000 P.1171 P.1173 4 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of M/s Jay Real Estate of which the entire principal of Rs. 5 lakh was outstanding besides Rs. 28407/- as interest 500000 P.1161 P.1163 5 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. of which the principal of Rs. 75 lakh was outstanding besides Rs. 881477/- as interest 7500000 P.1230 to 1233 1004 6 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam of which the principal of Rs. 1786000/- was outstanding besides Rs. 195802/- as interest 1786000 P.1355 to 1357 7 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of M/s Lex Property Development P Ltd. of which the outstanding principal was Rs. 83 lakh 8300000 P.1328 - P.1330 P.1008 8 Loan obtained from Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of Kodanadu Tea Estate of which the principal of Rs. 375 lakh was outstanding 37500000 P.997 to P.1003 9 Loan taken from Can Fin Homes 7500000.00 P.548

slide 128:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 128 on FD No. 352/1994-95 on 25.8.1995 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha. P.550 – P.555 P.2287 10 Income by way interest to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide her A/c in SB No. 23832 of CB/ Mylapore 452871.00 P.1377 11 Income by way of interest to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide her Fixed Deposits in FD No. 1000/92 – Rs. 79890/- 1398/92 – Rs. 73233/- 237/93 – Rs. 54247/- 632/93 – Rs. 49315/- of Canara Bank Mylapore for Rs. 27 lakh credited in SB 23832 and CA 2018 of Canara bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalaitha 256685.00 P.1377 P.1382 12 Interest from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd. to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 47740 53389 63848 60437.82 13 Interest paid from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd. to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR Nos. 48172 53390 64308 60434.78 14 from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd. J. Jayalalitha vide FDR Nos. 53391 64280 50434.78 15 Interest from Can Finance to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 186/1991-92 876896.00 P.1377 16 Interest from Can Finance to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 352/1994-95 471808.00 P.1377 17 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 5006835 for Rs. 30 lakh 653818.00 P.1382 18 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 5007694 for Rs. 15 lakh 309088.60 P.1382 19 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 5015954 for Rs. 15 lakh 209928.50 P.1382 20 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR 139947.80 P.1382

slide 129:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 129 No. 5015955 for Rs. 10 lakh 21 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 5015956 for Rs. 5 lakh 84522.80 P.1382 22 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 71533 for Rs. 5 lakh 127871.50 P.1382 23 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 21330 for Rs. 5 lakh 87960.83 P.1382 24 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 5025367 for Rs. 20 lakh 134977.00 P.1382 25 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 45897 for Rs. 20 lakh 476023.27 P.1382 26 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 47437 for Rs. 3 lakh 206237.00 P.1382 27 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 73211 for Rs. 20 lakh 502207.00 P.1382 28 Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide FDR No. 31251 dt. 4.5.1990 for Rs. 7 lakh during the check period 87024.00 P.1382 29 Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide SB 5158 of Bank of Madurai Anna Nagar Chennai 47265.81.00 P.1960 30 Interest paid to Smt. N. Sasikala vide her SB 22792 of CBI Secunderabad 27304.00 P.936 P.937 31 Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha vide SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad 317781.00 P.936 P.937 32 Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha from Medium Term Deposit in CBI Secunderabad vide NPD 669 - Rs. 27272.08 68/33 – Rs. 77162.40 60/9 - Rs. 14874/- 70/9 – Rs. 42143/- 161451.48.00 P.936 P.937 33 Agrl. Income from Grape Garden Hyderabad in favour of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 578340.00 P.938

slide 130:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 130 34 Income by way of clearings in the account in SB 20164 of CBI Secunderabad in favour of Selvi J. Jayalalitha towards rental income for 36 Sri Nagar Colony Hyderabad 342520.40 P.936 35 Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha through SB 38671 of Canara Bank Kellys Branch opened on 19.12.1988 14446.00 P.975 36 Income from the monthly income deposit scheme of Selvi J. Jayalalitha from the deposit amount of Rs. 10 lakhl vide MIDS No. 716767 dt. 30.4.1990 of Bank of Madurai which lasted till 8.6.1992 though the FD matured on 30.4.1992 for which the interest was received through SB 38671 of Canara Bank Kellys Branch of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 82600.00 P.1961 P.1960 37 Interest from SB Acc. No. 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore to N. Sasikala 189761.00 P.1510 38 Interest of Rs. 29490/- from FDR No. 718/1992 of Canara Bank Mylapore to Smt. N. Sasikala for Rs. 18 lakh Rs. 53260/- from FDR No. 954/1992 Rs. 48822/- from FDR No. 1397/1992 Rs. 48822/- from FDR No. 236/1993 Rs. 44384/- from FDR No. 633/1993 Rs. 32340/- from FDR No. 868/1993 257118.00 P.1510 P.1519 39 Interest from Can Finance in FDR No. 189/1991-92 for Rs. 25 lakh to N. Sasikala 1003191.00 P.1510 40 Income by way of clearing in SB 22792 of CBI Secunderabad of Smt. N. Sasikala rental income for No.16 Radhika Colony Secunderabad 223000.00 P.937

slide 131:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 131 41 Interest paid to Smt. N. Sasikala through SB 38746 of Canara Bank Kellys Branch 3901.00 P.977 42 Interest from SB 24621 of Canara Bank Mylapore to V.N. Sudhakaran 24323.00 P.1572 43 Interest from FDR No. 1401/1992 of Canara Bank Mylapore for Rs. 5 lakh to V.N. Sudhakaran 13562.00 P.1572 44 Interest from FDR 238/1993 of Canara Bank Mylapore for Rs. 5 lakh by renewal of FDR 1401/1992 12329.00 P.1576 45 Hire charges from ACT India Ltd. for the vehicle No. TSR 333 Swaraj Mazda van owned by V.N. Sudhakaran from 3.2.1993 918910.00 P.659 46 Brokerage charges received by V.N. Sudhakaran for the deposits made by Selvi J. Jayalalitha in Can Fin. Homes Ltd. vide FDR Nos. 186/1991- 92 352/1994-95 300000.00 P.548 47 Loan obtained by Smt. J. Elavarasi from Royapetta Benefit Fund RBF Nidhi Ltd. vide HML/787 dt. 7.10.1995 3500000.00 48 Hire charges received from ACT India Ltd. for the vehicle No. TN-01/H-9999 of Swaraj Mazda van owned by Smt. J. Elavarasi from 3.2.1993 to 30.4.1996 626410.00 P.658 49 Interest paid to Smt. J. Elavarasi guardian of Vivek by SB A/c.No. 25389 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram 9763.00 P.1613 50 Income by way of monthly interest from 7/1991 to 4.6.1992 in respect of the FD of Rs. 7 lakh in Sriram Investments Ltd. vide FD receipt No. 31251 dt. 4.5.1990 deposited through Ch. No. 907521 dt. 4.5.1990 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha from her BOM Acc. of Anna Nagar 90807.59 P.126- 132

slide 132:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 132 51 Salary of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as CM of Tamil Nadu at Re. 1/- per month drawn for 27 months 27.00 P.694- 697 52 Lease income of Indo Doha from SPIC in respect of SIPCOT Industries in Cuddalore Rs. 12240000/- from 14.12.1994 to 8.4.1996 after deducting payment to SPICOT Rs. 72 lakh and payment of Rs. 20 lakh to James Frederick for purchases of shares of INDAG Products Ltd. 3040000.00 P.563 P.564 53 Rental income from S7 Ganapathy Colony Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate “Guindy building of Jaya Publications given on lease from January 1993 to April 1996 from SPIC. 3767358.00 P.655- 657 54 Rental income from No. 19 Pattammal Street Mandaveli building of Selvi J. Jayalalitha given on lease from January 1994 to April 1996 233769.00 P.655- 657 55 Rental income from 21 Padmanabha Street T. Nagar Chennai building of Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. given on lease Form July 1995 to April 1996 382500.00 X-2 56 Interest derived in SB A/c No. 4110 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of Master Vivek 10213.00 P.1138 57 Rental income and Rental advance derived for the house at No. 1 Murphy Street Akkarai of J.S. Housing for the period from 07/1995 to 04/1996 91000.00 58 Rental income including rental advance of Rs. 20000/- from Flat No. 7 Antu Street Santhome Mylapore RR Flats of Smt. N. Sasikala 194000.00 59 Rental income advance from Shop No. 20 of No. 14 Khadar 270900.00

slide 133:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 133 Navazkhan Rd. Gem Court Nungambakkam Chennai for the period from 1/1992 to 4/1996 Rs. 4000 x 4 + Rs. 4600 x 35 + Rs. 5300 x 13 + Rs. 25000 60 Rental income advance from No. 1 Wallance Garden 1 st Street 4 th Floor from 12/1994 to 04/1996 Rs. 25000 x 17 + Rs. 75000 450000.00 61 Rental income advance from Shop No. 9 Khadar Navazkhan Rd. Gem Court Chennai for the period from 1/1992 to 4/1996 Rs. 4000 x 49 + Rs. 4500 x 3 + Rs. 45000 as advance 201000.00 62 Rental income advance from Shop No. 8 Khadar Navazkhan Rd. Gem Court Chennai for the period from July 1993 to 30.4.1996 Rs. 3600 x 34 + Rs. 21600 as advance 144000.00 63 Amounts received towards Family Benefit Fund Gratuity by Smt. J. Elavarasi during August October 1993 June 1994 on the death of her husband V. Jayaraman 101231.00 P.991 P.994 64 Net income from Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam Arumbakkam Chennai for the period from 8/1993 to 4/1996 1450097.60 P.1966 Grand Total 93426053.56 44.1 In order to prove the above income the prosecution has let in elaborate oral and documentary evidence which is summarized here below.

slide 134:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 134 Item Nos.1 to 7: PW.182 Arunachalam the Chief Manager Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch has spoken about the various loans borrowed by the accused from Indian Bank Abirampuram branch item Nos.1 to 7 and through this witness the prosecution has got marked the relevant documents in proof of the sanction and availment of the loan by the respective accused. Ex.P.1258 is the letter dt. 11.03.1994 signed by Sasikala as Managing Partner asking for a term loan of Rs.25 lakhs to construct a guest house at Neelangarai. Ex.P.1259 is the copy of sanction ticket received from the Head Office. Ex.P.1260 is the statement of account for OMTL A/c. No.52. These documents relate to Item No.1. Item No.2: Ex.P.1210 - Application submitted by V.N. Sudhakaran on behalf of J. Farm House on 22.12.1994 for a loan of Rs.50 lakhs to develop the properties at Enjambakkam and Sholinganallur. Ex.P.1211 - Copy of telefax message received from the Head Office sanctioning the loan of Rs. 50 lakhs. Ex.P.1212 - OMTL statement of account.

slide 135:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 135 Item No.3: Ex.P.1171 - Application dt. 22.12.1994 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran on behalf of J.S. Housing Development for a loan of Rs.12.46 lakhs to develop the property at Door No.40 41 Murphy Street Sholingalannur. Ex.P.1172 - Sanction ticket dt. 17.10.1995. Ex.P.1173 - Statement of OMTL A/c. Item No.4: Ex.P.1161 - Letter dt. 22.12.94 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran on behalf of J. Real Estate asking for a term loan of Rs.29 lakhs to develop the property at No.5 Murugesan Street. Ex.P.1162 - Sanction ticket. Ex.P.1163 - Statement of account of OMTL 27. Item No.5: Ex.P.1230 – Request letter dt. 31.08.1994 given by Sasikala the Managing Director of Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. for a term loan of Rs.50 lakhs against machinery apart from the over draft facility of Rs.25 lakhs already asked for. Ex.P.1231 – Request letter given by Sasikala the Managing Director of Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. for grant of term loan of Rs.50 lakhs.

slide 136:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 136 Ex.P.1232 - Statement of O.D. A/c. No.1 of M/s.Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. Ex.P.1233 - OMTL 1233 statement of account from 30.12.1994 to 30.09.1996. Ex.P.1004 - Copy of the sanction ticket dt. 4.1.95 received from the Head Office sanctioning the over draft and Rs.50 lakhs term loan to Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. Item No.6: Ex.P.1355 - Letter dt. 13.12.1994 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran as Partner of Maha Subbulakshmi Kalyana Mantapam seeking a term loan of Rs.49.21 lakhs. Ex.P.1356 - Statement of Account. Ex.P.1357 - Letter sent by the Head Office confirming the temporary O.D. facility. Item No.7: Ex.P.1328 - Letter dt. 31.8.94 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran on behalf of Lex Property Development P Ltd. for a loan of Rs.157 lakhs to construct marriage hall at door No.149 150 TTK Road Chennai. Ex.P.1008 - Letter sanctioning the loan of Rs.133 lakhs. Ex.P.1330 - Statement of account of OMTL 65.

slide 137:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 137 Ex.P.1329 - Letter sent by the Regional Office asking the bank to release the first instalment of 45 lakhs. Item No.8: PW.177 Shanmuga Sundara Dy. Gen. Manager Indian Bank zonal office Chennai has deposed that an application submitted by Tmt. Gunabhushini for a loan of 3.75 crores from Indian Bank Abirampuram branch was sent to Regional Office and later it was forwarded to Zonal Office. This application is Ex.P.997. The loan proposal is Ex.P.998. The recommendation letter is Ex.P.999. PW.177 stated that Tmt. Gunabhushini wanted to be the Shareholder of Kodanadu Estate hence he handed over the documents to Agricultural Improvement Officer. At that time Smt. Sucharita Sundarajan was the Manager of Abirampuram branch. As this account belonged to Tmt. Sasikala’s group Smt.Sucharita contacted the Regional office and she was asked to settle the loan matter immediately. Hence PW.177 immediately wrote a letter to Tr. M. Gopalkrishnan Managing Director for approval of loan as per Ex.P.1000. Tr.M.Gopalkrishnan wrote in English “yes please”. Accordingly he informed the approval to the Regional office. Through this witness the letter sent by Gunabhushini is marked as Ex.P.1001. It is extracted here below :

slide 138:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 138 From: Mrs. V. Gunabhushani W/o. V.Vaithialingam 34 Dharmapuram IV Street T. Nagar Madras-17. To The Manager Indian Bank Abirampuram Madras-18. Sub: Agri. term loan of Rs.375 lakhs. --- I thank you very much for the MTL of Rs.375 lacs sanctioned to me on becoming the partner of Kodanad Tea Estates Company Kotagiri Nilgiris. The loan availed has already been given to the partners of M/s. Kodanaad Tea Estates Company towards the consideration for their requirement from the firm. However I have not been keeping good health in the recent times and now I propose to keep away from the new business venture. As such I am not entering into any partnership with Kodanaad Tea Estates Company. However the new incoming partners viz. Mrs. N. Sasikala Mrs. J. Elavarasi and Mr. Vn.Sudhagaran with whom new Reconstitued Deed is entered and they have agreed to take over the liability and their consent to this effect for taking over the liability is enclosed herewith. I regret for the inconvenience caused. Thanking you 28.7.1995 Yours faithfully Madras. Gunabhushani This letter in unmistakable terms indicate that the loan liability was agreed to be taken over by A-2 to A-4.

slide 139:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 139 Ex.P.1002 - Letter addressed by the Manager to the Regional office. Ex.P.1003 - Sanction of agricultural A.G.MTL to Kodanadu Tea Estates. PW.177 further deposed that pursuant to this letter the loan liability was changed to Kodanadu Tea Estate. Item No.9: PW.91 Veerappan Regional Manager Canfin Homes has stated about the loan availed by A-1 from Canfin Homes Chennai stating that on 6.3.1992 A-1 deposited Rs.1 crore in fixed deposit for 36 months in their Company. Ex.P.548 is the true copy of the fixed deposit. The fixed deposit was renewed from 27.3.95 for further 3 years. Ex.P.550 is the copy of the renewed F.D. receipt. Ex.P.551 is the copy of the application submitted by A-1. This witness further stated that on 29.9.92 Rs. 75 lakhs was taken as loan on the deposit as per Ex.P.548. The original of Ex.P.548 is marked as P.2287. The loan A/c. No. is 15. Ex.P.552 is the copy of the application. Ex.P.553 is the copy of the ledger register. This witness has further stated that the loan was remitted on 27.3.1995. On 25.8.95 again A-1 got a loan of Rs. 75 lakhs on this F.D. under loan A/c. No.71.

slide 140:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 140 Ex.P.554 is the application and Ex.P.555 is the relevant extract of the ledger of loan A/c. No.71. In the cross- examination it is elicited that the Banker’s Book Evidence Act does not apply to Canfin Homes. PW.91 is cross-examined in respect of the about documents but there is no denial of the fact that A-1 had deposited Rs.1 crore with Canfin Homes Ltd. and had availed the loan thereon as stated by PW.91. Item No.10 - 28: PW.201 Sri.Vidyasagar Officer of Canara Bank Mylapore branch has spoken about the credit of interest to S.B. A/c. No.23832 of A-1 as detailed in item Nos.10 to 28 and the certified copy of the statement of account is marked as Ex.P.1377. The certified copy of the statement of account relating to her C.A- No.2018 is marked as Ex.P.1382. Item No.29: PW.202-Banukrishna Murthy Sr. Manager Bank of Madura has stated that on 28.02.1990 A-1 opened S.B. A/c. No.5158 in their branch and through this witness the prosecution has got marked the copy of the statement of account as per Ex.P.1960. But on going through Ex.P.1960 it is noticed that the said extract relates to S.B.A/c. No.51586 standing in the name of A-1 at Bank of Madura Ltd. Anna Nagar. The total

slide 141:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 141 interest credited to the said A/c. from 1.4.1995 to 29.2.1996 comes to Rs.51693.00. However in the Annexure-III at item No.29 the interest income of A-1 through S.B. A/c. 5158 is shown as Rs.47265.81. Though in the cross-examination it is elicited that the interest credited to S.B. A/c. No.5158 from 1.4.95 to 29.2.96 amounts to Rs.205252/- the credit of interest relating to S.B. A/c. No.5158 is dealt in item No.36. Since Ex.P.1960 establishes the credit of interest to the S.B. A/c. No.51586 of A-1 during the check period as mentioned in item No.29 the difference of Rs.4427.19 is required to be taken into account as the income of A-1. Item No.30 to 32 34: PW.164 K. Prabhakar Chief Manager Central Bank of India has spoken about the credit of interest to the S.B. A/c. of A-1 and A-2 as per Ex.P.936 and P.937 respectively. In the cross-examination it is elicited that there is no certificate in Ex.P.936 and Ex.P.937 according to Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1891. But in the re-examination it is elicited that the bank seal is affixed in every page of Ex.P.936 and Ex.P.937. Since PW.164 himself has stated before the Court that he furnished Ex.P.936 and Ex.P.937 to the police during the investigation and having spoken about the entries contained therein merely for want of certificate under Banker’s Books Evidence Act his testimony cannot be

slide 142:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 142 rejected especially when the said evidence is beneficial to the accused. There is no denial of the fact that the said accounts stand in the name of A-1 and A-2 as stated by PW.164. No contra material is produced to disbelieve the testimony of PW.164 regarding the genuineness of Ex.P.936 and P.937. Hence overruling the objection the interest credited to these accounts as stated in Annexure-III is accepted. Item No.33: Prosecution has relied on the oral testimony of PW.165 PW.166 and PW.256 in proof of the agricultural income from the grape garden situate at Hyderabad belonging to A-1. A-1 has seriously disputed the valuation arrived at by PW.165 and PW.166. These objections are considered separately. Item No.35: PW.173 Gopal Rao Sr. Manager Canara Bank Kellys Branch is examined to prove the interest credited to the S.B. A/c. No.38671 of A-1 as per Ex.P.975. Ex.P.975 is the certified copy of the ledger. In the cross- examination of this witness except eliciting about the credit and debit entries made in this account no other material is brought out disputing the interest credited therein as stated in Annexure-III.

slide 143:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 143 Item No.36: PW.202 Banukrishna Murthy Sr. Manager Bank of Madura has deposed that on 28.2.1990 A-1 opened a S.B. A/c. No.5158 in their branch. From this account Rs.10 lakhs was transferred to the Monthly Interest Income Account and kept in fixed deposit for 24 months. On maturity the amount was deposited in Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. Rs.8260/- towards interest was credited to the S.B. A/c. of A.1 at Canara Bank Kellys Branch. In item No.36 only Rs.82600/- is shown whereas the interest for 24 months comes to Rs.198240/-. Hence the difference of Rs.115640/-is required to be added. Item No.37: In proof of the credit of the interest of Rs.189761.00 to the S.B. A/c. No.23218 of A-2 the prosecution has marked Ex.P.1510 through PW.201. Ex.P.1510 is the certified copy of the statement of account. The entries contained in this document are not disputed or challenged in the cross-examination. Item No.38: The very same Ex.P.1510 is relied on the by the prosecution to prove the interest on the F.D.R No.718/92 to the account of A-2. which is also not in dispute.

slide 144:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 144 Item No.39: PW.91 Tr. Veerappan has deposed that the quarterly interest on the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1 Crore was being credited to the Bank A/c. of A-2 at Canara Bank. The account extract of A/c. No.23218 Ex.P.1510 substantiates the credit of interest as mentioned in Annexure-III. Item No.40 : In proof of this item PW.164 has been examined and Ex.P.937 is marked. The entries therein are not disputed in the cross-examination. Item No.41 : PW.173 has produced the copy of the extract of the S.B. A/c. No.38746 as per Ex.P.977 in proof of the interest credited to this account. Item No.42 43: Ex.P.1572 the certified copy of S.B. A/c. No.24621 standing in the name of V.N.Sudhakaran marked through PW.201 shows the credit of interest as stated against the above items which is not disputed in the cross-examination. Item No.44 : Ex.P.1576 is the certified copy of the statement of account relating to C.A. No. 2220 and PW.201 has

slide 145:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 145 stated that the interest from FDR 238/1993 amounting to Rs.12329/- is credited to this account which has remained uncontroverted. Item No.45 48: Regarding the hire charges received by A-3 A-4 in respect of Swaraj Mazda Van Registration No. TSR- 333 and TN-01/H-9999 PW.104 Shanmugam the General Manager of A-C.T. India Ltd. has stated that the Company entered into an agreement to hire the said vehicles as per Ex.P.659 and after deducting the Income Tax they paid the hire charges of Rs.918910/- to A-4 and Rs.1286474.00 to A-3. But in item No.48 the prosecution has shown only a sum of Rs.626410/- being the hire charges received by A-4. Hence the difference of Rs.660064/- may have to be added to item No.48. Item No.46: PW.91 Tr. Veerappan Regional Manager Canfin Homes has stated in his evidence that on 6.3.1992 A-1 deposited Rs.1 crore as per Ex.P.548 FDR No.186. It was renewed as per Ex.P.550 FDR 352. On 29.9.1992 Rs.75 lakhs was taken as loan on this deposit as per Ex.P.553. It was returned on 27.3.1995. On 25.8.1995 again A-1 obtained a loan of Rs.75 lakhs as per Ex.P.554 and P.555. Further this witness stated that

slide 146:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 146 the quarterly interest for the F.D. amount of Rs.1 crore was deposited in the name of the A-1 in her S.B. A/c. 23832 in Canara Bank Mylapore till the date of loan. Rs.1 crore was deposited for the second time vide FDR No.352. This witness further deposed that on 7.3.92 Rs.25 lakhs was deposited in the name of A-2 as per Ex.P.556 and P.557 and it was renewed as per Ex.P.558. According to PW.91 for procuring deposits Canfin Homes used to give broker commission. In respect of Deposit No.126 broker commission of Rs.1.5 lakhs was given to V.N. Bhaskaran through cheque and in respect of F.D. No.352 broker commission amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was given to V.N.Sudhakaran through cheque dt. 29.3.95 and in respect of F.D. No.186 the broker commission of Rs.37500/- was given to V.N.Sudhakaran through cheque but since it was a premature withdrawal within a week the broker commission was not given. Though this witness is cross-examined regarding the availability of the originals of the FDRs the payment of brokerage of Rs.3 lakhs to A-3 is not disputed. Hence the amount of Rs.3 lakhs shown in item No.46 is accepted. Item No.47: PW.211 P.N.Venkatesan Director of Rayapettah Benefit Fund Company has deposed that on 18.10.1995 their Company gave a housing loan of Rs.35 lakhs to A-4 on the mortgage of her house situate at

slide 147:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 147 No.7 East-Coast Road Chennai on interest at 24 p.a. Rs.441569/- was paid towards the interest. The availment of loan is not disputed in the cross- examination. There is no evidence to show that any part of the principal amount has been repaid to Rayapettah Benefit Fund Company. Item No.49: Ex.P.1613 certified copy of the statement of account No.25389 standing in the name of A-4 is produced through PW.201 in proof of the credit of interest as stated in item No.49. Item No.50 : PW.49 Lakshmi Narasimhan Manager Sriram Investments Ltd. has stated that A-1 had deposited Rs.30 lakhs in their concern on 9.8.94 for a period of three years as fixed deposit. On the same day she deposited Rs.10 lakhs and another Rs.5 lakhs for 3 years as per Ex.P.126 to P.130. The F.Ds were renewed as per Ex.P.131 and P.132. This witness has further deposed that the interest amount on these deposits amounting to Rs.2932583/- and Rs.90807.59 were paid to A-1. Item No.50 pertains to the interest in respect of F.D. of Rs. 7 lakhs dt. 4.5.1990.

slide 148:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 148 Item No.51 : Regarding the salary received by A-1 PW.124 Hitendra Babu Jt. Secretary Spl. Officer Finance Tamil Nadu Sector has been examined and the copy of the salary bills Ex.P.694 to Ex.P.697 are marked in proof thereof. Item No.52: PW.204 N. Ramnath Asst. Manager SPIC Pharma has deposed that in December 1994 the Company took a premises on lease from Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Company. Initially the lease was for 3 years. The Company paid Rs.45 lakhs as advance. Rs.7.50 lakhs was the monthly rent. Lease agreement was entered into as per Ex.P.512. Till March 1996 the Company paid rents every month. A total of Rs.12240000/- was paid inclusive of the advance and monthly rent upto March 1996. After three years lease agreement was renewed but not signed. In the cross- examination it is brought out that Ex.P.512 does not bear the signature of PW.204 and that he does not know who is Iyyadamani who has signed Ex.P.512. It is further elicited that PW.204 does not have any direct connection with the rent given for the leased premises. He further answered that the complete details regarding the agreement were known only to K.K.Mani. The prosecution has added only Rs.3040000/- as the rents collected by Indo Doha Chemicals under this

slide 149:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 149 head. But the evidence of PW.204 coupled with the recitals of the lease deed Ex.P.512 go to show that the rentals from December 1994 till March 1996 at the rate of Rs.7.05 lakhs comes to Rs.11250000/-. If 30 tax thereof is deducted the actual rental income would be Rs.7875000/-. Since the prosecution has added only Rs.3040000/- the difference of Rs.4835000/- should be added to this item. Item No.53 54: Regarding the rental income derived by A-1 the prosecution has examined PW.102 Raghavan who has stated that he was the Manager Admn in South India Corporation Agencies. Earlier the name of the firm was Plant Construction P Ltd. The Company entered into an agreement with Jaya Publications as per Ex.P.651 and took the building at No.57 in Tr.Vi-ka Indl. Estate on rent. A-2 has signed the said agreement. The monthly rent was Rs.105000/-. Rs.315000/- was paid as advance. On 22.12.93 agreement was extended as per Ex.P.652 for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.110250/-. Rs.551250/- was paid as advance. Further on 14.11.1994 the term was extended as per Ex.P.653 on a rent of Rs.115765/-. Rs.578825/- was paid as advance. Again on 7.11.1995 another agreement was entered into for 11 months as per Ex.P.654 on a monthly rental of Rs.121555/-. Rs.

slide 150:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 150 607775/- was paid as advance. Whenever the rental agreement was renewed they paid only the difference amount. The rent was deducted from the advance amount and the rental agreement came to an end in February 1996. Regarding the rental income of House No.19 Pattammal Street the same witness has stated that the said house was taken on rent by Plant Constructions Pvt. Ltd. from Jaya Publications as per Ex.P.655 for 11 months on a rent of Rs.10000/- and Rs.50000/- was paid as advance. The lease was renewed as per Ex.P.656 for 11 months on a rent of Rs.10500/- and advance amount of Rs.52500/- was paid. Again this agreement was renewed as per Ex.P.657 on 7.11.95 on a rental of Rs.11025/- and advance of Rs.55125/- was paid to the lessor and after the expiry of the term possession was handed over. He is specific in his evidence that the advance amount was adjusted towards the rental and the rents and the advance amounts were paid through cheques. This witness further deposed that from January 93 to April 96 in all Rs.4375132/- inclusive of advance amount was paid to the Jaya Publications. As rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel for A- 2 the total rent received in respect of the above premises comes to Rs.4375132/- whereas the

slide 151:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 151 prosecution has included only Rs.4001127/- under item No.53 and 54. But since income tax has to be paid on the rental income this item does not call for any interference. Item No.55: PW.103 Srinivasan Sr. Manager BBN Power Generating Company has stated that earlier the Firm’s name was Dyna Meckowsky Power Company. From 1.7.95 their Company took a house situate at No.21 Padmanabhan Street T. Nagar on monthly rent of Rs.45000/- as per Ex.X-2 - original rent agreement Rs.540000/- was paid as advance. The rent and the advance amount were given to Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. through cheques. Along with the advance amount the total rent from 1.7.95 to April 1996 amounting to Rs.887850/- was paid. According to this witness the Income Tax was being deducted while paying the rent. A reading of Ex.X-2 reveals that the lease is executed between M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. and Dyna Makoswki Power Company for 11 months commencing from 1.7.95 on a rent of Rs.45000/-. Clause No.6 recites that the lessee had paid a sum of Rs.540000/- towards lease deposits being equivalent to 12 months rent.

slide 152:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 152 In the cross-examination it is elicited that from 01.07.95 to 30.04.1996 the Company paid a rent of Rs.347850/- after deducting the Income Tax but in item No.55 the rental income is shown as Rs.382500/-. Hence a sum of Rs.35000/- is liable to be deducted. Item No.56: Ex.P.1138 certified copy of the A/c. extract relating to S.B. A/C.No. 4110 standing in the name of J. Vivek marked through PW.182 is produced in proof of the credit of interest amounting to Rs. 10213/-. Item No.57: No witness is examined by the prosecution in proof of this item. Item No.58: PW.101 Sheela Tony has deposed that she was residing as tenant in Flat No.7 R.R. Flats Santhom Chennai from 15.7.92. She gave Rs.30000/- as advance. In the beginning the rent was Rs.3550/- and she used to give the rent by cheque in the name of Sasi Enterprises. From October 1995 the rent was increased to Rs.4000/-. From July 1992 to April 1996 she paid a rent of Rs.192450/-. There is no cross-examination

slide 153:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 153 of this witness. Prosecution has included Rs.194000/- under this head. Item No.59: PW.206 S. Abdul Jabbar Manager Ruby Builders Pvt. Ltd. has stated that he is a tenant of Shop No.20 Kadhar Nawaz Khan Road. At first the place was owned by Holiday Spot Pvt. Ltd. In February 1992 that place was sold to Sasi Enterprises. From then onwards he gave the monthly rent to Sasi Enterprises. From February 1992 to March 1996 they paid a total rent of Rs.262200/- to Sasi Enterprises inclusive of the advance. Rs.4600/- was the monthly rent from April 1992 to March 1995. From April 1995 to March 1996 the rent was Rs.5300/- per month. There is no dispute regarding this item. Item No.60: PW.95 Balu is examined to speak about the rental income received by the accused. According to this witness he has been working as part-time manager in Mookambikai Video Centre. From November 1994 he took a building belonging to Lex Property Development P Ltd. situate at 2/28 4 th Floor Wallace Garden Chennai on a rent of Rs.25000/- per month. The agreement was signed by V.N.Sudhakaran. Advance

slide 154:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 154 amount of Rs.150000/- was paid by means of 2 cheques for Rs.90000/- and Rs.60000/- in the name of Lex Property Development P Ltd. According to this witness upto March 1996 he paid Rs.327250/- towards the rent. Rs.97750/- was deducted at source towards the Income Tax. This statement is not controverted in the cross-examination instead it is elicited that the rent was paid through cheques in the name of the Company. Though the witness has stated that he has paid only Rs.327250/- prosecution has shown Rs.450000/- as rental income collected by A-3. Hence the excess amount of Rs.122750/- is liable to be deducted. Item No.61: PW.219 R. Usman Khan has stated that he took shop No.9 Kadhar Nawaz Khan Road on rent since 1.2.1996 on a monthly rental of Rs.4500/- and advance of Rs.45000/- paid through cheques to Sasi Enterprises. The prosecution has not produced any document of lease. In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW.219 did not hand over any document to the police in connection with the said shop. Lease being oral his evidence requires to be accepted in proof of the rental income earned by Sasi Enterprises. Item No.62: PW.113 Mosin Bijapuri Managing Director of HBM Foundation Ltd. has deposed before the Court

slide 155:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 155 that he took Shop No.8 from Sasi Enterprises. On 2.8.1983 he entered into an agreement and paid an advance of Rs.21600/-. Earlier to that he was a tenant under Holiday Spots Pvt. Ltd. The monthly rent and the advance were paid through cheques amounting in all Rs.144000/-. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the original agreement as Ex.X.19. In the cross-examination it is elicited that regarding the rent he did not negotiate with Sasi Enterprises directly and he did not submit any documents to show the payment of rent to Sasi Enterprises. From the tenor of cross-examination it is not clear whether the accused are disputing the tenancy or the payment of the rent. There is no suggestion to the witness that he was not a tenant under Sasi Enterprises in respect of the above premises and that he did not pay any rents to Sasi Enterprises. Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. Item No.63: Regarding the amount received by A-4 from the Government towards the Family Benefit Fund and Gratuity on the demise of her husband Tr.V.Jayaraman Ex.P.991 and 994 are marked which are not in dispute. Ex.P.991 is the Service Register of the deceased husband of A.4 wherein it is mentioned that

slide 156:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 156 Rs.40000/- is sanctioned to the legal heirs of the deceased. Item No.64: PW.207 the Sr. Manager Canara Bank Annanagar Branch has stated that A/c. No.1689 was opened in their Bank in the name of Maha Subbulakshmi Kalyana Mantapam and through this witness. Ex.P.1966 the certified copy of the ledger is marked in proof of the amounts credited to that account. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the person working in Kalyana Mantapa would come and remit the amount to the Bank. PW.231 Kumar working as Manager in Kalyana Mantapam has stated about the amount deposited by him in the Bank. In the cross- examination it is brought out that apart from the marriage functions the Kalyana Mantapam was rented out for conference and textile business. The accused have not disputed the quantum of the income shown by the prosecution under this item. 45. OBJECTIONS OF ACCUSED: A-1 has taken up a plea during her examination u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and in the written statement filed u/Sec. 2431 Cr.P.C. that the following income has not been taken into account by the prosecution viz: a Cash on hand - Rs.856365/-

slide 157:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 157 b Advance for purchase of Maruti Gypsy - Rs. 200000/- c Advance for 31-A Poes Garden - Rs. 100000/- Further she has contended that while computing the income by way of interest during the check period D.V. A.C. has not taken into account the large amounts received by her by way of interest amounting to Rs.7820657/- as per her Income Tax returns filed and accepted by the Department. 45.1 A-1 has further contended that she owned for a long time a grape garden at Hyderabad purchased by her in 1968. It had large number of grape vines fully grown and yielding besides a large number of fruit bearing trees. She had been receiving and declaring the income from the same in her Income Tax returns even before the check period which was duly accepted by the Department. 45.2 Nextly it is contended that during her birthdays AIADMK Party cadres out of respect and admiration used to give presents by way of cash and drafts. On her 44 th birthday in February 1992 she received a total amount of Rs.21500012/- Rupees Two Crores Fifteen Lakhs and Twelve by way of gifts. Besides the above a foreign remittance of Rs.7752591/- was also received by her.

slide 158:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 158 45.3 A-2 Sasikala has taken up specific plea regarding the income received by her during the check period as under: 1. Loans availed from Indian bank:- Item No. Particulars Amount of loan availed Availed by 1 Loan from Indian Bank Abirampuram 2500000 Sasi Enterprises 2 Loan from Indian Bank Abirampuram 2800000 J. Farm House 3 Loan from Indian Bank Abirampuram 700000 J S Housing Development 4 Loan from Indian Bank Abirampuram 500000 Jay Real Estate 5 Loan from Indian Bank Abirampuram 7500000 M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. 8 Loan from Indian Bank Abirampuram 37500000 Kodanadu Tea Estate 9 Loan fron Indian Bank Abirampuram 10000000 M/s. J. Jay T.V. Pvt. Ltd. 2. Interest income from Bank/ Financial Institutions: S.No. Particulars Amount Income of 30 Interest income from Central Bank of India Secunderabad 27304.00 V.K.Sasikala 37 Interest income from Canara Bank Mylapore vide S.B.-23218 189761.00 V.K.Sasikala 38 Interest income from Canara Bank Mylapore vide FDR No.718/92 954/92 1397/92 236/93 633/93 868/93 257118.00 V.K.Sasikala 39 Interest income from Canfin for FDR No.189/91- 92 1003191.00 V.K.Sasikala 40 Rental income for the house at No.16 Radhika Colony Secunderabad 223000.00 V.K.Sasikala

slide 159:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 159 41 Interest income from Canara Bank Kellys Vide SB A/c. No.38746 3901.00 V.K.Sasikala 3. Rental income from properties let out:- S.No. Particulars Amount Income of 53 Rental income from 57 Ganapathy Colony TVK Indl. Estate Guindy. 3767358.00 Jaya Publications 54 Rental income from House at No.19 Pattammal Street Mandaiveli 233769.00 Jaya Publications 55 Rental income from House at No.21 Padmanabha Street T. Nagar 382500.00 M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. 57 Rental income from House at No.1 Murphy Street Akkarai 91000.00 J.S. Housing Development 58 Rental income from Flat No.7 Anthu Street Santhome 194000.00 v.K.Sasikala 59 Rental income from shop at No.14 Khadar Nawaz Khan Road Nungambakkam 270900.00 Sasi Enterprises 61 Rental income from Shop No.9 Khadar Nawaz Khan Road Numbambakkam 201000.00 Sasi Enterprises 62 Rental income from shop at No.8 Khadar Nawaz Khan Road Numbambakkam. 201000.00 Sasi Enterprises 4. Income from business operations of the firms/ companies :- It is further contended by A-2 that the D.V. A.C. has intentionally taken all efforts to include assets not related to her in order to boost the total value of assets as that belonging to her and other associates who have been made co-accused in the case but has not included income that accrued to her. According to her

slide 160:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 160 she has been doing business and earning income from several businesses which include M/s. Jaya Publications M/s. Sasi Enterprises M/s. Fresh Mushrooms Dr. Namadhu MGR M/s. Fax Universal M/s. Metal King M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. The D.V. A-C. has included the value of the assets standing in the name of firms / Companies like Jaya Publications including Dr. Namadhu MGR Kodanadu Tea Estate Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. Sasi Enterprises C.A-No.1044 J. Jay T.V. Pvt. Ltd. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. Metal King C.A-No. 1245 Vinod Video Vision etc. but has intentionally not included the income from these entities. i In her written statement she had detailed the income received by her from the above firms as under Loans Sl. No. Particulars Amount Income of 1 Loan from Housing and Real Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. 2500000.00 Green Farm House Partner: V.K.Sasikala- 2 Loan from Housing and Real Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. 2500000.00 J. Farm House Partner: V.K.Sasikala- 3 Source from Mr. Krishnan Chennai 1762738.00 J. Farm House Partner: V.K.Sasikala ii Advance received from M/s. Bharani Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.1995 - Rs.22 lakhs.

slide 161:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 161 iii Income from M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. - Rs.5349634/- iv Namadhu MGR : It is contended that Jaya Publications was publishing a daily newspaper called Namadhu MGR. It is an official mouth piece of AIADMK Party of which A-1 is the General Secretary. For greater dissemination of policies of the party it introduced a scheme deposit which was in vogue from 1990 onwards. The firm had been collecting deposits. The total collection during check period in cash was Rs.14.01 crore. The cash so received was not only deposited in two C.A. Nos. 1952 and 2047 of Canara Bank a portion of the cash so collected was put into her account and also in the accounts of the firm of which she is the partner for better utilization of the amount so collected under refundable scheme deposit. The scheme deposits and the monies collected was disclosed to the Income Tax Department. It was accepted after deep scrutiny. The appeal of the Department against the acceptance of the scheme deposit has been rejected by the Tribunal. Under this head A-2 has sought to include Rs.14.01000.00 Rupees Fourteen Crores One Lakh only as the income of A-1 and A-2. - Rs.14.01000.00

slide 162:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 162 vi Income earned by Jaya Publications from the Job works of printing publication – Rs. 11594849.00 vii Foreign Inward Remittance received by A-2 in 1992 - Rs.5147955.00 viii Business income from Metal King – Rs.3876287.00 ix Business income from Vinod Video Vision - Rs.9436682.00 x Advance from Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. - Rs.32.09000.00 xi Advance from Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. - Rs.5200000.00 A-3 V.N.Sudhakaran has contended that during the investigation the investigating officer had seized hundred receipt books Ex.P.2341 series maintained by Super Duper T.V. Pvt Ltd. containing hundred receipts each acknowledging the receipt of Rs.5000/- per person. During investigation he brought to the notice of the I.O. about the income of the Super Duper Pvt. Ltd. In spite of such sufficient proof the I.O. has deliberately failed to take into consideration the income of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. totaling to more than Rs. 1 crore. The objections raised by the accused call for a thorough and detailed analysis of the oral and

slide 163:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 163 documentary evidence and therefore I have considered these objections under the following heads: 46. INCOME FROM GRAPE GARDEN: The prosecution has computed the total agricultural income of A-1 from the grape garden at Hyderabad at Rs.578340/- during the check period vide item No.33 of Annexure-II. 46.1 A-1 has claimed that the total agricultural income received by her from the grape garden situate in Hyderabad is Rs.5250000/-. Hence it is necessary to resolve the controversy by examining the material produced before the Court by both the parties. 46.2 In support of its case the prosecution has examined PW.165 166 and 256 and has relied on Ex.X- 23 and Ex.P.938. PW.165 Smt. K.R. Latha is the Horticultural Officer in the office of the Asst. Director of Horticulture Rangareddy District in Andhra Pradesh. According to this witness as per the directions of the Asst. Director of Horticulture on 10.12.1996 she proceeded to a garden at J.D.Metla in Rangareddy District belonging to A-1 along with the Horticulture Officer Sri. Sanjay Kumar. The Dy.S.P. Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai by name Kadireshan PW.256 was also present and in his presence she

slide 164:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 164 inspected the Horticultural crops raised in the said garden. There were two varieties of grapes raised in the said garden viz. Anab-E-Shahi and seedless variety. The first type of grapes were found cultivated in 3.02 acres. She could find 580 plants. The space occupied for raising the said variety of grape for each crop was 15 x 15 feet. She saw 1266 plants of seedless grapes in 1.84 acres. The space occupied for raising the said variety was 7.5 x 8 feet. Apart from the grape vine she saw crops such as guava in 96 numbers in 0.89 acres and vegetable crops such as bitter-gourd coccinea brinjal and other cucurbits. Along the path ways and boundaries coconut trees and pomegranate banana sitaphal papaya trees and some roses were seen. She furnished the above details to the Asst. Director as well as to PW.256. She further deposed that she was in the garden for two days for the purpose of inspection. Apart from the plants two buildings one old and a new building were also found in the property. 46.3 In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW.165 was directed to inspect the garden by Mr. P. Kondareddi the Asst. Director. In the cross- examination she identified the requisition given to the Asst. Director as per Ex.X-23. It is further elicited that neither PW.165 nor Sanjay Kumar gave any notice to the occupants. However it is elicited that there were 2 or 3 workers in the garden during her visit. It is also

slide 165:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 165 elicited that the garden is surrounded by a compound wall and one could gain entry only through a gate. When it was specifically suggested to PW.165 that agricultural crops are different from horticultural crops the witness answered that raising coconut crops and vegetable crops are horticultural crops. It is further elicited that the entire extent of the garden was 16 acres and during their visit they did not seek the help of the Sarpanch. The garden was identified by PW.256. During their inspection they did not refer any revenue records. She reiterated in the cross-examination that in her report she has given the particulars of the vegetables and the plants observed by her. 46.4 PW.166 P. Kondareddy the Asst. Director of Horticulture has corroborated the testimony of PW.165 stating that on 9.12.1996 PW.256 visited his office with the requisition to inspect the garden belonging to A-1 situated at J.D.Metla village. After getting oral permission from his superior officers he deputed two Horticultural Officers to make the inspection and after receiving the report from them he also visited the said garden. He worked out the details regarding the cost of raising the crops gross and net income for raising the grapes and submitted the report to the Director of Horticulture as per Ex.P.938. In his chief-examination this witness specifically deposed that he is competent to assess the fixing of unit cost for raising various crops

slide 166:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 166 including grapes. He further stated that as an Asst. Director of Horticulture his duty was to superwise the work done by horticulture officers preparation of project reports and also to prepare the assessment report for compensation to be paid to the farmers. He used to follow NABARD’s norm fixed for commercial fruit crops. From his experience he can also assess the cost of cultivation gross net income of seedless variety and anab-e-shahi variety of grapes. According to this witness the age of the seeded crop variety found in the garden was 15 years and the age of the seedless variety was four years. By adopting NABARD norms the cost of the cultivation and yield was assessed by him. The total income of seeded variety for the above period 1991-96 was Rs.382420/- and for the seedless variety from 1993 to 96 the net income was Rs.218960/-. He further deposed that he assessed liberally for arriving at the above calculation. 46.5 In the cross-examination it is brought out that he did not enclose the inspection report of Tr. Sanjay Kumar and Latha with the copy of Ex.P.938 given to the police and that he produced Ex.P.938 before the Court during his examination-in-chief. It is further elicited that he furnished Ex.P.938 evaluation on the basis of the inspection report filed by PW.165 and Sanjay Kumar but he has not mentioned about his personal inspection in Ex.P.938. It is also elicited that

slide 167:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 167 his evaluations are only approximate and probable one subject to higher or lower variations. It is also elicited that he did not record any statement of the local people and his evaluation is confined to grape vines only. He denied the suggestion that he prepared the report only to suit the police but reiterated that he prepared his report on the basis of the report prepared by Latha and Sanjay Kumar. 46.6 PW.256 R. Kadireshan has deposed that on 10.12.1996 as per his request PW.165 and Sanjay Kumar estimated the value of the produce of the vine yard. In the cross-examination it is elicited that during the course of investigation he had gathered information as to how much income is generated through grape cultivation. It is also elicited that vineyard is surrounded by profusely yielding coconut trees and vegetables were also cultivated there. He made enquiries with ten people who worked and lived there. Further to manage the grape cultivation Manager and his assistants were residing in the vine yard and he inspected the accounts of the income and expenditure but did not seize those records. The photographs of the vineyard and the buildings at Hyderabad were taken by the officials belonging to the Police Department. 46.7 The learned Counsel for the A-1 has strongly assailed the testimony of the above witnesses

slide 168:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 168 contending that the report Ex.P.938 is not worthy of acceptance. It was not enclosed with the final report. PW.166 has admitted that he produced the said report on the date of his examination before the Court on 25.05.2000 and there is no explanation by the prosecution as to why the said report was not produced along with the Charge Sheet. That apart PW.166 has admitted in the cross-examination that the evaluation made by him are only approximate and probable and therefore the report submitted by this witness even if accepted cannot be treated as the report of an expert to determine either the cost of the grape produce or the age of the plants. Likewise the testimony of PW.165 also cannot be given any credence as the prosecution has not produced the report purported to have been submitted by her to PW.166. 46.8 In support of the contention urged by A-1 that the agricultural income derived by her from the grape garden is more than the amount computed by the investigating agency the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the income tax returns submitted by A-1 for the year 1987-88 to 1992-93 and has emphatically submitted that the assessing officer had accepted the return of agricultural income submitted by A-1 and had finalized the assessment u/Sec. 1433 of the Income Tax Act by accepting the agricultural income for the year 1992-93 at Rs. 950000/-. It is the submission of

slide 169:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 169 the learned Counsel that though at the instance of D.V. A-C. the said assessment was reopened in the year 1998 and the assessing officer by his order dt. 28.03.2000 determined the agricultural income for the year 1992-93 at Rs.563440/- the appeals preferred by A-1 ultimately came to be allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the reopening of the assessment was unjustified as a result the income returned by the A-1 for the assessment year 1992-93 at Rs.950000/- stood accepted by the Income Tax Authorities. The learned Counsel further submitted that in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 for some fault of the auditor the return was not filed but in respect of the assessment year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 returns were filed by A-1 as per Ex.P.2173 2175 2176 and the agricultural income declared therein has been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities by force of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in Ex.D.64 and hence this Court is required to accept the findings of the Tribunal holding that the total agricultural income derived by A-1 from the grape garden at Jeedi Metla Hyderabad during the check period is Rs.5250000/-. 47. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and have thoroughly scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and have also gone through the orders passed by the

slide 170:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 170 Income Tax Authorities on the question of the agricultural income of A-1. In so far as the extent of the agricultural land owned by A-1 there is no controversy. It is borne on record that A-1 had inherited 14.50 acres of land at Jeedi Metla Hyderabad as described in item Nos.3 and 4 of Annexure-I. It is also not in dispute that A-1 had raised a grape garden in the said property. It is borne on record that in the month of November 1992 A-1 filed returns for the assessment year 1987-88 to 1992-93 wherein A-1 declared the estimated agricultural income as under : Assessment Year Estimated Agricultural income 1987-88 Rs.480000 1988-89 Rs.550000 1989-90 Rs.700000 1990-91 Rs.800000 1991-92 Rs.900000 1992-93 Rs.950000 47.1 The assessing officer finalized the assessment and accepted the returned agricultural income declared by A-1 and the assessment orders came to be passed as per Ex.P.2123 A/y.1987-88 Ex.P.2127 A/Y. 1988-89 Ex.P.2131 Assessment year 1989-90 Ex.P.2135 A/y. 1990-91 Ex.P.2139 A/y. 1992-93. The assessment details are as under:

slide 171:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 171 Assessm ent year Dt of filing the returns/ Total income returned Dt of assessment Order/Assesse d Total Income Returned agri. Income/Asses sed agri. Income. 1987-88 13.11.1992 Rs.26850 23.12.1994 Rs.929080 Rs.480000 Rs.480000 1988-89 13.11.1992 Rs.38910 23.11.1994 Rs.2129243 Rs.550000 Rs.550000 1989-90 16.11.1992 Rs.25200 13.12.1995 Rs.3097075 Rs.700000 Rs.700000 1990-91 20.11.1992 Rs.86860 2.3.1995 Rs.12759040 Rs.800000 Rs.800000 1991-92 20.11.1992 Rs.448660 30.3.1994 Rs.8065250 Rs.900000 Rs.900000 1992-93 23.11.1992 Rs.664528 21.3.1995 Rs.21837350 Rs.950000 Rs.950000 47.2 It is stated in the above order that the original assessments completed as above were reopened u/Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 after obtaining approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax on 11.3.1998 for the reason agricultural income estimated by the assessee was accepted without any verification. But subsequent to the finalization of the assessment the then DCIT Range-IV in whose Range the assessee was assessed to the tax earlier had occasion to visit the assessee’s farm at Hyderabad during March 1993 and as per the report submitted by him the net income from cultivation of grapes during that period would be Rs.12000/- per annum and that the assessee was cultivating grapes in an extent of 4 acres at that time. In respect of cultivation of vegetables in the remaining area the DC Range-IV had estimated the income at about Rs.5000/- to 6000/- and he also

slide 172:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 172 obtained particulars from the Research Wing of the Agricultural University at Hyderabad regarding the economics of grape cultivation and according to which the probable income from grape growing would not exceed Rs.10000/- per acre per annum. All this data suggest that the agricultural income suggested arising to the assessee through cultivating of grape vines and other seasonal vegetables could not exceed Rs.60000/- for the financial year 1986 whereas the assessee had brought into her accounts a sum of Rs.480000/- as cash receipts by way of agricultural income. The assessing officer had reason to believe that the income otherwise chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 47.3 Though A-1 questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment the Assessing Officer finalized the reassessment proceedings on 28.03.2000 by determining the total income as under: Assessme nt year Returned income Assessed income Returned agrl.income Agrl. Income disallowed 1987-88 Rs.26850 Rs.1181320 Rs.480000 Rs.252240 1988-89 Rs..38910 Rs.2451483 Rs.550000 Rs.322240

slide 173:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 173 1989-90 Rs.25200 Rs.3569315 Rs.700000 Rs.472240 1990-91 Rs.86860 Rs.13234080 Rs.800000 Rs.475040 1991-92 Rs.448660 Rs.8759290 Rs.900000 Rs.694040 1992-93 Rs.664528 Rs.22400790 Rs.950000 Rs.563440 47.4 According to A-1 she challenged the reopening of the original assessments by preferring I.T.A Nos.62 to 67/2001-02 before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Central-II Chennai and by order dt. 31.01.2002 the Appellate Authority rejected all the appeals as per the Order at Ex.D.61. 47.5 The learned Counsel for the accused has strongly relied on Ex.D.61 to D.64. On perusal of Ex.D.61 it is noticed that the Commissioner of Income Tax has narrated in the above order the factual position relating to the assessment year 1994-95 as under “The appellant in the return estimated her agricultural income at Rs.1050000/-. It appears the assessing officer made a personal inspection at the agricultural land in Hyderabad in January 1994 and was informed that the appellant possesses 15 acres of land out of which 50 to 60 of the total area was used for

slide 174:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 174 agricultural operation and the rest the assessing officer mentioned was used for farm house servant quarters roads and pathways etc. According to the report the grape garden was in a very small area. The other cultivated land being used for growing watermelon brinjal coconut etc. The coconut trees around the area were yet to bear fruits. With this information in background the assessing officer wanted the appellant to come forward with her estimate of receipt of agricultural income supported by necessary evidence. The representative replied that no accounts were maintained and contradicted the observation of the assessing officer that 40 of the area was used for non- agricultural purpose and that trees did not bear any fruit. He stated that 75 to 80 of the total area was under cultivation. In the meantime officers from the Department of Horticulture of Government of Andhra Pradesh had visited the area and gave a report that the total land was 12.5 acres and the area under cultivation was 8.72 acres and the rest was covered by farm house servant quarters etc. … On the basis of the report of the Department of Horticulture Andhra Pradesh the assessing officer estimated the income from grape cultivation at best to be Rs.106260/-.”

slide 175:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 175 47.6 In the same order Ex.D.61 the commissioner of Income Tax has observed that by letter dt. 16.2.1999 he directed the present assessing officer to have a personal inspection and submit his report with all details which will enable him to arrive at a proper estimate of agricultural income of the assessment. Page 18 of the order the relevant portion of which is extracted herebelow reads as under : “Agricultural Land : The total area under cultivation may be around 9 to 10 acres of the total extent of 15 acres of land. The balance area was occupied by two farm houses one new and one old servant quarters garages and pathways between each plot of agricultural land. The total land under cultivation was divided into 10 plots of various sizes and it was also found out that two varieties of grapes viz. Thomson seedless and Black beauty were raised in these plots. I have made a rough sketch of the same which is enclosed for the CIT’s perusal. The age of the grape vines as enquired from the Supervisor was about 2 to 2.5 years old. During the inspection I found that the entire grape vines are in full bloom and I have taken photograph which is also enclosed herewith. The number of grape

slide 176:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 176 vines in each plot of land was physically counted by me which is as follows : Plot No.1 – 567 Plot No.2 – 754 Plot No.3 – 1831 Plot No.4 5 – 1626 Plot No.6 7 – 2380 Plot No.8 – 1653 Plot No.9 – 1975 Plot No.10- 675 ---------------------- Total 11481” 47.7 The only basis on which A-1 has claimed to have received agricultural income of Rs.5250000/- during the check period are the income tax returns filed by her viz: Ex.P.2173 1994-95 Dt.23.9.96 Rs.1050000 Ex.P.2175 1995-96 Dt.8.11.96 Rs.1100000 Ex.P.2176 1996-97 Dt.18.11.96 Rs.1150000 Ex.P.2139 1997-98 Dt.28.11.92 Rs.0950000 Return not filed 1993-94 Rs.1000000 Tota Rs.5250000 47.8 Orders relating to the assessment year 1994- 95 1995-96 1996-97 are the subject matter of the appeal Ex.D.61 D.63 and Ex.D.65. A perusal of the

slide 177:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 177 assessment orders and the orders passed by the Income Tax Commissioner at Ex.D.61 to D.65 indicate that A-1 had declared the agricultural income in her returns on estimate basis and she has categorically admitted that no books of accounts are maintained regarding the actual agricultural income received by her over the years from the cultivation of grapes. Secondly it is observed in the assessment orders as well as the Appellate orders relied on by the accused that the assessee did not produce any evidence regarding the exact area of cultivation of grapes. In the absence of these materials the assessing authority appears to have relied on the spot inspection conducted by him on 27.01.1994 and the inspection report of the Horticultural Department Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Appellate Authority though thought it proper to secure a fresh inspection report through the assessing officer it is important to note that the said report was secured by the Commissioner of the Income Tax only in the year 1999 and in the said report it is specifically noted that the grape vines found in the property of A-1 were aged between 2 to 2½ years which means that the vines were planted subsequent to 1996. Undisputedly the inquiry in this case is confined for the period 1991-96. Since the state of facts relied on by the Appellate Authority to determine the agricultural income of A-1 relate to the period subsequent to 1996 it

slide 178:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 178 necessarily follows that the findings recorded by the Commisioner in the above orders cannot be relied on. 47.9 It is trite law that the criminal case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court and not on the basis of the findings recorded by the Income Tax Authorities. I will be dealing with the relevancy and admissibility of the assessment orders and the Income Tax proceedings while considering the objections raised by the accused in relation to other issues. For the present I am of the firm view that the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities relied on by A-1 cannot be taken as conclusive proof of the factum of cultivation and the income derived by A-1 from her grape garden located at Jeedi Metla Hyderabad. Even otherewise whatever evidentiary value attached to the Income Tax returns relied on by the accused is seen to have been taken away by the action taken by the income tax Authority by reopening the assessment on the ground that the finalization of the assessment for the year 1987 - 88 to 1992-93 was without any verification. Though ultimately the Tribunal has held that reopening of the assessment is bad yet the fact remains that there was no inquiry into the disputed issue. It is an admitted fact that no documentary evidence was produced by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities to support the claim.

slide 179:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 179 Even before this court A-1 has not produced any reliable and acceptable evidence in support of her claim. 47.10 From the maze of evidence produced before the Court we are left with only the conflicting evidence which cannot be reconciled with each other. The evidence produced by the prosecution in proof of the above fact is not at all satisfactory as PW.166 has unequivocally admitted in his evidence that he based his reports on the notes of inspection submitted by PW.165. The said notes of inspection are not produced before the Court. PW.165 has conceded that she did not take the assistance of the Sarpanch and did not refer to any revenue or survey records. If so it is not known as to how she could measure the extent of the area used for cultivation of each variety of grapes with accuracy as deposed by her. There is no clear and definite evidence regarding the specific extent used for the cultivation of grapes and for other crops. PW.166 has also admitted that the original report was not produced along with the Charge Sheet and both the witnesses admit that they did not serve any notice to the occupants of the garden at the time of inspecting the lands in question. PW.256 has unequivocally stated that he inspected the account books and took photographs of the garden which are not produced before the Court. These documents would have thrown light on the true state of facts. More importantly the

slide 180:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 180 basis on which the yield is determined and their price is calculated by PW.166 is also shrouded with suspicion. PW.166 states that he applied NABARD method. But without there being specific evidence with regard to the quantity of the yield and the rate applicable to the produce at the relevant point of time the report marked through PW.166 becomes unreliable. 47.11 The evidence produced by A-1 is also equally vague and ambiguous. A-1 having sought to enhance the agricultural income is obligated to produce reliable and acceptable evidence in support of her claim. But unfortunately the only evidence on which A-1 has sought to sustain the claim for the higher valuation of the agricultural income are the Income Tax returns which have minimal evidentiary value in determining the extent of cultivation quantum of produce cost of cultivation and the price fetched by A-1 during the relevant years. Undisputedly these aspects are solely within the knowledge of A-1. But A-1 has failed to produce the best evidence available in her possession instead has sought to justify her claim on the basis of the assessment orders which were admittedly passed on the basis of best judgment assessment without any verification. It is not the case of A-1 that she has been personally cultivating these lands. A-1 is a resident of Chennai and the grape garden is located in Andhra Pradesh. Naturally A-1 might have been getting the

slide 181:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 181 land cultivated through workers and labourers who would have been the best witnesses to speak about the cost of cultivation and the quantum of the yield and the price prevalent at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel for the accused has also not suggestged to any of the proseccution witnesses that the land is question has the potentialities of yielding the income as claimed by the accused. Apart from failing to to produce any direct evidence on her part A1 has also failed to bring on record any circumstance in the evidence of the prosection justifying her claim. As a result there is no worthwhile evidence to accept the claim of A-1. 47.12 Nonetheless it cannot be denied that A-1 has been holding 14½ acres of agricultural land wherein she has been growing grapes. Prosecution has proceeded on the basis that grape garden is being grown in the said lands. The certified copies of the pahanis produced in evidence at Ex.P.2251 to P.2258 also corroborate the contention of the accused that grapes are grown in the said property. Therefore merely because A-1 has failed to produce documentary evidence in proof of the produce collected by her during the check period and the price prevalent at the relevant time her entire claim cannot be rejected. Therefore taking into consideration the common facts observed in the above reports that about 10 acres of land was being used for cultivation of grapes at the relevant point of

slide 182:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 182 time and having regard to the likely cost of cultivation and the fluctuating price prevalent during the check period I am of the view that it would be reasonable to estimate the income from the grape garden at Rs.20000/- per acre per annum and thus the total agricultural income from the cultivation of the grape garden would be Rs.2 lakhs per annum i.e. Rs.10 lakhs for five years during the check period. In view of this finding the agricultural income of A-1 from the grape garden is enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs from Rs.578340/- adding the difference of Rs.421660/- to item No.33. 48. GIFTS: The next objection raised by accused relates to the gifts said to have been received by A-1 on her birthday falling on 24.02.1992. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for A-1 that in the year 1992 A-1 celebrated her 44 th birthday on 24.02.1992 and out of reverence and expression of love and loyalty the party workers presented her with gifts by way cash and drafts amounting to Rs.21500012/- and foreign remittance of Rs.7752059/- which was duly declared by her in the annual returns filed for the assessment year 1992-93. as per the copy of the returns marked as Ex.P.2131 the Income Tax Authorities treated the said amount as the income of A-1 and have levied tax on A-1 which is duly paid by her as a result the said amount was required

slide 183:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 183 to be considered as the resources available with A-1 to make the acquisition standing in her name but for reasons best known to the prosecution the investigating officer has not taken into consideration the gift amount of Rs.21500012/- received by A-1 nor has he whispered anything about these resources in his evidence. Hence it is necessary to take into consideration this amount as the resources available with A-1 during the year 1992-93. 48.1 In support of this submission the learned Counsel has referred to page No.49 and 50 of the cross- examination of PW.259 wherein it is elicited as under: “In Tamilnadu politics the respective party workers and ordinary people generally present articles cash or cheques on the birthdays of party leader by way of gifts. From examination of 75 witnesses and 112 documents it has been recorded that the sum of Rs.19450012/- was received through demand drafts as birthday gifts for Selvi Jayalalitha on January 24 th 1992. Further on that birthday a gift of 15 lakhs in cash was given to the 1 st accused. Ex.P.2337 is another record within Ex.P.2334. It is shown in this record that Rs.29 lakhs was received as gifts in the year 1991. during the investigation of the above said gifts none of the witnesses examined were brought to court and examined as witnesses there. None of the 112 documents mentioned above were notified in Court. It has been shown in the income tax returns that the first accused received the equivalent of Rs.7752591/- American dollars as gift in the form of Demad Drafts during the year 1992-93. Likewise in the same period 1992-93 the income

slide 184:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 184 tax returns of the second accused show that the equivalent of Rs.5147951/- was in American dollars was received as gift from abroad”. 48.2 Further in order to strengthen the claim for the alleged resources by way of gifts the learned Counsel for A-1 has referred to the oral testimony of DWs.9 to DW.20 DW.64 and the documentary evidence marked as Ex.D.21 to 25 D.370 to D.373 and Ex.P.2139 2135 2137. DW.9 to DW.20 are the workers of AIADMK party. 48.3 DW.9 Sri. G. Maniraj has deposed that he is a practicing Advocate at Ulundurpet. In the year 1992 he was the Secretary of MGR Youth Wing of AIADMK party in South Arcot District. A-1 was the General Secretary of AIADMK party. They used to celebrate her birthday every year and her 44 th birthday was in the year 1992. The members of the Youth Wing collected money and presented a D.D. for Rs.165200/-. The copy of the said D.D. which is available in Court record is marked as Ex.D.21 and the copy of the remittance challan is marked as Ex.D.22. This witness further deposed that he personally did not make any contribution but he collected contributions from about 110 persons and named M. Kodandapani and Soundarpandyam as two of the contributors. In the cross-examination it is elicited that DW.9 had not maintained any account regarding the above

slide 185:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 185 contributions and he did not deposit the amount in any bank but only obtained a D.D. for Rs.165200/-. It is further elicited that there is no written document to show that he was the Secretary of MGR Youth Wing of AIADMK Party in the year 1992. He further answered that he does not have any record for having handed over the original of Ex.D.21 to the Head Office of AIADMK party. 48.4 DW.10 DW.11 Sri. M. Kothandapani and Soundrapandian have stated before the Court that they are the members of AIADMK Party party and on the occasion of the 44 th birthday of A-1 DW.10 contributed Rs.1500/- and DW.11 contributed Rs.2000/- and handed over the said amount to DW.9 Maniraj. In the cross-examination both these witnesses denied the suggestion that they did not make any such contribution and that they have given false evidence before the Court to help the accused. 48.5 DW.12 to 14 are another set of witnesses who have deposed in line with the above witnesses stating that DW.12 R.P.Paramashivam collected a sum of Rs.216500/- from the party workers on the occasion of the 44 th birthday of A-1 and bank draft thereof was presented to A-1. DW.12 identified the copy of the D.D. dt. 21.02.1992 as Ex.D.23 and DW.13 Balasubramaniam and DW.14 P.M.S Mani corroborated

slide 186:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 186 the testimony of DW.12 stating on oath that they contributed Rs.3000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively. It is brought out in the cross-examination of DW.12 that the decision to give said presentation was taken in the party meeting. However when it was suggested to DW.12 that without there being instructions from the high command the smaller units of the party cannot make collections for giving presentation to A-1 DW.12 denied the suggestion. It is further elicited from his mouth that he personally did not make any contribution and Ex.D.23 does not bear his name but maintained that the contributions were made by the party members and the said D.D. was sent to A-1. This witness further answered that he has not produced any document before the Court to show that he was the District Treasury Secretary of AIADMK party at the relevant point of time. 48.6 DW.15 to DW.17 are another set of witnesses who have deposed in line with the testimony of DWs.9 to 14 to the effect that on the occasion of the 44 th birthday of A-1 a DD for Rs.296800/- was presented by DW.15 Sri. D.K.Murthy in his capacity on behalf of the party workers as per Ex.D.24 and the said amount was collected from 200 to 300 persons. 48.7 DW.16 A.Thangaraj deposed that he contributed Rs.2000/- and paid the said amount to

slide 187:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 187 DW.15. DW.17 Ramachandran deposed that he voluntarily contributed Rs.3000/- towards the presentation and handed over that amount to DW.15. In the cross-examination of DW.15 it is elicited that the District Unit of AIADMK Party had not passed any resolution for presenting the cash gift for A-1 and there was no instructions by the State Unit of AIADMK party for collecting cash and presenting the same as gift to A- 1 on the occasion of her birthday. DW.15 has admitted in the cross-examination that the District Unit has not maintained any account of the money collected from the members and he did not issue any receipts to DW.16 DW.17 or to any other. This witness further answered that he does not have any document to show that the original of Ex.D.24 was produced by him and when a specific suggestion was put to the witness stating “Question: I suggest to you that the original of Ex.D.24 was obtained by accused. What do you say Ans: The original DD was obtained by DW.16 A. Thangarajan.” 48.8 In the cross-examination of DW.16 it is elicited that DW.15 and DW.16 went to Indian Bank Vallipuram Branch and made the remittance of Rs.296800/- for obtaining the draft and he signed the remittance challan but he does not have any copy of the said remittance challan.

slide 188:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 188 48.9 DW.18 to 20 are another set of witnesses who have been examined to corroborate the testimony of the above witnesses. DW.18 Sri. M. Natesan has deposed that in the year 1992 he was the District Student Wing Organiser for Salem District and on the occasion of A-1’s birthday in the year 1992 they performed a pooja and arranged mass feeding for the poor and also raised contributions to present a gift to A- 1. Out of the amount so received he obtained a D.D. for Rs.342300/- from Indian Bank Salem as per Ex.D.25 and sent the same to A-1. This witness also deposed that he did not make any personal contributions but collected the amount from DW.19 DW.20 and other contributors. 48.10 DW.19 Sri. P. Kannan has stated on oath that he personally contributed Rs.500/- and paid the said amount to DW.18. Likewise DW.20 M. Natesan stated that he contributed Rs.800/- and paid the amount to DW.18 M. Natesan. In the cross-examination of DW.18 it is elicited that the State High Command of AIADMK party had not sent any instructions in connection with the celebrations of A-1’s birthday in the year 1992 and nobody authorized them to make the collections.It is further brought out that DW.18 did not issue any receipts to DW.19 and 20 or for other contributors. DW.19 and DW.20 also answered in the cross-

slide 189:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 189 examination that DW.18 did not issue any receipts to them though reiterated that number of other persons also had given their contributions on the occasion of the 44 th birthday of A-1. 48.11 DW.64 Sri. S. Shanmugam the Chartered Accountant in para 48 has deposed as under: “The assessee’s 44 th birthday fell on 24.02.1998. At that time the assesseee had received gifts by way of Demand Drafts and cash from various Party Workers aggregating to Rs.21500012/- Rs. Two Crores Fifteen Lakhs and Twelve only. She had also received Foreign Remittance for Rs.77520591/- The said gifts were duly declared by her in her I.T.Returns filed before the Assessing Authority. The said Demand Drafts were all remitted to the Bank Account of A-1 Jayalalitha-” Further in para 49 of his chief-examination he stated : “The Central Bureau of Investigation initiated criminal proceedings against A-1 Jayalalitha regarding the above gift items. The action of the C.B.I. in initiating those proceedings against A-1 Jayalalitha was challenged by A-1 Jayalalitha before Madras High Court in a Crl. Petition filed used 482 of Cr.P.C. The said Crl. Proceedings came to be quashed in entirety by the Madras High Court.” In the cross-examination it is elicited that the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1991-92 to 1995-96 of A-1 were filed by her previous tax consultant viz. R. Rajsekhar PW.228. The said Rajsekhar had also

slide 190:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 190 filed wealth tax returns of A-1 for the above assessment years. From the above cross-examination it can be gathered that DW.64 is not acquainted with the true facts of the case and he is incompetent to speak about the alleged gifts received by A-1 or the Income Tax returns said to have been filed by her as he was not the auditor of A-1 at the relevant point of time. 48.12 On going through Ex.P.2145 the copy of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-IV it is seen that A-1 had submitted her returns for the year 1987-88 to 1992-93 in the month of November 1992. But there is no mention of the alleged presents in the returns of income. But in the returns of wealth for 1991 she indicated their receipt by inserting a foot note which reads “Note: The increase in value of jewellery shown as on 31.03.1990 with the valuations as on 31.03.1990 is on account of general increase in value of jewellery and also due to certain items of jewellery received as gifts during the year. Silverware received as gift have been accounted for wealth statement. A valuation report is being filed. The deposits in S.B. A/c. No.5158 with Bank of Madura Ltd. Anna Nagar represents gifts received by cheques/ DDs.” 48.13 It is also borne on record that by a letter dt. 18.3.1994 she has again reiterated that the birthday gifts received by her by way of cash / DDs / jewellery / silver wares in various years as personal gifts have been

slide 191:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 191 duly stated in her wealth tax returns and wealth tax paid. 48.14 It is observed in Ex.P.2145 that “the returns claiming birthday presents were not filed in the respective assessment years but long after. The extent of birthday presents received by her during the previous year or in the subsequent years is still not known. For the first four years assessment year 1987-88 to assessment year 1990-91 cash presents are conspicuous by their absence. Again in the first three years it is jewellery and only jewellery. No cash no DDs”. Therefore considering all these facts and the long delays in filing the returns the Commissioner held that A-1 has not satisfactorily discharged the onus of proving the receipts as birthday presents. It is noted therein that except the assesse’s word there was no other material in proof of the receipt of the large amount claimed by A-1 as gifts and presents. Thus the Commissioner of the Income Tax PW.215 recorded a finding that the monies and assets representing the presents and assets would constitute the appellant’s income from undisclosed sources within the meaning of Sec.69 and Sec.69-A of Income Tax Act. In the cross-examination of PW.215 it is elicited that aggrieved by the above order A-1 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal II and it is still pending. It is also brought out that the wealth tax returns were

slide 192:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 192 filed by her on 13.11.1992 and the wealth declared by her for the relevant years are as under 1988-89 - Rs.5386200/- 1989-90 - Rs. 8017700/- 1990-91 - Rs.18875400/- 1991-92 - Rs.26055750/- 1992-93 - Rs. 58194815/- 48.15 It is now well settled that the receipt of money or pecuniary resources in order to qualify as “income” within the meaning of Sec. 13 1 e of the Act as observed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta “qua the public servant the income would be what is attached to his office or post commonly known as remuneration or salary”. In the very same decision it is explained that though “income” is receipt in the hands of its receipient every receipt would not partake the character of income. A receipt from windfall or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the “known source of income” of a public servant. 48.16 Though the receipt of birthday presents by themselves may not amount to windfall or immoral secretions but in the facts of the present case when A-1 claims to have received huge sum of Rs.2 crores abd foreign remittance as presents and gifts after she

slide 193:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 193 assumed the office of the Chief Minister creates serious doubts and suspicion about the character of the funds received by her. Naturally a question arises in the mind if her persona attracted such huge presents from her party loyalists why was the practice discontinued after 1992 Would she have received similar admiration in cash and kind from her party workers if she was out of office It is not her case that it was her professional income. All these questions militate against the claim put forward by A-1. No doubt it is true large number of her party warkers have turned up to depose in her favour and have identified some D.Ds produced before the court but even if their evidence is accepted on its face value the receipt of alleged presents being illegal their testimony does not render it legal. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that: “If public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes they would easily curcumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present. The difference between the acceptance of a bribe made punishable u/Sec. 161 and 165 IPC is this under the former section the present is taken as a motive or reward for abuse of office under the latter section the question of motive or reward is wholly immaterial and the acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted is forbidden because though not taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour it is likely to influence the public servant to show

slide 194:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 194 official favour to the person giving such valuable thing. The provisions of Ss. 161 and 165 of IPC as also S.5 of the Act are intended to keep the public servant free from corruption and thus ultimately ensure purity in public life. The evidence in the case therefore should have been judged keeping these aspects in view.” Alleged gifts received by A-1 cannot be treated as lawful source of income within the meaning of Sec. 13 1 e of the Act hence the claim is disallowed. 49. JAYA PUBLICATIONS: The third objection raised by the learned Counsel for A-1 relates to the alleged income of Jaya Publication. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the firm Jaya Publications was in existence since 1988. A-1 and A-2 became the partners of the said firm in 1990 and the partnership was reconstituted on 22.01.1996. The details of the partnership firm find place in Ex.D.231. The business of the firm consisted mainly publication of “Dr. Namadhu MGR” News letter of the leader of AIADMK party. The firm introduced a scheme in the year 1990 by name “Dr. Namadhu MGR”. In terms of the said scheme the firm collected non-interest paying deposit from large number of subscribers on the promise of supplying free copies of Dr. Namadhu MGR until the deposit was withdrawn. In the returns filed by the firm the said amount received under the scheme was duly disclosed and the same was accepted by the

slide 195:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 195 Income Tax Authorities after in-depth enquiry and scrutiny. 49.1 It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that as there was fierce dispute regarding the genuineness of the scheme even a special auditor was appointed u/Sec. 142 2-A of the Income Tax Act and he submitted his report as per Ex.D.217. Based on the said material and after thorough enquiry the assessing officer disallowed the claims of the firm against which the assessee firm preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Central-II Chennai and by order dt. 7.3.2002 in I.T.A.No.141/01- 02 the Commissioner accepted the claim of the assessee except to the extent of disallowance of 5 of the total claim of Rs.1354000/- for the assessment year 1991- 92 as per Ex.D.231. Likewise the Commissioner passed a considered order dt. 07.03.2002 in I.T.A.No.143/01-02 for the assessment year 1992-93 as per Ex.D.232 and for the assessment year 1993-94 as per Ex.D.233. Against the said orders to the extent of disallowance of the claim the assessee carried the matter to the Tax Appeal Tribunal Chennai and by order dt. 30.11.2007 the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue in dispute after reinvestigation in respect of 41 persons only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Placing reliance on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities and

slide 196:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 196 the oral testimony of DW.88 the Chartered Accountant Sri. Soundarvelan who is stated to have handled the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publication and Sasi Enterprises the learned Counsel emphatically submitted that during the check period A-1 as partner of M/s. Jaya Publication has collected in all a sum of Rs.141035000/-. 49.2 Further it is contended that M/s. Jaya Publications was also in receipt of income from various other sources viz. Job Work Rental Income and Agricultural Income etc. and thus during the check period the firm had earned huge income. The learned Counsel has furnished a chart showing the break up of the income said to have been earned by Jaya Publications through various ventures as under: DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INCOME OF JAYA PUBLICATION PARTICULARS FY 91-92 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 TOTAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AY 92-93 AY 93-94 AY 94-95 AY 95-96 AY 96-97 EXHIBIT REFERENCE Ex.D.219 Ex.D.220 Ex.D.221 Ex.D.222 Ex.D.223 Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. JAYA PUBLICATION S INCOME Sales and job work 6456373 2101290 5459642 1411471113864589 41996605 Advertisement income 4504025 9012224 5578646 596662211163962 36225479 Interest income 23973 26005 37340 13000 - 100318 Agricultural income 931000 743500 1583915 1484940 1502310 6245665 Rental income - - - 300000 300000 600000

slide 197:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 197 for Machinery hire Rental income from properties - 105000 1290500 1587310 1547832 4530642 TOTAL INCOME 11915371 11988019 13950043 23466583 28378693 89698709 TOTAL EXPENDITUR E 10225691 10522359 11504373 20487619 25363819 78103861 NET INCOME FROM JAYA PUBLICATIO NS 1689680 1465660 2445670 2978964 3014874 11594848 SCHEME DEPOSIT 6860000 22326000 20775000 55737000 35337000 141035000 49.3 Before considering the evidence produced by the accused in proof of the alleged income it may be necessary to refer to the evidence of PW.187 Sri. Pulakeshi the then Registrar of North-Chennai District. According to this witness M/s. Jaya Publications was registered on 5.2.1990 as per Ex.P.1288 with Reg. No.152/1990. Ex.P.1288 is Form No.1 dt. 2.2.1990 filed by Jayaraman Jayalilitha Vivekanandam Sasikala under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and Ex.P.1289 is the acknowledgment of registration of the firm. This witness further deposed that Sasi Enterprises was registered on 21.05.1990 as per Ex.P.1290 and P.1291. Ex.P.1290 is the form submitted by Jayaraman Jayalalitha and Vivekanandam Sasikala and Ex.P.1291 is the acknowledgment of registration of the firm.

slide 198:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 198 49.4 The prosecution has produced the copy of the G.P.A. marked as Ex.P.995 which is not disputed by the accused. The learned Counsel for A-1 has submitted that under the said Power of Attorney A-1 has authorized A-2 to act on her behalf in respect of business affairs of the aforesaid firm M/s. Jaya Publication. 50. NAMADHU MGR In order to substantiate the claim of income generated by Jaya Publications by introducing the deposit scheme by name NAGADHU MGR A-1 A-2 have let in five types of evidence viz. i Evidence of 31 witnesses who have spoken about the deposit made by them under the scheme. ii Oral testimony of DW.88 who has spoken about the application forms submitted by the various subscribers. iiiSpecial audit report obtained by the Income Tax Authorities u/Sec. 142-2-A as per Ex.P.217. ivOrders of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Ex.D.231 to D.234. v Balance sheet filed along with the returns as per Ex.D.218 to D.222.

slide 199:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 199 50.1 From the material produced before the Court it is seen that the firm filed the returns for the assessment year 1992-93 only on 06.11.1998. In the returns the nature of the business of the firm is shown as “printing publishing and dealing in properties”. Agriculture is not specified as one of the objects of the Firm. The learned Counsel has pointed out that in the balance sheet enclosed to the returns filed for the year 1991-92 vide Ex.D.218 the amount of Rs.1354000/- received as on 31.03.1991 is shown in the liabilities column as the said amount is refundable to the subscribers. Likewise it is pointed out that in the returns for the A/Y. 1992-93 – Ex.D.219 a sum of Rs.8214000/- is shown as the total amount received as on 31.03.1992 and in the returns for the A/Y. 1993- 94 vide Ex.D.220 Rs.30540000/- is shown in the balance sheet as the amount received under the scheme deposits. 50.2 The returns for the assessment year 1994-95 is seen to have been filed as per Ex.D.221 only on 17.03.1998. The balance sheet enclosed to the returns as on 31.03.1994 discloses that a sum of Rs.51315000/- was received under scheme deposit. Ex.D.222 is the acknowledgment for having filed the returns for the year 1995-96. It is seen to have been filed in the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax only on 17.03.1999. The scheme deposit amount does

slide 200:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 200 not reflect in this return. Likewise the returns filed for the A/Y. 1996-97 as per Ex.D.223 filed on 17.03.1999 also does not reflect the receipt of deposits under the aforesaid scheme but the accused has separately got marked the profit and loss account for the year ended 31.03.1994 31.03.1995 and 31.03.1996 as Ex.D.224 D.225 and D.226 respectively. These documents though are marked in evidence without any objections are only the copies attested by one R. Vydyanathan the partner of Venkatram and Company and certified by him as true copies. There is nothing in the said document to indicate that the said profit and loss account statements or the balance sheet were either enclosed to the returns filed before the Income Tax Authorities for the relevant year or that they were produced before the Income Tax Authorities at any point of time. Therefore these documents i.e. Ex.D.224 D.225 D.226 are liable to be excluded from consideration. 50.3 The plea set up by the accused is that ever since 1990 A-1 and A-2 as partners of Jaya Publication received in all a sum of Rs.150514323.60 towards the scheme deposit. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs.1354000/- was collected prior to the check period. Excluding this amount the total deposit collected during the check period was available with the firm to the tune of Rs.138919475/-. In order to

slide 201:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 201 establish this plea A-1 and A-2 have examined 31 witnesses. viz. DW.3 DW.4 DW.5 DW.31 DW.32 DW.33 DW.34 DW.35 DW.36 DW.37 DW.38 DW.39 DW.44 DW.45 DW.46 DW.47 DW.48 DW.49 DW.50 DW.51 DW.52 DW.53 DW.55 DW.56 DW.57 DW.58 DW.59 DW.60 DW.62 DW.63 DW.67. 50.4 All these witnesses have given a stereo typed evidence before the Court stating that they are in the habit of reading Namadhu MGR Newspaper and they have made deposit ranging from Rs.12000/- to Rs.18000/- to become the subscribers of the said newspaper and in terms of the said deposit they are supplied with 3 to 6 copies of Namadhu MGR news paper daily. DW.3 K. Rajendran is an agriculturist. According to him he made a deposit of Rs.15000/- with Namadhu MGR and he is getting 5 copies of the said newspaper daily free of cost. Through this witness the application submitted by him is marked as Ex.D.17 and his signature thereon as Ex.D.17-A- It is elicited in the cross-examination that during the year 1993-94 the cost of Namadhu MGR daily newspaper was Re.1/-. The application form was issued to him by the District Treasury. Namadhu MGR issued receipt regarding money received from him and they have also acknowledged the receipt of the application but neither

slide 202:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 202 the witness nor the accused have produced any such receipt before the Court. He has admitted in the cross- examination that he is an active member of AIADMK Party. DW.4-D.Nagarajan is a Bus Conductor. According to him he collected an amount of Rs.12000/- from his co-workers and deposited the above amount with Namadhu MGR newspaper. For making the said deposit he submitted the application as per Ex.D.17-B. In the cross-examination it is elicited that in the year 1995 his gross salary was Rs.12000/- per month. He stated that he subscribed Rs.1300/- in the year 1994. He is a member of the Trade Union which has allegiance to AIADMK Party. According to him for the money paid by him he was issued with a receipt and similar receipts were issued to other contributors but even this witness has not produced any such receipt to corroborate his testimony. DW.5 K. Sundaram has stated that he deposited Rs.18000/- as per the application at Ex.P.17C. In the cross-examination this witness answered that till the year 1995 he worked as Junior Advocate and his annual income during 1995 was Rs.120000/- and he also owned agricultural land. He was issued with a receipt. He has denied the suggestion that the amount referred in Ex.D.17C belongs to accused and therefore he has not produced the receipt.

slide 203:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 203 DW.31 Adhi Rajaram has identified the application submitted by him as per Ex.D.26 regarding the deposit of Rs.18000/-. He is a practicing Advocate. According to him he paid the amount of Rs.18000/- in cash and collected a receipt from Namadhu MGR office. It is elicited that in the application Ex.D.26 there is no reference to the receipt number. The free copies of Namadhu MGR are being sent to his house through paper boy. DW.32 M. Ravichandra has deposed that he submitted the application as per Ex.D.27 and paid Rs.18000/- with Namadhu MGR and he has been receiving six copies of the newspaper. In the cross- examination this witness answered that Ex.D.27 does not contain the seal and signature of the Secretary for having received the application. This witness also has conceded that receipt was issued to him. DW.33 K. Nagarajan has identified his application as per Ex.D.28 for having deposited Rs.18000/-. In the cross-examination this witness answered that he submitted the application on 09-02-1994 and the District Secretary issued a receipt to him and he has not produced it before the Court. DW.34- M. Subramaniyan Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has deposed that in the year 1992 he made a deposit of Rs.18000/- with Namadhu MGR

slide 204:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 204 newspaper and identified his application marked as Ex.D.29. This witness has also admitted that he was issued with receipt and he has not produced it before the Court. According to him he is receiving six free copies daily. Further this witness answered that when the publishers of Namadhu MGR newspaper announced the deposit scheme they did not mention that they had obtained necessary permission from the concerned authority to collect such deposits under the scheme. DW.35-K. Sekar has deposed that in the year 1991 he deposited Rs.18000/- and since then he is getting six free copies. He identified the application Ex.D.30 and in the cross-examination answered that he paid the amount in cash and obtained the receipt. DW.36 K. Nanjegowdu has also deposed that he deposited Rs.18000/- in the year 1994 and he is getting six free copies. The application filed by him is at Ex.D.31. In the cross-examination he admitted that there is no endorsement in Ex.D.31 to the effect that the amount of Rs.18000/- was received from him in cash. This witness also admits that he was issued with a receipt and in the annual return submitted by him for the year 1994 he has mentioned the deposit of Rs.18000/- but he has not brought the copies of the annual returns submitted by him. It is elicited from the mouth of this witness that Namadhu MGR did not

slide 205:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 205 publish the said deposit scheme in Namadhu MGR newspaper before collecting the deposit. The said newspaper also did not publish the annual balance sheet in the year 1994 mentioning the deposits received during the year. DW.37-S. Shanmugam has stated that in the year 1992 he made a deposit of Rs.18000/- and since then he is getting six free copies of newspaper. He has identified the application at Ex.D.32. In the cross- examination it is elicited that he has studied up to 12 th std. He does not know English but he can sign in English. However he has asserted that he himself filled the application form Ex.D.32. According to him he paid the amount in cash and collected the receipt. This witness has admitted that Ex.D.32 does not contain any endorsement for having received the said application in Namadhu MGR office. DW.38-G.Pandurangan would state that he deposited Rs.15000/- and is getting five free copies of Namadhu MGR newspaper. He submitted the application on 12.04.1990 as per Ex.D.33. In the cross- examination at one place this witness answered that he paid the amount to the person who had come from Namadhu MGR newspaper office and the said person issued him the receipt. But he has not produced that receipt before the Court. At another place this witness

slide 206:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 206 answered that he paid Rs.15000/- on 12.04.1990 in the office of Panchayath Union Secretary. DW.39-S. Suyambarakasam has deposed that since 1972 he is a member of AIADMK Party and deposited Rs.18000/- in Namadhu MGR newspaper deposit scheme on 15.09.1994 as per Ex.D.34. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he has studied up to S.S.L.C. and he is in a position to read and write English to some extent. According to this witness he did not receive the receipt for the deposit of Rs.18000/. DW.44 A. Sekar an Engineering Graduate has deposed that initially he was purchasing Namadhu MGR News Paper from shops. In the year 1988 a deposit scheme was introduced by Namadhu MGR News Paper. Under the scheme he made a deposit of Rs.15000/- on 7.12.1994 as per the application marked as Ex.D.36. Out of the said amount Rs.10000/- was his personal money and the remaining Rs.5000/- was collected by him from the party workers and he used to get five free copies of Namadhu MGR News Paper. He used to retain one copy for reading and handover the remaining copies to the party workers. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the above scheme was not advertised in papers. He collected the application form from the representative of Namadhu MGR. He paid the amount of Rs.15000/- by cash. He used to get free copies either by post or sometimes from

slide 207:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 207 the party office. Namadhu MGR News Paper had issued a receipt to him regarding the deposit and the said receipt is in his house. DW.45 R. Selvaraj a supporter of AIADMK Party has stated that in the year 1994 he subscribed a deposit of Rs.15000/- to Namadhu MGR. He identified the application submitted by him as Ex.D.37 and has stated that he has been receiving five free copies of Namadhu MGR News Paper. In the cross-examination this witness answered that the Town Secretary of AIADMK Party filled up the form Ex.D.37. The contents of it were explained to him in Tamil. He handed over the application at Namakkal office of AIADMK Party. He was issued with a deposit receipt. DW.46 R. Rajkumar aged about 38 years as on 20.03.2013 has deposed that he is a member of AIADMK Party since 1992 and on 01.12.1994 he subscribed a deposit of Rs.15000/- vide application Ex.D.38 and is getting five free copies of Namadhu MGR News Paper daily. This witness also has answered that he paid the amount in cash and he was issued with a receipt. DW.47 K. Annamalai has stated that he is a building contractor and a member of AIADMK Party from 1980. On 7.9.94 he made a deposit of Rs.15000/- with Namadhu MGR News Paper vide application

slide 208:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 208 Ex.D.39. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he has studied up to P.U.C. and he knows reading English to some extent but has admitted that he does not know the terms and conditions typed in Ex.D.39. He has denied the suggestion that he is not getting free copies of Namadhu MGR News Paper. DW.48 P.V.Velliangiri deposed that he is a member of AIADMK Party since 1972. In the year 1991 he made a deposit of Rs.12000/- with Namadhu MGR vide the application as per Ex.D.40. In the cross-examination he has answered that the application form was filled up by his friend by name Venkatesh who explained the terms and conditions of Ex.D.40. This witness also states that a receipt was issued to him separately but he has not produced the receipt before the Court. DW.49 R. Eswaran is a M.Sc. in Mathematics. According to him he is a member of AIADMK Party since 1985 and held various posts in party at different levels. On 8.10.1993 he subscribed a deposit of Rs.15000/- vide his application Ex.D.41 and even now he is getting free copies of Namadhu MGR. In the cross- examination he answered that A-1 is the owner of Namadhu MGR News Paper but he does not know the name of the publisher of that News Paper. Namadhu MGR is the News Paper of AIADMK Party.

slide 209:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 209 DW.50 James Raja has deposed that he is a member of AIADMK Party since 1991. On 8.10.1994 he made a deposit of Rs.12000/- vide Ex.D.42 and he is getting four free copies of Namadhu MGR News Paper. In the cross-examination this witness answered that he handed over the application to the District Secretary of AIADMK Party Coimbatore. There is no endorsement on Ex.D.42 to the effect that the amount of Rs.12000/- was received from him but a separate receipt was issued to him in that regard and he has not produced that receipt before the Court. DW.51 K. Rajagopal has deposed about making a deposit of Rs.15000/- and has identified his application Ex.D.43. In the cross-examination it is elicited that newspaper Namadhu MGR is published by AIADMK Party. In Ex.D.43 the place and date are in one ink whereas the filled up portion in the application is in different ink. This witness has also stated that he was issued with a receipt. DW.52 N. Neducheliyan has stated that he deposited Rs.15000/- on 11.07.1992 and submitted the application as per Ex.D.44. According to this witness he came to know about the said scheme on 11.07.1992. DW.53 V. Vasu has stated that he deposited Rs.12000/- in the ear 1990 and submitted the

slide 210:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 210 application as per Ex.D.45 and he is getting four free copies of Namadhu MGR newspaper daily. DW.55 N. Swamynathan has deposed that in the year 1993 he subscribed Rs.18000/- and he is getting six copies of Namadhu MGR daily. He identified the application Ex.D.52. In the cross-examination this witness answered that he did not read any advertisement regarding the above deposit scheme in the newspaper. DW.56 M. Rajendran has stated that he subscribed Rs.12000/- and he is getting four free copies every day. Ex.D.53 is the application submitted by him. In the cross-examination he has answered that his qualification is B.A-BL and he is a practicing Advocate at Madurai. The application Ex.D.53 is filled up by his friend and the person who filled the application explained the terms and conditions of the deposit scheme to him before he signed it. The amount of Rs.12000/- was paid by him in cash and he was issued with a separate receipt. The endorsement to that effect was not made in Ex.D.53. DW.57-M. Tamil Shelvan deposed that in the year 1993 he deposited Rs.18000/- and submitted the application as per Ex.D.54. This witness is also a practicing Advocate at Madurai. According to him he

slide 211:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 211 himself filled the application form and he obtained the receipt from the Manager. DW.58 J. Sudhakaran has stated that he deposited Rs.18000/- on 30.10.1993 as per the application Ex.D.55. According to him his uncle filled the application as per his instructions and he paid the amount of Rs.18000/- in cash and obtained the receipt but has not produced the said receipt before the Court. DW.59 K.C. Murugesan has deposed that he deposited Rs.15000/- on 30.01.1992 as per Ex.D.56. He has studied up to 7 th std. in Tamil and he does not know reading and writing in English. He paid the amount in cash to AIADMK Party office bearer and he was issued with separate receipt. But there is no mention of it in Ex.D.56. DW.60 M. Vairamani has stated that on 01.08.1993 he subscribed under the scheme and deposited Rs.18000/- and submitted the application as per Ex.D.57. In the cross-examination he answered that he gave the amount to the Manager and he was issued with separate receipt. The receipt number is not mentioned in Ex.D.57. DW.62 M.S.Dorai Muthuraj has deposed that in the year 1991 he made a deposit of Rs.12000/- under

slide 212:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 212 the scheme and he himself filled the application Ex.D.59. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he came to know about the deposit scheme through his party workers. He paid the amount in cash to the representatives of Namadhu MGR who had come to Chennai but there is no endorsement in Ex.D.59 for having received the amount. DW.63 A-S.Arunachalam has stated that he submitted an application as per Ex.D.60 on 19.11.1994 and made a deposit of Rs.18000/- and since then he is getting six free copies of the newspaper. In the cross- examination he has answered that he handed over the amount at the office of Namadhu MGR newspaper in cash. But there is no endorsement on the application in this regard. DW.67 T.V. Malar Mannan has also stated that in the year 1993 he made deposit of Rs.18000/- under the above scheme and submitted the application as per Ex.D.58. In the cross-examination he answered that he paid the deposit amount to the representative of the Namadhu MGR newspaper. The said representative has not made any endorsement regarding the deposit of money on Ex.D.58. The amount was paid in cash. 50.5 In order to appreciate the evidence of these witnesses it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the orders of the Commissioner of the Income Tax at

slide 213:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 213 Ex.D.231 wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax has made reference to the case set up by the accused before the Assessing Authority. The relevant portion of the said order at para 7.0 reads as follows “Before the Assessing Officer the learned counsel for the appellant explained the Scheme Deposit as under M/s Jaya Publications had collected deposits under a scheme from a number of persons spread out in Tamil Nadu. The scheme envisages that the deposits are interest free and in lieu of interest a specified number of free copies of the daily magazine “M/s Namadhu MGR” published by the assessee will be supplied in the name of the depositors to AIADMK headquarters for the benefit of party cadres. The deposit is withdrawable after giving 15 days notice in writing. . . . . The scheme deposit was formulated in 1990 to boost the circulation. Under the scheme interest free deposits in multiple of Rs. 3000/- are to be deposited with the assessee which is repayable in demand to the deposit holder. The scheme deposit does not require any separate accounts.” 7.1 The Assessing Officer called upon the appellant to adduce evidence in support of the

slide 214:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 214 claim of Rs. 1354000/- towards scheme deposit. He also called upon the appellant to clarify as to how the original claim of Rs. 1087067/- was revised to Rs. 1354000/-. He required the appellant to produce the primary records such as application forms of the members/ subscribers to the scheme counter- foils of the deposit receipts counter-foils of the receipts for collection of deposits the collection register and cash book. According to him the appellant failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate its claim. He therefore issued a pre-assessment notice proposing to disallow the entire claim of scheme deposit. The appellant’s counsel responded by filing 3 letters dt. 3.3.2001 19.3.2001 and 23.3.2001 enclosing letters from 417 subscribers confirming the deposits. Thereafter the Assessing Officer proceeded to verify the appellant’s claim with reference to the impounded cash books 2 volumes of M/s Namadhu MGR. According to him the creditors found in the cash book of M/s Namadhu MGR were nothing but sales and advertisement collection of the daily news paper titled ‘Namadhu MGR’. He also found that there was no mention about the scheme deposit collection of Rs. 1087067/- original claim in the impounded books. He accordingly

slide 215:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 215 concluded that the entire claim relating to the scheme deposit was an ‘after-thought’ and proceeded to disallow the entire claim of Rs. 1354000/- by recording the following reasons i The original claim towards scheme deposit was Rs. 1087067/- whereas during the course of reassessment proceedings the claim was revised at Rs. 1354000/-. The appellant could not furnish any satisfactory explanation for revising the claim at Rs. 1354000/- ii The conspicuous absence of any reference to the scheme deposit in the impounded books meant that the scheme was an ‘after-thought’ iiiThe original application forms from the subscribers to the scheme deposit were not produced 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings before me the learned counsel submitted that there were changes in the appointment of the authorized representatives. Till February 1998 M/s Rajasekar Co. CAs were the appointed Auditors for the appellant. Thereafter M/s Shanmugam Muthu CAs were appointed Auditors till they were replaced by M/s S. Venkatram Co. CAs. Because of these frequent changes in the appointment of Auditors the correct data on this issue could not be

slide 216:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 216 collected and therefore this issue could not be represented properly in March 1998 i.e. at the time of original assessment proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has since reconciled the list of members of the scheme as on 31.1.1991 which consisted of 91 members from whom an aggregate amount of Rs. 1354000/- were collected. The complete details and addresses of these 91 members were already stated to have been filed before the Assessing Officer during the re-assessment proceedings. As regards non- mentioning of the scheme deposit in the impounded books of accounts the learned counsel contended that the impounded books on the basis of which the Assessing Officer concluded this issue consisted only of petty cash books of M/s Jaya Publications and M/s Namadhu MGR whereas the other records like bank book which actually reflected the transactions of scheme deposit were not impounded. Thus in his viewthe impounded books in question were incomplete and consequently the conclusion drawn on the set of incomplete books would not be correct. However during the re-assessment proceedings the appellant had produced the complete books of accounts as is evident from the findings

slide 217:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 217 recorded by the Assessing officer himself on page 20 of the assessment order the relevant portion of which reads thus – “In the balance sheet filed the amount of scheme deposit collected was claimed to be Rs. 1354000/-. From the verification of the computerized bank books submitted it is seen that the credits representing alleged scheme deposit collection aggregate to Rs. 1311200/- only. No explanation was given for the difference . . . . ” As regards non-production of the application forms the learned counsel submitted that the application forms counter-foils etc. kept in a cardboard box in Tata Sumo vehicle parked in a hotel was found missing and a complaint was lodged with the police in this connection. He further submitted that since the original applications were lost he produced photostat copies of the same before the Assessing officer. The learned counsel further contended that the Assessing officer had thoroughly investigated the ‘scheme deposit’ while finalizing the assessments for the assessment years 1994-95 1996-97 and 1997-98 and accepted the ‘scheme’ though certain disallowances were made for the reasons stated therein”.underlining supplied.

slide 218:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 218 50.6 From the above narration of facts it can be gathered that initially A-1 and A-2 did not produce any documents before the assessing officer relating to the above scheme. Even the cash books 2 volumes of Namadhu MGR which were impounded by the I.T.Authorities did not contain any refereance to the scheme deposit. The events narrated in the above order go to show that for the first time A-1 and A-2 introduced the story of scheme deposit in 1998 in the returns filed for the A/Y in the profit and loss account statement. It is only during the course of the appellate proceedings the auditor contesting the claim produced a computerized bank extract prepared by himself in proof of the deposits. 50.7 Be that it may accused have now produced before this Court the original applications said to have been submitted by nearly 9000 subscribers in 19 volumes and have examined as many as 31 witnesses in proof of the said application forms but curiously before the Income Tax Authorities even as late as in 2001 the accused appear to have given explanation for non- production of the application forms counter-foils of receipts etc. on the ground that the original application forms and the counter foils were kept in Tata Sumo vehicle parked in front of a hotel and was found missing and the complaint was lodged in this regard. The copy of the complaint is not forthcoming. The Income Tax

slide 219:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 219 Authority has believed this explanation and has accepted the version of A-1. But surprisingly the accused themselves have got the original application forms summoned from the office of the Income Tax Department in the year 2012. 50.8 In the above context it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW.88 the Chartered Accountant of A-1. According to this witness he has been filing the returns for A-1 and 2 from 1996-98. In para 46 this witness has stated that he has seen the deed of partnership pertaining to M/s. Jaya Publication. The said firm has been registered under the partnership act. A-1 and A-2 became the partners of M/s. Jaya Publication in the year 1990 i.e. on 04.05.1990. A-1 executed the power of attorney dt. 27.05.1992 in favour of A-2 for looking after the business of M/s. Jaya Publication on her behalf. The main business of M/s. Jaya Publication was job printing and also the publication of Namadhu MGR newspaper. Namadhu MGR newspaper has been registered with Press Trust of India. It is not a banking company. It does not do non-banking business. 50.9 With regard to Ex.D.207 this witness admitted that there is no mention in Ex.D.217 that representatives of M/s. Jaya Publication produced the books of accounts before the special auditors. There is

slide 220:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 220 an observation in the said order that during the said special audit to show receipts through cash and bank no supporting documents were made available. This witness has given an explanation that on account of the seizure of the documents of M/s. Jaya Publication by D.V. A.C. those documents could not be made available before the special auditors. He has also admitted that in Ex.D.217 there is an observation that all payments made through cash are not supported by any outside document or evidence and that they are only supported by internally made vouchers with payee’s signature. Further it is elicited from DW.88 the returns as per Ex.D.218 to D.220 are all filed on 06.11.1998 whereas the returns as per Ex.D.221 and D.222 were filed on 17.03.1998 respectively. The returns as per Ex.D.218 to D.222 were all prepared by DW.88. He has also admitted that Ex.D.224 to D.226 do not bear the date seal and signature of the Income Tax Department. Ex.D.228 the list of subscribers does not bear the seal and signature of M/s. Jaya Publication. It does not indicate the date on which the said list was prepared. The original subscription applications contained in Ex.D.2301 to Ex.D.23017 volumes were not produced before the Income Tax Authorities but their xerox copies were produced. This witness has explained in the cross-examination that the originals were not produced for the reason that they were taken away by D.V. A.C. When the observations

slide 221:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 221 made in para 72 of Ex.D.231 were put to the witness and he was questioned as to whether M/s. Jaya Publication and Namadhu MGR newspaper are of different entity DW.88 answered that Namadhu MGR is a newspaper published by Jaya Publications. The further question put to the witness reads as follows: “Question: At page 21 of the order Ex.D.223 with reference to the deposits mentioned in the said page the explanation by way of reply given by M/s. Jaya Publications to the Assessing Officer has been extracted as under: The previous authorized representative had explained that these are all transfer from current account of M/s. Namadhu MGR as the Assessee has been dealing with M/s. Jaya Publications and M/s. Namadhu MGR as two separate divisions. Scheme deposits are collected by M/s. Namadhu MGR. Perhaps so the Assessee’s clerk is not well verse with in accountancy was not knowing the account to which they are to be credited whether Namadhu MGR or M/s. Jaya Publication he might have posted to UPL Account.” In view of the above reply given by the Assessee how do you say that Namadhu MGR news paper was only published and circulated by M/s. Jaya Publications Ans: According to me M/s. Jaya Publications had income from the sale of Namadhu MGR news paper income from agricultural operations and rental income from properties owned by them. Thereby the income was dealt under 3 divisions.”

slide 222:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 222 50.10 It is further elicited that as per the Ex.D.231 the Assessing Officer finalized the original assessment proceedings u/Sec. 144 of Income Tax Act. On 03.03.1998 on the basis of the material available on record and the Commissioner of Income Tax Act Appeals set aside the assessment order on 15.09.1998 and only thereafter M/s. Jaya Publication filed its return of income on 06.11.1998. He has also admitted that the Registrar of Newspaper for India will issue a certificate regarding the circulation of newspapers. He has also admitted that when the assessing officer issued notice requiring M/s. Jaya Publication to produce the original applications along with the counter foils of deposit receipts and the concerned registers M/s. Jaya Publication did not produce those documents but they filed only copies and those copies were accepted by the Assessing Officer. 50.11 Regarding the maintenance of the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publication the evidence of PW.201 C.K.R.K. Vidyasagar an officer of Canara Bank Mylapore Branch is relevant to be considered. In his examination-in-chief from page 59 onwards this witness has deposed that the Current A/c. No. 2047 of Jaya Publication was transferred from Kellys Branch Chennai to their Canara Bank at Mylapore Branch on 26.09.1990. In the application the address of the organization was mentioned as No.36 Poes Garden

slide 223:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 223 Chennai-86. The copy of the application sent to their bank from Kellys Branch viz. Ex.P.1900 discloses that the account opening application was signed by A-1 and A-2 and one Dinakara and Tivakaran the partners. While transferring the account the bank obtained a fresh letter from the partners which is signed by A-1 and A-2 as per Ex.P.1901. The statement of the bank account ledger of Jaya Publication is marked through this witness as Ex.P.1903. This statement pertains to the period from 01.07.1991 to 11.09.1996. As per this statement as on 1.7.1991 the balance in his Current A/c. was Rs.783860.97 and the balance as on 30.04.1996 was Rs.2079885.12. This witness has deposed in detail about the remittance made to this account on several occasions exceeding Rs.50000/- at a time and has further deposed that from Namadhu MGR Current A/c. No. 1952 various amounts were transferred on different dates to this account No.2047 and from the Current A/c. No. 2018 held by A-1 a sum of Rs.50000/- was transferred to this account on 5.5.1993 and from the A/c. No.2196 of A-2 a sum of Rs.14250/- was transferred to this account on 4.5.1993. Likewise from the account of Sasi Enterprises Current A/c. No. 2061 a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on 29.10.1993 Rs. 1 lakh on 5.11.93 were transferred to Current A/c. No. 2047. A sum of Rs.6 lakhs was transferred from Vinod Video A/c. No.2133 to the account of Jaya Publication on 14.11.1994 and further

slide 224:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 224 a sum of 10 lakhs from another account on 27.5.1992 a sum of Rs.10 lakhs Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh on 29.05.1992 Rs.1 lakh on 1.6.92 Rs.361759.90 on 10.11.92 Rs.1.2 lakh on 5.2.93 Rs. 129448.10 on 4.6.1993 Rs.245242.50 on 7.10.1993 were credited to Current A/c. No. 2047. 50.12 The interest from fixed deposit amount was also credited to this account No.2047 on different dates and PW.201 has given the details thereof in page No.62 of his deposition. This witness has also spoken about the withdrawal of the amount from A/c. No.2047 on various dates and has also stated that on 5.8.97 21.10.92 21.3.95 and 17.7.95 and 13.3.96 a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs 3 lakhs 5 lakhs 4 lakhs 2 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs have been deducted through cheques in the name of A-1. Further this witness has stated that on 30.3.1995 from the A/c. No.2047 a sum of Rs.75 lakhs was issued through a cheque in the name of Canfin Homes and was deducted. This witness has also furnished the date of transfer of amounts to the S.B. A/c. of A-2 S.B. A/c. No.23218 and Current A/c. No. 2196 and also the details of the amounts given through cheques for purchasing demand drafts are also narrated in detail in his evidence. What is significant to be noted is that no where in his evidence PW. 201 has stated that a sum of Rs.141035000/- collected by way of the deposit under the alleged scheme by A-1 and A-2 have

slide 225:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 225 been credited to the bank account of Jaya Publications. More importantly there is not even a remote suggestion to this witness that the deposit amount is credited to the bank account of Jaya Publication. In the above context it is also pertinent to note that PW.201 has stated in his evidence that A-2 N.Sasikala started a new A/c. No. 2277 as Proprietor of a Company by name Metal King Company. In this account amount was remitted by cash on different dates. Apart from the said remittance in cash different amounts were transferred to this account on different dates. The details of which are stated in page 79 of his examination-in-chief. It is important to note that large sum of money is seen to have been transferred from the Current A/c. No. 1952 of Namadhu MGR to the account of Metal King Company on different dates falsifying the contention of the accused that the deposits collected from the subscribers of Namadhu MGR was utilized for purchase of immovable properties. These transactions on the other hand fortify the case of the prosecution that the unaccounted and undisclosed funds credited into the accounts of Namadhu MGR were diverted to the accounts of Jaya Publications Sasi Enterprises Vinod Video Metal King and various other firms and companies wherein A-2 to A-4 were either the Directors or the Partners at the relevant point of time.

slide 226:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 226 50.13 The transaction spoken by PW.201 are inconsistent with the case pleaded by A-1 and A-2 on the contrary these transactions reinforce / strengthen the case of the prosecution that the bank accounts maintained by M/s. Jaya Publication does not reflect the credit of the deposits of Rs.141035000/- as claimed by A-1 and A-2. 50.14 What emerges from the above evidence is that the story of the scheme deposit canvassed by the accused has taken birth only after filing of the Charge Sheet. There is not even a stray evidence to suggest that the said deposit scheme was in circulation any time before the registration of the criminal case against the accused. There is nothing in the entire evidence indicating that the accused had declared the said deposit before the Income Tax Authorities any time during the check period. As already narrated above the existence of the said scheme was brought to light only in the year 1998 in the returns filed on behalf of the said firms. It is only after filing of the Charge Sheet the accused appear to have master minded the above defence with the active connivance of DW.88 who claims to be the Chartered Accountant of the accused with a view to create evidence in a bid to offer an explanation for the huge amount of unaccounted money found with A-1. But unfortunately the circumstances brought out in the cross-examination of DW.88

slide 227:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 227 completely exposes the falsity of the defence. First and foremost it is important to note that DW.88 is totally incompetent to speak about the aforesaid scheme. According to him he was one of the partners of M/s. Nataraj Associates from 1998-2004. Though he claims that he was attached to M/s. S. Venkatram and Company and in that capacity he has handled the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publications and M/s. Sasi Enterprises yet in para 44 of the cross-examination he has unequivocally admitted that until 1998 neither M/s. Jaya Publications nor M/s. Sasi Enterprises had filed any returns in respect of the financial affairs of the said firms. In Ex.D.231 in unmistakable terms it is noted that till February 1998 M/s. Rajsekhar Co. C.A.s were appointed as auditors of Jaya Publications. Under the said circumstances the claim of DW.88 that he had handled the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publications and M/s. Sasi Enterprises falls to the ground. 50.15 As already narrated above the accused have not produced any material before the Court to show that Dr. Namadhu MGR had floated the deposit scheme inviting subscription from the general public. As a matter of fact even a copy of the said Namadhu MGR of the relevant period is not produced before the Court which would have helped the Court in ascertaining whether the said News Paper is merely an official news letter of AIADMK Party or is meant for

slide 228:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 228 general consumption and is sold for Re.1/- as contended by the accused. It is a cardinal rule of evidence that best evidence in the possession of the party should be produced before the Court. In the instant case DW.88 has admitted that Namadhu MGR News Paper is registered with the Registrar of Press Trust of India and it has circulation crossing more than 70000/-. If so the certificate of registration and the Register of the subscribers would have been the best piece of evidence to support the claim of the accused. 50.16 In appreciating the claim/ defence of the accused it is pertinent to note that M/s. Jaya Publication was an assessee of Income Tax with Central Circle II 2 Chennai from the year 1991. According to DW.88 earlier to that the said firm was an Income Tax assessee with different circle of Income Tax. It is admitted by DW.88 that the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1991-92 to 1993-94 were filed by M/s.Jaya Publications only on 06.11.1998 and the Income Tax returns for the assessment years 1994-95 96-97 on 17.03.1999. Undisputedly much before the said date the F.I.R. was registered against A-1 and the Charge Sheet came to be filed against the accused as back as on 04.10.1997. It is the evidence of DW.88 that when the assessee was brought into Central Circle-II 2 Chennai the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax appointed one P.B. Vijayaraghavan the Chartered

slide 229:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 229 Accountant as the Special Auditor for auditing the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publications for the assessment year 1994-95. In the chief-examination DW.88 has stated thus: “During the said audit I had personally produced the books of accounts of the assessee before the said special auditors. The said special auditors gave report in prescribed forms on 25.09.1998. After seeing the said report I say that the cash book bank book journal register stock register general ledger records for agricultural income viz. cash book journal register general ledger were produced before the said auditors and they were verified by them. In the records produced by Income Tax Authorities before this Court in Volume No.8 at pages 87 to 111 the special auditors report dt. 25.09.1998 is found. It is Ex.D.217. The said special auditors have certified in form No.6-B that proper books of accounts have been kept by the assessee. In the said special audit report there is mention about the receipt of agricultural income by the assessee.” 50.17 As against the above evidence the consistent plea taken up by the accused before this Court is that all the documents pertaining to Jaya Publications including the accounts books registers etc. were seized by the D.V. A.C. and hence they were handicapped in putting forward their defence. But DW.88 had the temerity to depose on oath contrary to the stand of the accused that during the special audit he personally produced the books of accounts. He is the star witness of the accused but has turned out to

slide 230:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 230 be an utter lier and false witness who has no regard for truth. He has changed his version at every stage of the proceedings. Even otherwise the circumstances brought out in the evidence undoubtedly point out that he is propped up only to create a false defence for the accused. 50.18 In this context it may be relevant to note that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court A-2 filed an application u/Sec. 207 and 2432 Cr.P.C. R/w. Rule 2 Chapter XIV of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice seeking certified copies of the documents viz. the Day Book Attendance Register Journal Register Daily Collections Advertisement Registers In and Out Register Postal Fee Paid and Statement of accounts file relating to account of Namadhu MGR which were stated to have been seized and also the Bank documents which were stated to have been seized under search list No.129126 to 425868 knowing fully well that those documents were not in existence at all. In the said petition it is unequivocally stated that the documents seized during the course of investigation have not been marked by the prosecution apparently as they would not support the case of the accused. Similarly A-1 had also filed I.A.No.722 u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to peruse the records forwarded by the prosecution which were unmarked during the course of leading evidence by the

slide 231:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 231 prosecution. In the said application it is specifically stated that the documents lying in the Court were forwarded u/Sec. 1735 of the Code and the A-1 is entitled to perusal of those documents. 50.19 On hearing the parties the above applications were dismissed by my Predecessor. The accused carried the matter before the Honble High Court in Crl. Petition No.1840/2012 and the Honble High Court also having dismissed the said petition the accused approached Honble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No. 1497 and 1498 of 2012 and by order dt. 28.09.2012 permitted the inspection of the documents by the accused. These facts clearly establish that the documents relating to Namadhu MGR were seized during the investigation and were produced before the Court. But DW.88 has gone to the extent of stating on oath that he personally produced all the above documents and the account books before the Special Auditor. 50.20 When the witness was confronted with the observation made in Ex.D.217 that there is no mention therein about the production of the accounts before the Special Auditor DW.88 answered that “On account of seizure of the documents of M/s. Jaya Publication by D.V. A.C. those documents could not be made available before the Special Auditors.” This evidence clinchingly establishes that when the Special Auditors

slide 232:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 232 were appointed the accused did not produce any documents relating to the financial affairs of M/s. Jaya Publications. I have already reproduced the relevant portion of Ex.P.231 wherein the Commissioner has also reiterated the fact that the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to produce the primary documents such as the application forms of the members counter foils of the deposit receipt and the collection of register and cash book. But the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate the claim. All these circumstances go to show that neither before the Special Auditors nor before the Assessing Officer the primary documents were produced by the assessee. But surprisingly the accused have got summoned nine volumes of original applications from the Income Tax Department without explaining as to how these original applications came to be produced before the Income Tax Department. 50.21 Though the learned Counsel for the accused has strenuously presented an argument based on the above applications - Ex.D.230 series and the oral testimony of 31 witnesses the very fact that the original applications came to be produced before the Court under misterious circumstances the testimony of the witnesses based on these applications is susceptible to doubt. Even otherwise a bare perusal of these applications indicate that these applications have been created just before the examination of the witnesses

slide 233:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 233 some where in 2012 and manouvred to be produced before the Court. Even the naked eye of a common ordinary man could find out that the entire bulk of applications produced before this Court are nothing but sheets of paper kept in sunlight or exposed to smoke so as to give them an appearance of old used papers but the ink used on the said sheets for writing the names and other details appears to be so fresh and recent belying the very claim of the accused that the said applications were obtained during the check period. For ex. at page No. 15482 and 15484 of the records the papers are not evenly turned brown and in one of the sheets the ink is smudged on the rear side of the paper making it evident that the writing therein is made recently after using the above trick. Likewise at page 15312 and 15314 the portion of the signature extending on the white patches of the paper looks fresh and recent whereas the writing on the other portions thereof looks different. As already brought out from the mouth of the witnesses the receipt numbers are not mentioned in any of these application forms nor have the accused produced the counter-foils of the receipts to corroborate the testimony of the above witnesses that on submission of the said applications they were enrolled as the subscribers of the newsletter. The application forms also do not contain any term to the effect that the subscribers would be supplied with particular number of copies of Namadhu MGR. Except the interested

slide 234:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 234 testimony of the witness nothing is produced before the Court to show that the firm had agreed for supply free copy of newspaper for multiples of Rs.3000/- as sought to be contended. All these circumstances therefore create suspicion about the genuineness of the claim put forth by the accused. 50.22 It is also pertinent to note that if original applications were available with the firm from the commencement of the scheme there is no reason for the auditor to offer an explanation that the originals were lost. Going by the statement made by the witnesses that in terms of the aforesaid scheme they were entitled to the free supply of Namadhu MGR the firm ought to have maintained Register of the subscribers and also the records for having dispatched the copies to the subscribers either by post or through some other mode and all these documents could have been produced before the Income Tax Authorities at the earlest point of time. Unfortunately till date neither the Register of subscribers or any other material in proof of the supply of the copies to the subscribers is produced before this Court. The evidence of the witnesses that they have been receiving 5 to 6 copies of the newsletter appears to be incredulous. It is not known why a reader requires 5 or 6 copies of the same newsletter. It also does not stand to reason as to why a person would deposit Rs.12000/- to Rs.18000/- in

slide 235:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 235 respect of a newsletter the cost of which was only Re.1/- when the deposit alleged to have been made by them would have fetched three times of the cost of the said news letter. 50.23 Finally in appreciating the evidence of the above witnesses it should also be noted that the entire bunch of witnesses examined by the accused in support of the alleged claim are the ardent party workers easily procurable witnesses who are vitally interested in the outcome of the trial and therefore their evidence is bound to be interested and partisan. Even otherwise the circumstances discussed above give a clear indication that these witnesses are tutored and interested witnesses. There is absolutely no corroboration to the oral testimony of these witnesses. Therefore on over all consideration of all the above facts and circumstances and in view of my definite finding that the application forms relied on by the accused at Ex.D.230 series are got up and fabricated to bolster up the false claim laid by the accused I am not inclined to accept the claim set up by the accused in this regard. 51. AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF JAYA PUBLICATIONS : Referring to page 12 para 15 of the deposition of DW.88 and the exhibits marked through this witness as

slide 236:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 236 per Ex.D.231 to D.234 and the balance sheet attached to Ex.D.218 to 226 the learned Counsel for A-1 would submit that during the check period A-1 and A-2 as partners of Jaya Publications derived agricultural income totaling to Rs.6045665/- as per the break up figure given in the above chart and therefore the said amount is also required to be taken into account while computing the resources available with the A-1 for acquisition of the properties and the pecuniary resources. 51.1 The evidence of DW.88 in this regard in para 15 reads as under: “In the year 1990 M/s. Jaya Publications took 65.57 acres of agricultural land belonging to one TSR Vasudevan Poyapakkam and Maharajapuram in Villupuram District on lease basis. The agricultural operations were being carried out by Jaya Publications in the name of Sapthagiri Farms. The said Jaya Publications disclosed the receipt of agricultural income in the returns filed before the I.T. Authorities. The I.T. Authorities enquired the said Vasudevan and thereafter they passed assessment orders accepting the claim made by the assessee. As I remember two lease agreements had been executed by Vasudevan in favour of Jaya Publications. In the documents produced before Court by the Income Tax Department I see certified true copy of the certificate dt. 12.11.2001 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Registration Chennai confirming the sale of stamp papers bearing numbers 4163 to 4166 and 4169 and 4170 dt. 5.7.1988 in favour of

slide 237:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 237 Vasudevan. Said certificate is Ex.D.235 available in Volume No.7 of the documents produced by the Income Tax Department. The said agricultural income has been shown in the profit and loss account of Jaya Publications every year. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also accepted the above claim made by Jaya Publications regarding agricultural income.” 51.2 Ex.D.231 to D.233 are the copies of the orders passed the by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Central-II Chennai dt. 07.03.2002 and Ex.D.234 is the copy of the order passed by the Income Tax Appeals Tribunal which are already referred above. It is stated in para 10.2 of Ex.D.231 as under “In the written submissions filed the learned Counsel for the appellant has enclosed copies of the following documents: a. Certificate dt. 25.10.2001 by the Tahasildar Villupuram Taluk stating that Smt. N.Sasikala Partner of the Appellant Firm was the lessee of the lands admeasuring 35.222 acres during the period 1990 to 1998 and was cultivating guava trees bamboo plantations and coconut trees. b. Affidavit dt. 10.11.2001 by Shri. T.S.R. Vasudevan confirming the lease and licence agreements with M/s. Jaya Publications from 1990 onwards till 1997-98. c. Certificate dt. 12.11.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration Chennai enclosing the Photostat copy of page 12 of the Sale Register submitted by stamp vendor Shri. S. Radhakrishnan and confirming the sale of stamp paper dt. 5.7.1988 to Shri. T.S.R.Vasudevan.

slide 238:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 238 d. Letter dt. nil from Shri. S. Radhakrishnan stamp vendor confirming the sale of stamp papers bearing serial numbers 4163 to 4166 4169 and 4170 dt. 5.7.1988 sold to Shri Vasudevan of Villupuram. 51.3 These documents appear to have been taken into consideration and the Commissioner of Income Tax has held in the above order that the appellant viz. M/s. Jaya Publications is treated as having received agricultural income of Rs.801961/- for the A/Y.1991- 92. The agricultural income for the A/Y. 1992-93 and 93-94 are also seen to have been determined on the basis of the very same documents and accordingly in Ex.D.232 M/s. Jaya Publication is treated as having received agricultural income of Rs.931000/- for the A/Y. 1992-93 and under Ex.D.233 the firm has treated as having received agricultural income of Rs.743500/- for the A/Y. 1993-94 under Ex.D.234. Ex.D.218 219 220 221 222 are the copies of the acknowledgments for having submitted the returns by M/s. Jaya Publications for the A/Y. 1992-93 to 1995-96 respectively. It needs to be noted that Ex.D.218 219 220 were filed on 06.11.1998 and Ex.D.221 and D.222 were filed on 17.03.1998. In the above acknowledgments the net agricultural income for the A/Y. 1991 to 92 to 1994-95 is shown as Rs.454500/- Rs.931000/- Rs.743500/- and Rs.2168500/- respectively and for A/Y. 1995-96 the agricultural income is shown as NIL.

slide 239:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 239 51.4 As could be seen from the material produced before the Court the claim of agricultural income is seen to have been put forward more than two years after registration of the case against the accused. From the facts narrated in the assessment orders it is clear that A-1 and A-2 did not enclose any documents along with the returns. In the Appellate order relied on by the accused at Ex.D.231 to D.233 it is specifically noted that for the A/Y. 1991-92 to 1994-95 the appellant had not filed its return of income within the statutory time allowed u/Sec. 139 of I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/Sec. 148 on 14.06.1995 requiring the A-1 and 2 to file the return. However A-1 and A-2 did not comply with the terms of the notice. Therefore the Assessing Officer finalized the original assessment proceedings u/Sec. 144 of the Income Tax Act on 3.3.1998 on the basis of the material available on record. When the matter was taken up in appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax Act vide his order dt. 15.09.1998 set aside the assessment. Thereafter the appellant filed its return of income on 06.11.1998 declaring loss for the A/Y. 1991-92 and an income of Rs.209890/- for the A/Y. 1992-93 and Rs.111830/- for the A/Y. 1993-94 including the agricultural income as stated above. The facts narrated in Ex.D.231 to D.233 make it amply clear that the certificates relied on by the Commissioner were obtained by the assessee only in the year 2001 and based on the said documents

slide 240:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 240 the Appellate Authority has determined the agricultural income of M/s. Jaya Publication for the aforesaid assessment years. 51.5 Though the learned Counsel for the accused has canvassed his arguments on the supposition that the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal furnish a conclusive basis for the accused to substantiate their claim yet the fact remains that these assessment orders came to be passed only after submitting the Charge Sheet against the accused. Moreover as discussed above the Commissioner of Income Tax Act determined the agricultural income only on the basis of the documents which have come into existence in the year 2001. Even though the accused have put forward a plea that M/s.Jaya Publications was undertaking agricultural operations in 65.57 acres land belonging to T.S.R. Vasudevan on lease basis the accused have not produced the copy of the said lease deed before the Court nor have they examined T.S.R. Vasudevan in proof of the lease of the land. In the copy of the returns produced by the accused as per Ex.D.218 to D.222 in column No.14 relating to the nature of business / profession of the assessee it is stated as “Printing Publishing and Dealing in Properties”. Thereforem there is no basis to hold that the firm was engaged in agricultural activities as contended by the accused.

slide 241:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 241 51.6 In proof of the alleged lease of the land the accused have relied on the certificate issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Registration confirming the sale of stamp paper in favour of Vasudevan. Though the said certificate is marked as Ex.D.235 the said certificate does not establish either the grant of lease terms and conditions thereof the period for which the lease has been taken by the accused. In the absence of any documents to show that T.S.R. Vasudevan is the owner of agricultural land measuring 65.57 acres of land solely on the basis of certificate of Inspector General of Registration it cannot be concluded that he had leased out the lands to M/s. Jaya Publications. No independent witness is examined to prove the factum of cultivation and the nature of crops grown in the land and yield fetched therefrom. When the accused have not produced any acceptable evidence to show that M/s.Jaya Publication had taken the agricultural land on lease and have been carrying on agricultural operations merely on the basis of the Income Tax Returns brought about after filing of the Charge Sheet the claim cannot be accepted. 52. SALES JOB WORK: In respect of the claim of the A-1 and A-2 that out of the sales and job work carried out by Jaya Publications during the check period a total sum of Rs.41996605.60 was collected the learned Counsel

slide 242:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 242 for the accused has again referred to the Profit and Loss Account Statement for the year ended 31.03.1992 said to have been enclosed to Ex.D.219 D.220 and D.221. The said Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.1994 31.3.1995 and 31.03.1996 are marked as Ex.D.224 D.225 and D.226. It is evident that the said Profit and Loss Account statement was not enclosed to the returns filed by the accused in Form No.2 under Rule 121bi of Income Tax Rules 1962 but were produced before the Income Tax Authorities subsequent to the year 1999. Ex.D.226 D.225 D.224 do not bear the signature of either A-1 or A-2. It does not bear the date. These documents are certified as true copies by one R. Vaidyanathan partner of S. Venkatram and Company as such they are not admissible in law. They are not the certified copies maintained in the office of the Income Tax Department. The Xerox copy produced before this court bear the imprint of the signature of G. Natarajan the Chartered Accountant who is not examined before the Court. Therefore no reliance could be placed on these Profit and Loss Account statement. Apart from the said Profit and Loss Account statement the accused have not produced any material to show that during the relevant year Jaya Publications had carried out any sales or job work as stated in the aforesaid statement of Profit and Loss Account. The returns filed for the A/Y. 1991-92 1992-93 as per Ex.D.218 and D.219 disclose that the Profit and Loss

slide 243:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 243 Account statement were not the part of the said returns. For the A/Y.1991-92 a loss of Rs.79100/- is shown in the business. In the returns filed for the A/Y. 1992-93 the total income from business is shown as Rs.209885/-. Making it evident that Ex.D.224 D.225 and D.226 are got up only for the purpose of this case. The Profit and Loss Account statement relied on by the accused cannot be reconciled with the contents of Ex.D.219 and D.220. Thus even by the standard of preponderance of probability the accused have failed to substantiate the alleged claim. 53. RENTAL INCOME FROM PROPERTIES: Under this head A-1 and A-2 have claimed rental income from the properties at Rs.4530642/-. The learned Counsel for the accused has referred to the evidence of PW.102 examined by the prosecution. I have already considered the evidence of this witness while dealing with item Nos. 53 and 54 of the annexure and have held that the rental income calculated by the prosecuting agency does not call for any interference. For the same reason this claim is rejected. 53.1 In addition to the above rental income the accused have also claimed a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards rental income from the hire of machinery. In order to substantiate this claim the learned Counsel has relied on the statement of Profit and Loss Account for the year

slide 244:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 244 ended 31.03.1995 and 1996 marked at Ex.D.226 and D.225 but for the reasons already discussed above no claim could be allowed on the basis of the said Profit and Loss Account which is proved to be got up and fabricated document. Hence the claim is negatived. 54. INTEREST INCOME: The objection raised by the accused with regard to interest income is already considered while dealing with item Nos.35 to 44 49 and 50. The interest earned by the respective accused is duly taken into account and except the profit and loss account statement accused have not produced any reliable material in proof of the enhanced interest claimed by them. 55. SASI ENTERPRISES: It is not in dispute that A-1 and A-2 are the partners of Sasi Enterprises a Partnership Firm which owns i Shop No.14 Ground Floor at No.602 Anna Salai Chennai ii Door No.14 Khadar Nawaz Khan Road Nungambukkam item Nos.8 9 of Annexure-I iii Vacant site at Blake H.D.Road Tanjaore iv Vacant site in Ward No.6 in Mahar Nombu Chavadi in item No.13 and 14 at Annexure-I v Dry land measuring 3.23 acres at S.No.402-2 of Sundarakottai Village Mannargudi Taluk Tanjore district item No.16 of Annexure-I. According to the accused during the

slide 245:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 245 check period M/s. Sasi Enterprises earned a total income of Rs.9592776/- as detailed in the chart reproduced here below: SASI ENTERPRISES PARTICULA RS FY 90-91 FY 91-92 FY92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 TOTAL ASSESSME NT YEAR AY 91-92 AY 92-93 AY 93- 94 AY 94-95 AY 95-96 AY 96-97 DW REFEREN CE DW. 88 DW.88 DW.88 DW.88 DW.88 DW.88 EXHIBIT REFEREN CE Ex.D.262 263 264 265 Ex.D.26 6 267 Ex.D.268 269 Ex.D.270 271 Ex.D.272 273 274 275 Amou nt Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. Amount Rs. SASI ENTERPRIS ES INCOME Net profit or loss from business - -67385 -90890 194806 44895 - 81426 Sale of scrap - -1020000 -600000 1620000 Agrl Income - 540700 216850 65000 70000 80000 972550 Rental income Note 1 - 95000148600 141400 169600 706200 1260800 Amt recovered from Loan- Nagammal - 450000 370000 - - - 820.000 Amt recovered from Loan –MR - 406000 190000 - - - 596000 Amt recovered from Loan – Subramani am - 215000 60000 - - - 275000 Adv. received for sale of property - - - -2380000 - 2380000 Amt received from loan parties - - - - -1200000 1200000 Rental adv. - - - - - 387000 387000

slide 246:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 246 received TOTAL SOURCE - 1639315 894560 1421206 2664495 2973200 9592776 55.1 It is the submission of the learned Counsel that by way of rental income the firm Sasi Enterprises has received an aggregate of Rs.1260800/- but the D.V. A.C. has taken into account only Rs.615900/- vide item Nos.59 61 and 62 of Annex-III and hence a difference of Rs.664900/- is to be included under this head. 55.2 In order to prove the above source by way of income earned by Sasi Enterprises during the check period the learned Counsel has heavily relied on the oral testimony of DW.88 who has deposed that while he was working in M/s. Nataraj Associates and Venkatram and Company he had inspected and audited the account of M/s. Sasi Enterprises. A-1 and A-2 are the partners of the said firm. The firm had engaged in the business of providing FAX Services STD services Zerox services printing of building plans. The firm was assessed to Income Tax by Income Tax Central Circle-II 2 Chennai. According to this witness during the said accounting year the firm had leased shops bearing No.9 and 20 in Khadar Nawaz Khan Road Chennai in favour of M/s. Info Tech Computer Centre and had received an amount of Rs.54000/- as advance. He identified the attested copy of the letter dt. 30.11.2001 addressed by

slide 247:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 247 Info Tech Computer Centre to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Chennai confirming the above payment and the same came to be marked as Ex.D.264. From the records produced by the Income Tax Authorities DW.88 identified Ex.D.265 an attested copy of the letter dt. 26.12.2001 addressed by one A.Bhaskaran of Kumbakonam to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to the effect that a sum of Rs.40000/- is paid as advance to M/s. Sasi Enterprises in respect of property at Maharkombu Tanjaore taken at lease by the said Baskaran. The balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account for the said year came to be marked as Ex.D.263. This witness also spoke about the agricultural income derived by M/s. Sasi Enterprises in a sum of Rs.540700/- as per Ex.D.263 and stated that the said agricultural income has been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities as reflected in page No.16 of the order in Ex.D.262. Further this witness deposed that in the balance sheet Ex.D.263 under the head “Details of Loss and Advance” a sum of Rs.370000/- is shown as the balance sheet amount due by Mrs. Nagammal. In the previous year a sum of Rs.820000/- was shown as due from Mrs. Nagammal which would mean that during the accounting year ending 31.03.1992 M/s. Sasi Enterprises had received Rs.450000/- towards repayment of the loan from Mrs. Nagammal and this aspect has also been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities in the order Ex.D.262.

slide 248:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 248 55.3 Speaking about the income earned by Sasi Enterprises during 1993-94 through this witness the attested copy of the balance sheet along with the Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31.03.1993 is marked as Ex.D.267 and this witness has deposed that under this document a sum of Rs.216800/- is shown as agricultural income under the head Liabilities which has been accepted by the Commissioner under his order Ex.D.266. Similarly the loan repaid by Smt. Nagammal also find place in Ex.D.267. Likewise a sum of Rs.148600/- is shown as the rent received by the firm during the year which is also reflected in Ex.D.267 and D.266. The attested copy of the acknowledgment for having filed the return for the assessment year 1994-95 by M/s. Sasi Enterprises is marked through this witness as Ex.D.268 and the assessment order dt. 19.03.1999 as Ex.D.269 and this witness has further deposed that for the relevant year M/s. Sasi Enterprises has shown an amount of Rs.65000/- as agricultural income derived out of 3.23 cents of land in R.S.No.402/2 of Sundara Kottai Village in Mannargudi Taluk Tanjaore District and an amount of Rs.141400/- as rental income from shops and house property. Under the same statement of income a sum of Rs.1020000/- is shown as income from capital gains got by sale of Plant and Machinery Tools Dies and Condemned Stores of erstwhile TANSI enameled wire.

slide 249:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 249 which has been accepted by assessing Authority in the assessment order Ex.D.269 dt. 19.03.1999. 55.4 In appreciating the contentions raised by the accused in this regard it is necessary to note that under the provisions of Sec.269 SS of Income Tax Act no person is permitted to take or accept from any other person otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft if the amount of such loan or deposit exceeds Rs.20000/-. This provision assumes importance in view of the definition of the expression “known source of income” employed in Sec.131e of the Act. Even with regard to the repayment of the loan Sec.269 T provides that such repayment would be done only through an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft. In the instant case the position of the accused is still worse as there is no proof whatsoever to show either the grant of loan by M/s. Sasi Enterprises or repayment thereof by the aforesaid Nagammal during the relevant period. The accused has sought to sustain the defence solely on the basis of the so called statement of Profit and Loss Account submitted before the Income Tax Authorities but as already discussed above the genuineness of the said statement itself is doubtful and even otherwise the said statement of account cannot take the place of proof of the alleged loan transaction. Apart from failing to produce reliable and authentic evidence in proof of the

slide 250:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 250 alleged loan transaction the accused have not examined the loanee nor is there any material before the Court to show that the said transaction was disclosed before the Income Tax Authorities at any time before the registration of the case as a result no reliance could be placed on the Profit and Loss Account statement relied on by the accused to hold that during the check period the accused collected a sum of Rs.1691000/- by way of recovery of the loan from the aforesaid Nagammal and Subramanian. 55.5 The accused have got marked the attested copy of the acknowledgment for having been filed the returns along with the statement of income balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31.03.1995 as Ex.D.270 and has built up an argument that in the said statement a sum of Rs.70000/- is shown as agricultural income. Rs.169600/- as income from house property a sum of Rs.2742869/- as the term loan received from Indian Bank and the above return has been accepted and an assessment order came to be passed on 30.03.1999 as per Ex.D.271. Attested copy of the acknowledgment for the A/Y 1996- 97 is marked as Ex.D.272 and based on the statement of income appended thereto DW.88 has deposed that in terms of the said assessment order a sum of Rs.80000/- was received as agricultural income and the gross rental income of Rs.706200/- and a sum of

slide 251:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 251 Rs.10 lakhs was received as loan by the assessee from Housing Real Estate Developments Pvt. Ltd. as per Ex.D.274. Ex.D.275 is the attesting copy of the order of assessment dt. 30.03.1999 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax II 2 Chennai accepting the returns. 55.6 Based on the above oral and documentary evidence marked through DW.88 the learned Counsel for the accused has emphatically submitted that during the check period M/s. Sasi Enterprises have derived an agricultural income of Rs.972550/- as disclosed in Ex.D.262 266 268 271 and 275 which has been duly accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and therefore the said entire amount is to be taken into account as the resources available with the accused during the check period. Likewise the learned Counsel submit that during the check period M/s. Sasi Enterprises has received a total rental income of Rs.387000/- as evidenced in Ex.D.272 273 274 and 275. Further during the check period a sum of Rs.1620000/- was received by sale of scrap as evidenced in Ex.D.268 and D.269 and D.272 to D.275. Therefore the total income of Rs.9592776/- is liable to be taken into account while computing the resources available with the accused.

slide 252:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 252 55.7 According to the accused The firm had entered into a lease agreement with one T.S.R. Vasudevan for carrying out agricultural operations in the year 1990 as per the attested copy of the lease agreement Ex.D.258. Through this witness the accused got marked the copy of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar as per Ex.D.259 and the attested copy of the order dt. 28.05.2002 passed in Income Tax Authorities order No.108/2001-02 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 as Ex.D.260. Through this witness the copy of the balance sheet and the Profit and Loss Account statement of Sasi Enterprises for the year ending 31.03.1991 as certified by the auditors is marked as Ex.D.261. The attested copy of the order dt. 28.05.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals for the A/Y. 1992-93 in Income Tax Appeals No.107/2001-02 is marked as Ex.D.262 and the copy of the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.1992 is marked as Ex.D.263. 55.8 Coming to the agricultural income said to have been received by M/s. Sasi Enterprises it is pertinent to note that the accused have produced the true copy of the lease deed said to have been executed between T.S.R. Vasudevan and M/s. Sasi Enterprises. The said lease agreement is typed on a stamp paper of Rs.5/-. It is recited as “The Agreement of Lease”

slide 253:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 253 entered into on 1.9.1991. The further recitals which are relevant for our purpose read as follows: i The tenancy shall be for a period of eleven months commencing from 1.9.1991. ii The lessee shall deliver 1/3 rd of the total produce in every yield of the usufruct in the schedule mentioned properties to the lessor as Lease consideration and the remaining 2/3 rd of the usufruct shall be at the disposal of the Lessee. The other conditions required the lessee to bear the cost of inputs for the entire cultivation irrigation and maintenance of motor pumpsets spraying machines and related accessories and shall return them to the Lessor at the time of termination of Lease in good and working condition and Lessee shall maintain the schedule mentioned properties in good and cultivable condition. Clause No.4 reads as follows: “The Lessor hereby delivers possession to the Lessee the under mentioned schedule properties and the Lessee is to be in possession of the same till 31.07.1992.” 55.9 Under the said lease deed the possession is seen to have been delivered to the lessee on the date of agreement with a specific condition that the lessee is put in possession of the same till 31.07.1992. In the

slide 254:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 254 schedule appended to the agreement a total 8.40 + 3.99 acres of land is shown as the subject matter of the said agreement. 59.10 Ex.D.258 relied on by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. There cannot be a lease for agricultural land for 11 months. As per Sec.107 of the Transfer of Property Act every lease for agricultural land should be for more than a year which requires compulsory registration. That apart there is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the said lease deed A-1 and A-2 have cultivated the land in question either personally or through any of their servants or labourers. The accused have not examined either the lessor Sri. T.S.R. Vasudevan or any other person who are stated to have carried on agricultural operations in the said property. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the lessee has delivered 1/3 rd of the total produce or the usufruct to the lessor which is the only consideration under the said agreement. In the absence of any such proof of payment of consideration to the lessor as stipulated in the agreement no credence could be given to the uncorroborated testimony of DW.88 to hold that pursuant to the said lease deed the accused have derived agricultural income of Rs.972550/- as claimed by the accused.

slide 255:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 255 59.11 Another circumstance which belies the claim put forward by the accused is that the accused have produced Ex.D.259 which is said to be a letter issued by the Tahsildar of Villapuram. The said letter is dt. 25.10.2001 which reads : “On local enquiries the Tahsildar learnt that Tmt. N. Sasikala is the lessee of the following lands comprised in Villapuram from 1990 onwards up to 1998.” As already stated above the lease itself commenced on 1.9.1991 and expired on 31.07.1992. It is not the case of the accused that the said lease deed is extended by entering into any further agreement or by payment of any consideration as stipulated therein. Under the said circumstance the statement made by the Tahsildar that N. Sasikala is the lessee of the said land from 1990 onwards up to 1998 is baseless and appears to have been got up only to suit the case of the claimant. Even otherwise on local enquiries made in the year 2001 the Tahsildar could not have ascertained about the lease of the land without examining the lease deed or the lessor which is a strong circumstance to show that the said certificate is a bogus document got up by the accused to bolster up the false claim. 59.12 No doubt it is true that the Income Tax Authorities have relied on the said documents and have passed the orders which are heavily relied on by the accused but the accused having failed to prove that

slide 256:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 256 M/s. Sasi Enterprises had in fact taken any agricultural lands under lease and have been carrying on agricultural operations during the check period I am not inclined to accept the case of the appellant. 59.13 Coming to the rental income claimed on behalf of the Sasi Enterprises it is important to note that the accused have not produced any lease deed or rent receipts or any acceptable proof for having received the rents either from Info Tech Computers or Housing Real Estate Developments Ltd. In the course of the evidence DW.88 has produced Ex.D.273 a letter said to have been addressed by Housing Real Estates and Developments Pvt. Ltd. But the said letter cannot be treated either as proof of the lease or as proof of the alleged transaction. It is written in a plain sheet of paper does not bear any date. It reads as follows: HOUSING REAL ESTATES DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. No.133 Portughese Church Street. Chennai – 600 001. Statement of Accounts To M/s. Sasi Enterprises Transaction Cheque Debit Date No 20.021996 TMB 1000000 For Housing Estates Development Pvt. Ltd. Sd/- Director/ Authorised Signatory.

slide 257:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 257 59.14 Accused have not examined the author of Ex.D.273. It should be noted that in the seal the address of the firm is written as Housing Real Estates and Developments Pvt. Ltd. But at the top of the letter the name of the Company is written as Housing Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. which itself is sufficient to say that this document is not authentic and genuine. Even otherwise the contents thereof do not establish any lease transactions. 59.15 Ex.D.274 also does not help the accused to substantiate the claim laid before the Court. Ex.D.274 is said to be a confirmation of accounts by Housing and Real Estate Developments Pvt. Ltd. The said letter does not refer to any bank transaction nor does it specify the transaction. Even in this case the author is not examined. The relevancy and admissibility of the document is not proved. Therefore no reliance could be placed on this document. As a result no worthwhile evidence is available before the Court to show that the Sasi Enterprises has derived an income of Rs.9092766/- during the check period. 60. A-2 has also sought to include business income from Metal King and Vinod Video Vision amounting to Rs.3876286/- and Rs.9436682/- respectively. But A-2 has not produced any proof of the said income either by examining any independent

slide 258:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 258 witness or by producing any book of account or stock register maintained by the concern in the regular course of business. It is also an admitted fact that no returns have been filed by A-2 declaring any income from this business. As a result this claim also cannot be considered. 61. In their objections the accused have also contended that during the check period A-1 and A-2 have received advance from Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. and advance from Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. which is also require to be added to their total income. This claim is seen to have been laid solely on the basis of the entries contained in the statement of account relating to transfer of funds from one account to the other maintained by the accused in the name of Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Riverway Agro Products. But as already stated about Sec. 269SS of Income Tax Act and the provisions of the Companies Act do not permit such a plea being raised without compliance of the said provision. As has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of State Vs. Bharat Chandra Roul 1995 Crl.L.J. 2417 “once a plea is taken that a person has advanced any amount it is to be seen whether that person has the capacity to do so. Mere statement in that regard is not acceptable.” Undoubtedly in a case of this nature the onus rests on the accused to show that either Meadow Agro Farms

slide 259:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 259 Pvt. Ltd. or Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. had ample source to advance loans to the accused because as held in the above case accused have special knowledge about how a particular asset was acquired or income therein was earned. In the instant case the resources available with the above companies and their capacity to advance loans will be discussed later. For the present suffice it to note that the accused have not produced any acceptable evidence in proof of the availment of the loan from the above Companies. As a result this claim is also liable to be rejected. 62. SUPER DUPER T.V. INCOME OF A.3: One of the main objections raised by the learned Counsel for A-3 is that the investigating agency has deliberately omitted to include the legitimate income earned by A-3 to the tune of Rs.1.10 crores from his business initially carried on as proprietor of Super Duper T.V. and later incorporated as Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has referred to page 63 of the English version of the cross-examination of PW.259 wherein in it is elicited as under “Mr. Valasarajan an Inspector has seized documents while searching the Wellington Plaza building. I know the contents of the seized documents. In that item No.11 comprises 22 numbers of entrance fee receipt books

slide 260:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 260 maintained by the firm Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. Those 22 books have been produced in the Courts. The counterfoils of the receipts in the books show that each person has paid Rs.5000/- Each receipt book has 100 leaves. Those books are Ex.P.2341 in order 22. It is not right to say that the amount of income of mentioned in the above books – Rs.11000000/- is the income of Super Duper T.V. It is not correct to say that the amount was not included in the 3 rd statement even though it was known that it was the income earned by that firm.” Further in page 65 it is elicited that “Ex.P.2341 which has 22 books and yielded Rs.1 crore and 10 lakhs has not been included as the income of the 3 rd accused the reason being that this amount is shown in the Bank accounts and in the expenditure to run the Company. The credit and debit has been shown.” 62.1 Based on the above evidence Sri. Amit Desai the learned Counsel has vehemently argued that the Investigating Officer having admitted that during the course of the investigation he seized the account books maintained by Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. ought to have directed his investigation to ascertain the source of income derived by the said firm but unfortunately the Investigating Officer instead of showing this income in Annexure-III has given a lame excuse in the cross- examination stating that the amount of Rs.1.10 crores collected under receipts marked as Ex.P.2341 are

slide 261:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 261 shown in the bank accounts as expenditure to run the Company. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the expenditure statement produced by the prosecution viz. Annexure-IV is totally silent about 1.10 Crores collected by Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. during the check period which goes to show that the investigating agency has deliberately suppressed the funds available with accused No.3 for acquisition of the properties shown against his name in Annexure-II. 62.2 In order to buttress his argument the learned Counsel has referred to the testimony of DW.65 to DW.73 the witnesses examined by A-3 who have spoken about the deposit made by them with M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. during the check period. A-3 has also examined DW.85 the Manager of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. through whom A-3 has got marked large number of documents and has emphatically submitted that the positive material produced before the Court clearly establish the receipt of Rs.1.10 crores by A-3 in addition to the hire charges and the lease amount received by the firm run by them. 62.3 On careful scrutiny of the material produced before the Court it is seen that the name of M/s. Super Duper T.V. and M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. finds place in the list of 32 firms or companies said to have been floated by A-2 A-3 and A-4 during the check

slide 262:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 262 period. In his written statement and the reply filed by accused No.3 u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. A-3 has specifically contended that he formed a Company by name Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. in January 1994 along with A-2. The Company had introduced a deposit scheme wherein cable operators deposited Rs.5000/- or multiples and in this process the Company received scheme deposit money of Rs.10610000/-. The receipts were disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities and the Commissioner of Appeals has accepted the same as valid and proper. The Company has also received periodical lease rent of Rs.1500/- per month for other equipments which were given on hire from time to time. Thus an amount of Rs.1118500/- was collected during the check period which was also disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities and accepted by them after scrutiny. It is the further submission of A-3 that the Company Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. has deposited a sum of Rs.1575800/- with SIDCO for allotment of a shed however no shed or plot was allotted by SIDCO. 62.4 On going through the evidence produced by A-3 in support of the above contention it is pertinent to note that DW.85 Sri. R. Murali has deposed before the Court that during the year 1995-96 he was working as Manager Administration and Accounts in M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. According to this witness Super Duper T.V. was incorporated under the Indian

slide 263:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 263 Companies Act on 03.11.1994 as per the certificate of incorporation Ex.P.617 and the Memorandum of Association Ex.P.618 and the Articles of Association Ex.P.619. This witness has further stated that A-3 submitted an application for registration of the above Company as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as per Ex.P.681 and the certificate of registration was issued in favour of M/s. Super Duper Pvt. Ltd. as per Ex.P.682 valid for the period 7.4.1994 till March 1996. This witness also spoke about Ex.P.683 certificate issued in favour of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Tax Act as per Ex.P.683. Through this witness A-3 got marked a list of 110 subscribers as per Ex.D.156. This witness also identified the lease agreements executed by the subscribers in favour of the Company which came to be marked as Ex.D.75 D.78 D.82 D.84 D.89 D.96 D.100 D.113 and D.121 and further deposed that there were more than 2300 subscribers who had paid Rs.5000/- as non-refundable entrance fee and had executed separate agreements in favour of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. agreeing to pay the hire charges at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. This witness also identified 22 receipt books marked as Ex.P.2341 series and stated that the said entrance fee was non- refundable.

slide 264:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 264 62.5 In his evidence DW.85 deposed that M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. had C.A. No.1152 at Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch Chennai and during his evidence two pass books viz. Ex.D.157 and D.158 pertaining to the said Current Account were marked. Likewise the Day Book maintained by DW.85 for the period 18.4.1995 to 30.03.1996 is marked as Ex.D.159 and the fee collection book for the period 18.4.1995 to 23.4.1996 as Ex.D.160. Further DW.85 deposed that M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. had made a T.V. coverage of the marriage of A-3 Sudhakaran and in that connection a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid by one Mr. Ramkumar uncle of the wife of A-3 Sudhakaran in this regard Ex.D.161 viz. the letter addressed by the Chartered Accountant to the Asst. Director of Income Tax dt. 28.09.95 came to be marked as Ex.D.161 and the original bill as Ex.D.162. 62.6 According to DW.85 prior to the incorporation of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. the same business under the name and style ‘Super Duper T.V.’ was carried on by A-3 Sudhakaran as proprietor and the business of the said proprietary concern was continued even after the incorporation of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. The invoice book relating to Super Duper T.V. is marked through this witness as Ex.D.163 containing invoices for having supplied equipments to Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

slide 265:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 265 This witness also spoke about the C.A. No.1104 maintained by A-3 in respect of Super Duper T.V. but the extract available in the unmarked document having not been certified as required under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act it is not marked in evidence. This witness has deposed about various other transactions and the bills issued by M/s. Super Duper T.V. and the payment received by it came to be marked as Ex.D.164 to D.172. Various letters received by the Super Duper T.V. in relation the transactions carried on by it are marked in evidence as Ex.D.175 to D.177 and the invoice book as Ex.D.178. Remittance book pertaining to C.A.No.1152 of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. containing used challans and counterfoils are marked as Ex.D.179 1791 to D.17956 Ex.D.180 Ex.D.1801 to D.18029 Ex.D.181 Ex.D.1811 to Ex.D.18134. The copy of the assessment order dt. 30.03.2000 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax is marked as Ex.D.182 and the copy of the assessment order dt. 14.02.2001 as Ex.D.183 and this witness further deposed that in the assessment order Ex.D.182 there is a specific mention that a sum of Rs.11.40 lakhs was received through cheques and D.Ds from 228 persons and a sum of Rs.36.40 lakhs was mentioned as credited to the assessee’s bank accounts as cash receipts from 728 persons and further stated that Ex.D.183 shows that Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. received Rs.62.15 lakhs

slide 266:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 266 under the scheme deposit which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. 62.7 DW.85 further deposed that being aggrieved by the portion of the assessment orders at Ex.D.182 and D.183 the assessee preferred appeal before the income tax appellate authority which came to be disposed of by a common order dt. 25.02.2002 as per Ex.D.184. This witness also identified the receipts issued by Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. in favour of 473 persons which came to be marked as Ex.D.185 and the carbon copies thereof as Ex.D.1851 to D.185473. The list of 907 applications is marked as Ex.D.186 and the respective applications as Ex.D.1861 to 186907. In the cross-examination it was suggested to DW.85 that after expiry of the term of lease the amounts have been refunded to the respective subscribers but DW.85 denied the said suggestion and added that the said cable T.V. business was carried on by M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. only for six months and thereafter it was stopped and hence there is no question of refunding the above deposit amount after expiry of 24 months period. He further corrected himself saying that the said business was carried on by M/s.Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. from April 1995 to October 1995 and again corrected the statement stating that the said business was carried on from April 1995 to October 1996. In the cross-examination it is elicited

slide 267:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 267 that DW.85 was appointed in Super Duper T.V. as Manager Admn in the year 1994 and he was paid Rs.3000/- per month and when he was appointed as Manager Admn and Accts in Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. he was paid Rs.4500/- per month. It is further elicited that Super Duper T.V. was not registered under the Cable T.V. Network Regulation Act 1995. When it was suggested to DW.85 that as per Rule-12 of the Cable T.V. Network Rules 1995 a cable operator can collect only refundable security deposit and not non- refundable entrance or admission fee from the customers DW.85 answered as under Ans: Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. is not a cable operator. It only supplies cable T.V. equipments to the cable operators for doing their business. It does not provide the set top boxes to the customers. 62.8 A perusal of Ex.P.671 reveals that Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act on 23.11.1994. A-2 and A-3 are shown as the promoter Directors as per the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association Ex.P.618 and P.619 respectively. As per these documents the share capital of the Company consisted of 3 lakhs equity shares divided into 30000 equity shares of Rs.10/-. A-2 and A-3 are stated to have subscribed to 10 shares each. As per form No.18 dt. 3.11.1994 Ex.P.620 the

slide 268:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 268 registered office of the Company is shown as 68 Habibullah Road T. Nagar Madras. The Day Book Ex.D.159 and D.160 the bank challans Ex.D.179 180 and D.181 the entries in the bank pass book relating to Current A/c. No.1152 Ex.D.157 158 go to show that M/s. Super Duper T.V. was carrying on regular business as contended by A-3. The receipt books and the lease agreements produced before the Court at Ex.D.2341 coupled with the evidence of DW.65 to DW.73 indicate that Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. had collected Rs.5000/- as entrance fee from the subscribers and had also received the hire charges at the rate of Rs.1500/- from the subscribers. In this regard DW.65 to DW.73 have given identical evidence stating that they had submitted application to M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. along with non-refundable deposit of Rs.5000/- and had also executed the lease agreement. Through this witness the lease agreement executed by them is marked as Ex.D.75 D.78 D.82 D.85 D.88 D.95 D.101 D.112 D.123 respectively. These witnesses have also specifically stated about the non-refundable deposit made by them and their testimony in this regard has not been discredited in the course of the cross-examination. In the face of these documents there is no reason to doubt the business transactions carried on by A-2 and A-3 in the name and style of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd.

slide 269:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 269 62.9 Recitals in Ex.D.182 the assessment order relating to the A/Y. 1995-96 reveals that neither Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. nor A-2 or A-3 filed any returns in respect of the income derived by them from this business until filing of the Charge Sheet. Nonetheless the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities at Ex.D.182 and Ex.D.184 indicate that belated returns were filed. Though it is stated in the assessment order dt. 30.03.2000 Ex.D.182 that after issuance of the notice u/Sec. 1421 the assessee viz. M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. filed a return admitting a loss of Rs.199210/- it is recited in the said order that during the assessment year 1996-97 the assessee was in receipt of a sum of Rs.47.80 lakhs under the cable scheme from 956 persons at the rate of Rs.5000/- per each cable operator and out of this a sum of Rs.11.4 lakhs seem to have been received by cheque / D.D. from 228 persons and the balance of Rs.36.40 lakhs has been credited in the assessee’s bank account as receipt from 728 persons. Though these assessment orders have come into existence subsequent to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the accused yet in view of the other documentary evidence brought on record by the accused there is sufficient material to hold that during the year 1995-96 the A-2 and A-3 had received Rs.47.80 lakhs under the cable scheme. Likewise in the assessment order Ex.D.183 it is stated that during the previous year i.e. 1994-95

slide 270:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 270 the assessee admitted the cable scheme receipts to the tune of Rs.6215100/- but during the enquiry summons were not served to 38 subscribers and 13 persons who were summoned by the assessing officer having denied the payment of the amounts to the Company it is observed that a sum of Rs.385000/- was treated as unexplained cash credits. Thus from the material produced before the Court A-3 has shown that from 1994-96 from the business of Super Duper T.V. A-.3 had collected Rs.4780000 + Rs.6215100 Rs.10995100 – Rs.387000 Rs.10610100.00 62.10 Though the learned Counsel for the A-3 has submitted that the said amount was available with A-2 and A-3 in addition to the other business income of A-2 and A-3 a close scrutiny of the documents produced by A-3 especially the lease agreement produced at Ex.D.156 1 series disclose that the lessees had entered into an agreement with Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. carrying on the business of cable T.V. network whereunder the Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. had supplied the following equipments to the lessees viz. SCHEDULE – A Description of Equipment/ property 1. DISH ANTENA 12 Feet - 1 No. 2. FEED HORN - 1 No. 3. LNB 25 ◦ K - 1 No.

slide 271:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 271 4. F.7 CONNECTOR - 2 Nos. 5. POWER DIVIDER 4 WAY - 1 No. 6. MODULATOR - 3 Nos. 7. SATELLITE RECEIVER IMPORTED- 3 Nos. 8. COAXIAL CABLE - 25 Mts. 9. 8 CHANNEL MIXER - 1 No. 10. DISTRIBUTION AMPLIFIER - 1 No. 11. RCA CHORD - 3 Nos. 62.11 There is nothing on record to show that A-3 had any other income other than the scheme deposits amounting to Rs.10610100.00. And the hire charges which are declared by him before the Income Tax Authorities amounting to Rs.1118500/-. Though the returns are filed by A-3 much after the initiation of the criminal proceedings yet as already noted above DW.85 in the cross-examination has unequivocally stated that Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. carried on the cable TV business only for six months and thereafter the said business was stopped. Even otherwise Sec.3 of the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act 1995 provides that no person shall operate a cable television network unless he is registered as a cable operator under this Act. The said Act came into force on 25.03.1995 and much before the promulgation of the said Act Cable Television Network Rules 1994 had come into force w.e.f. 29.09.1994 which required to collect only refundable security deposits. Under the

slide 272:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 272 said circumstance even though A-3 has produced the receipt books and the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips to show that the amount of Rs.5000/- collected from large number of subscribers were credited to A/c. No.1152 and were available with A-3 yet there is nothing on record to show as to how the investment was made by A-3 for the purchase of the equipments supplied by him to the various subscribers as agreed as per Ex.D.1561 series. Certainly the cost of these equipments would be much more than the deposit of Rs.5000/- collected by him from the subscribers. If the value of the equipments and accessories were less than Rs.5000/- no prudent businessman would subscribe to such a scheme. That itself indicates that A-3 had made huge investments for purchase of the equipments supplied to the subscribers and therefore it cannot be said that the entire amount of Rs.10610100.00 collected by him from the subscribers was available with him for purchase of immovable properties. Even otherwise A-3 himself has admitted in his returns referred above that the business income for the assessment year 1996-97 was NIL. Under the said circumstance the contention of A-3 that the funds amounting to Rs.10610100.00 was available with him cannot be accepted. 62.12 Viewed from another angle DW.85 is categorical in his evidence that the said amounts were

slide 273:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 273 remitted by him to the Current A/c. No.1152. But the extract produced by the prosecution at Ex.P.1034 discloses that apart from the frequent cash deposits of Rs.5000/- Rs.10000/- and Rs.20000/- a large sums were deposited into this account either by clearance or by transfer which are spoken to by PW.182 the Chief Manager of Indian Bank. According to this witness C.A.No.1152 was opened in the Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch in the name of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. on 25.01.1995. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the application submitted by A-2 and A-3 to open the account as per Ex.P.1029. The Memorandum of Association of the Company is at Ex.P.1033. The true extract of the bank ledger is marked as Ex.P.1034 which discloses that Current A/c was opened as on 25.01.1995 with the deposit of Rs.1500/-. The balance in that account as on 30.04.1996 was Rs.546577.50. This witness has given the details of the subsequent cash deposits made into this account as under Date Amount in Rs. 14.02.95 100000/- 22.02.95 573000/- 25.02.95 611.840/- 01.03.95 355000/- 04.03.95 175000/- 11.03.95 1155000/- 12.03.95 583900/- 14.03.95 385000/- 14.03.95 75000/-

slide 274:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 274 14.03.95 210000/- 14.03.95 200000/- 16.03.95 65000/- 18.03.95 65000/- 21.03.95 295000/- 22.03.95 55000/- 22.03.95 200000/- 31.03.95 70000/- 31.03.95 200000/- 04.04.95 85000/- 06.04.95 90000/- 07.04.95 75000/- 08.04.95 60000/- 13.04.95 95000/- 25.04.95 175000/- 02.05.95 60000/- 09.05.95 987500/- 20.05.95 60000/- 14.06.95 121000/- 21.06.95 50000/- 30.06.95 150000/- 30.06.95 55000/- 08.07.95 65000/- 11.07.95 50000/- 12.07.95 210000/- 13.07.95 108000/- 18.07.95 110000/- 29.07.95 60000/- 18.08.95 79000/- 05.09.95 114500/- 25.10.95 150000/- 01.11.95 150000/- 18.02.96 200000/- 62.13 It is pertinent to note that during the examination of PW.182 the prosecution has marked the corresponding pay-in-slips relating to the above cash deposits and PW.182 has specifically deposed that most of the said pay-in-slips were signed by one Ram Vijayan

slide 275:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 275 and few by S. Kubendran. This is one of the strong circumstance to show that the amounts credited to Current A/c. No.1152 was not the exclusive business income of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. It has come in evidence that the counterfoils of pay-in-slips Ex.D.179 180 181 series were seized from the office of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. and were produced before the Court without exhibiting the same by the prosecution. The said fact once again establishes that other than the pay-in-slips and the Day Book which are produced by A-3 through DW.85 there were no other documents to substantiate the income derived by A-3. Therefore it stands proved that a huge cash credits made into the above accounts were not the regular business income of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. 62.14 Though much has been argued by the learned Counsel for A-4 that A-3 was having an independent business and was possessed with ample resources to acquire immovable properties in his name without the financial assistance of A-1 or any other accused a bare perusal of the further chief-examination of PW.182 reveals that during the relevant period when A-3 took fixed deposits in his name there was transfer of huge money to his Current A/c. No.1104. The relevant evidence in this regard reads as follows

slide 276:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 276 “The above said Current A/c. No.1152 has many entries of local cheques and O.Ds deposited sent for collection and credited. On 13.04.1995 an amount of Rs.1313275/- was transferred from the above said Current A/c. to the Current A/c. No.1104. On 15.04.1995 an amount of Rs.1575800/- was debited from Current A/c. No. through a cheque with last three digits 994. On the same date an amount of Rs.1313275/- transferred to Current A/c. No.1104. On 27.12.1995 Rs. 5 lakhs has been transferred to the above said A/c. from the Current A/c. No.1104. On the next day i.e. 28.12.1995 as per the wishes of the party an amount of Rs.5 lakhs has been deposited under short term deposit scheme. We have mentioned as STD. Ex.P.1079 is the credit voucher dt. 20.04.1995 for the amount of Rs.5 lakhs. Ex.P.1034 is the note on this. An amount of Rs.15 lakhs has been transferred from Current A/c. No.1152 on 23.05.1993 to short term deposit account. Ex.P.1040 is the credit voucher for that. The interest accumulated for the above said short term deposit was credited into the current account No.1152. A cheque with last 3 digits for an 984 amount of Rs.17.60 lakhs was issued in favour of Syllicon Valley Corporation on 18.03.1995. This amount was debited in the current account No.1152. The information is given in asA- 1034. A cheque with last 3 digits 995 for Rs.9 lakhs was issued in favour of Syllicon Valley Corporation on 18.04.95 and it is debited in Ex.P.1034. They have given a cheque dt. 15.04.95 for Rs.1575800/- and asked for a Pay Order in favour of SIDCO. That cheque is Ex.P.1081. One R. Murali has given a signed application Ex.P.1082 asking for a Pay Order for Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. the cheque for Rs.150000/- given to Jaya Publications on 27.4.95 is mentioned and debited in Ex.P.1034. There are many ‘By Transfer’ and ‘To Transfer’ entries in Ex.P.1034.

slide 277:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 277 62.15 Ex.P.1083 is the application dt. 27.8.94 signed and submitted by Sri. V.N.Sudhakaran the Proprietor of Super Duper T.V. owner’s Company to open a current account in the name of the Company. That application was accepted and Current A/c. No.1104 was opened. Ex.P.1084 is the card bearing the specimen signature of V.N.Sudhakaran. Ex.P.1085 is the letter dt. 12.12.94 authorising Sri. V. Bhaskaran to operate the account. Ex.P.1086 is the letter given by Sri. V.N.Sudhakaran to the bank stating that he is the sole proprietor of Super Duper T.V. Company. Ex.P.1087 is the true copy of 8 pages bank ledger of the Current A/c. is the letter given by Sri. V.N.Sudhakaran to the bank stating that he is the sole proprietor of Super Duper T.V. Company. Ex.P.1087 is true copy of 8 pages bank ledger of the C.A.No.1104 of Super Duper T.V. Company. As per Ex.P.1087 Rs.5000/- was paid in cash to open the account. On 1.10.94 an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs was transferred from current account No.1068 to this account. On 27.12.95 this account was closed and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was transferred to C.A. No.1152. Later the account was closed. Ex.P.1088 is the pay-in-slip for having remitted Rs.225000/- into this account on 22.8.95. Ex.P.1089 is the pay-in-slip for having remitted Rs.275000/- on the same date. Ex.P.1090 is the pay-in-slip for having remitted Rs.550000/- in cash on 23.08.95. Ex.P.1091 is the pay-in-slip for having deposited a cash amount of

slide 278:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 278 Rs.450000/- on 24.08.95. Ex.P.1092 is the pay-in-slip for having deposited a cash amount of Rs.462000/- on 26.08.95. Ex.P.1093 is the pay-in-slip for having deposited a cash amount of Rs.238000/- on 27.08.95. Ex.P.1094 is the pay-in-slip for having deposited a cash amount of Rs.200000/- on 30.8.95. Ex.P.1096 is the pay-in-slip for having deposited a cash amount of Rs.500000/- on 17.09.95. Ex.P.1097 is the pay-in-slip for having deposited a cash amount of Rs.400000/- on 20.09.95. Apart from these there are debit and credit entries for smaller amounts. 62.16 Ex.P.1087 shows that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs has been transferred to this account from C.A. No.1095 on 3.2.95. On 13.04.95 an amount of Rs.1313275/- was transferred from C.A. No.1152. On the same day a draft cheque was taken for the same amount. On 15.4.95 an amount of Rs.1313275/- was transferred from this account to C.A. No.1152. An amount of Rs.110000/- was transferred from C.A. No.1068 to this account on 26.10.95. On the same date an amount of Rs.176693.90 paise was transferred to this account from current account No.792. On 18.4.95 an amount of Rs.150600/- has been debited to take US dollars for Star Cinema System. On 21.6.95 an amount of Rs.57765/- has been debited to take a draft cheque in US dollars. On 13.12.94 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs has been debited towards a cheque issued to

slide 279:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 279 Ramraj Agro Mills. On 20.12.94 an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs has been debited towards the cheque issued to V.N.Sudhakaran. On 22.12.94 an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards a cheque issued to one Elavarasi have been debited. On 31.12.94 an amount of Rs.6 lakhs has been debited towards a cheque issued to M/s. Anjaneya Printers. On the same date a cheque for Rs. 25 lakhs issued to M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. has been passed. On the same date a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs issued to V.N.Sudhakaran has been passed and the amount is debited. On 6.1.95 a cheque for Rs.20 lakhs issued to Indag Products India Indag Belts has been passed and the money debited. The cheque is Ex.P.1098 is for Rs.20 lakhs passed in favour of Indag Products India on 6.1.95. A cheque for Rs.390000/- issued to Jay. J. T.V. has been passed and the money debited on 28.3.95. According to the application Ex.P.1083 the address of Super Duper T.V. is given as 18 Balamuthukrishna Street T. Nagar Chennai -17. 62.17 PW.201 has spoken about the opening of C.A. No.2220 by A-3 and through this witness the prosecution has marked the application for opening the account Ex.P.927 specimen Signature Ex.P.928 and the extract of the statement of account for the period 1.4.94 to 5.1.2000 in respect of C.A. No. 2220 as Ex.P.1576. According to this witness the said current account No.2220 was opened by remitting Rs.501/- by

slide 280:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 280 A-3. This witness has spoken about the entries contained in the ledger extract Ex.P.1576 and has stated that as on 30.04.1996 the balance found in this account was Rs.47453.64. On 24.09.1994. a sum of Rs.410000/- was remitted into this account by cash. This witness has given the details of the amounts transferred to the above account number 2220 from other accounts as under Date Name of the party Account No. Amount 03.06.93 Smt. N. Sasikala - 385000.00 16.07.93 Smt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 800000.00 12.01.94 Smt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 250000.00 12.01.94 Smt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 100000.00 12.01.94 Smt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 250000.00 04.10.94 Vinod Video Vision CA-2133 1100000.00 04.10.94 Jaya Publications CA-2047 300000.00 04.10.94 Metal King CA-2277 900000.00 05.10.94 Smt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 500000.00 18.10.94 M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. CA-2250 750000.00 26.11.94 Namadhu MGR Vinod Video Vision CA-1952 CA-2133 700000.00 05.12.94 Smt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 300000.00 28.03.95 Loan reimbursement 350000.00 05.12.95 N. Sasikala CA-2196 26000.00 07.03.96 Metal King CA-2277 250000.00 16.07.93 F.D.No.283/93 Amount on maturity - 512329.00 26.11.94 Through cheque purchase clear demand bill - 1472666.00

slide 281:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 281 62.18 Further PW.201 has deposed that on different dates money was withdrawn in the form of cash from this account i.e. 17.0194 Rs.96350/- 26.12.94 Rs. 5 lakhs 18.3.95 – Rs.188000/- 18.08.95 – 2 lakhs. A cheque dt. 16.7.95 for Rs.1681000/- was issued to the bank and debited through this current A/c. The said cheque Ex.P.1577 was signed by A-3. There are six entries on 29.01.94. The cheques for Rs.5000/- each were issued to J. Real Estate J.J. Leasing J.S. Housing Jaya Contractors Green Farm J. Farm House and amount was debited from this current account. An amount of Rs.2 lakhs was transferred to Sasikala’s A/c. No.2196 and an amount of Rs.1088000 was transferred to M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. account on 21.03.1995. On 14.05.94 a cheque was issued to the bank for a sum of Rs.82500/- to purchase a D.D. An application was signed by Ram Vijayan to purchase a D.D. in the name of Muniyan for Rs.82500/- as per Ex.P.1578. A cheque for Rs.82500/- in the name of Ramayi Ammal was presented on 21.03.1995 and deducted from this account. On 22.03.95 cheque for Rs.750000/- was presented to Indian Bank and was debited from this account as per Ex.P.1580. On 27.04.1994 a cheque for Rs.12 lakhs was issued in the name of Aiyya Durai which was debited from this account that cheque 1581 was signed by A-3. On 15.10.94 a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.2741000/- in the name of I.B. Merchant

slide 282:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 282 Bank was debited from this current A/c. The cheque Ex.P.1582 was signed by A-3. On 18.10.94 a cheque for Rs.90 lakhs was issued in the name of Aiyya Durai as per Ex.P.1583 signed by A-3. A cheque issued on 31.10.94 for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs in the name of Aiyya Durai was debited. The said cheque Ex.P.1584 was signed by A-4. The further evidence of PW.201 reads “A cheque for Rs.2405000/- was issued on 26.11.94 to the bank to purchase a Demand Draft and the sum duly deducted from this account. This cheque dt. 26.11.94 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran in Ex.P.1585. The computer print out showing the statement for the sum mentioned above for the purchase of the demand draft is Ex.P.1586 to Ex.P.1588. Three demand drafts for Rs.900000/- Rs.900000/- and Rs.605000/- were issued in the name of Interface Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. A cheque for Rs.255000/- was issued on 9.12.94 in the name of Aiyya Durai and deducted. The cheque dt. 5.12.94 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran is Ex.P.1589. A sum of Rs.75000/- was deducted on 7.4.95 in the name of V.N.Sudhakaran. On 8.5.95 a sum of Rs.2500000/- was deducted in the name of Radha Venkatachalam. On 16.05.95 a sum of Rs.500000/- was deducted through a cheque in the name of Sasikala.” 62.19 The above witness has also given the statement of the expenditure as per Ex.P.1576 and has further given the details of the money withdrawn from the current A/c. 2220 on different dates for vehicle loan as under

slide 283:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 283 Date Amount in Rs. 21.07.95 50711/- 19.09.95 8750/- 25.09.95 14617/- 07.03.96 75433/- 07.03.96 15000/- 15.05.96 7970/- 62.20 In the wake of the above evidence the contention of A-3 that he was possessed with independent source of income and that the business income earned from Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. was available with A-2 and A-3 as lawful source for acquisition of properties in their names cannot be accepted. 63. M/S ANJINEYA PRINTERS PVT. LTD.: It is noted in Ex. D-278 that the M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 14.7.1993 with Smt. N. Sasikala and V.N. Sudhakaran as Directors. The company was engaged in the business of running a printing press besides executing orders on contract and had also done job works relating to government agencies like Tamil Nadu Text Book Society Directorate of Information and Public Relations and for AIADMK party. One T.V. Sundaravadhanam brother of Smt. Sasikala was functioning as General Manager for the company.

slide 284:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 284 63.1 For the first time the company filed a return of income in Form No.2-B on 29.8.1997 declaring total undisclosed income for the Block period 1.4.1986 to 24.9.1996 at Rs.1081478/-. It is observed in Ex.D.278 that for the assessment year 1994-95 a sum of Rs.747/- was declared as income from business operations and during the year of account an aggregate sum of Rs.30 lakh has been credited as share application money received from M/s. Jaya Publications on the following dates in cash 29.9.1993 - Rs. 9 lakh 23.1.1994 - Rs. 20 lakh 23.2.1994 - Rs. 1 lakh 63.2 It is further recorded that a confirmation letter was filed by the representative of M/s Jaya Publications on 4.3.1998 in support of monies so received aggregating to Rs. 30 lakh. It was specifically observed in Ex. D-278 that M/s Jaya Publications had not filed any Returns of Income for the relevant years and therefore it was not possible to verify the alleged advance from I.T. records. It is further observed that the books of the firm were also not available and they were not furnished in response to notices issued by the assessing authorities during the course of the assessment of the firm. Further the sources of funds available with M/s. Jaya Publications for effecting such

slide 285:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 285 advances to M/s. Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. was also not stated in the confirmation letter. It is further observed that verification of the copies of bank accounts did not reveal any substantial/adequate withdrawals around the relevant dates and since the sources for the advances remained unexplained the assessing authority found it proper to consider the said sum of Rs. 30 lakh as unexplained credits under Sec.68 of the I.T. Act. 63.3 Regarding the computation of tax for the assessment year 1995-96 in relation to the aforesaid firm the assessing authority has noted that in the statement filed along with the return of income a sum of Rs.793612/- has been computed as business income assessable to tax for the assessment year 1995- 96. It is noted that during the accounting year the company had withdrawn funds from its over-draft account maintained with Indian Bank for the purpose of construction of a house at Padmanabha Street in T. Nagar Chennai. It is further observed that during the year of account the assessee company had claimed corporation tax and MMWSSB payments at Rs.266170/- and two payments aggregating to Rs.247350/- were paid to Corporation of Madras but the assessee did not produce any supporting documents to substantiate the said payment. Yet considering the

slide 286:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 286 representatives made by the assessee a sum of Rs.125000/- was disallowed as inadmissible expenses. 63.4 It is important to note that in Ex. D-278 it is specifically observed that during this assessment year the company had received a sum of Rs. 5 lakh in cash towards share application money from M/s Jaya Publications but since the sources of funds was not available even this amount came to be treated as unexplained cash. Even before this court the accused have not produced any material in proof of the source for the said investment. Therefore in the absence of any evidence to show that the shares were allotted to A-1 and that she had become the shareholder of this company cannot be accepted. 63.5 In this context it is pertinent to note that the definite stand of A-1 all throughout is that she has nothing to do with the firms or the companies referred in the charge-sheet. But A-2 and A-3 have come up with the story that they had received share application money from Jaya Publications. 63.6 The other observations made in the said Order which are relevant for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the alleged business operations run by A-2 and A-3 in the name of M/s.Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. are that during the course of search in the assessee’s premises no regular books of accounts of the

slide 287:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 287 assessee company were found. Hence in the absence of any books of accounts the assessing authority held that the computerized copy of the accounts produced by the authorized representative of the assessee company would have to be considered as not written in the normal course of business. The further findings recorded by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax in para 13.2 of the Assessing Order Ex. D-278 which reads as under “In the computerized accounts produced for scrutiny it is noted that the assessee had entered the following purchases from M/s Jaya Publications a group concern 30.7.1994 - Rs. 12 lakh 29.9.1994 - Rs. 23 lakh 63.7 However it is observed in Ex. D-278 that 3 purchase invoices produced in respect of these two purchases could not be verified independently with reference to the records of M/s. Jaya Publications since apparently no such books containing quantitative details of stocks or materials were available. It is further observed that the Chartered Accountant representing the assessee could only furnish the monetary values of the stocks produced as recorded in the ledger accounts as quantitative details of the stocks held were not available. It is further observed that as regards consumption also it was not possible to verify

slide 288:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 288 as to how and for which specific sales these purchases of materials from M/s. Jaya Publications was utilized. It is noted that a verification was also made regarding the purchases and sales admitted by the assessee company for the months of April May and June 1994 but the raw materials available by purchase or otherwise could not match such sales. Thus considering all the above facts and circumstances the assessing authority came to the conclusion that “the alleged purchases recorded from M/s. Jaya Publications a sister concern was obviously made with a view to reduce the taxable profit.” It is further held that the payments in respect of these two alleged purchases have also not been made to M/s. Jaya Publications even after lapse of more than 36 months which would clearly indicate that the alleged purchases were only accommodation purchases and trade credits in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications were not genuine.” 63.8 Though the appeal preferred by M/s Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai against the above Order Ex. D-278 came to be allowed by a cryptic Order dt. 27.12.2004 even before this court the accused have not produced either the account books maintained in the regular course of business or any other reliable material to show that there was genuine purchase

slide 289:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 289 transactions between M/s. Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaya Publications to the tune of Rs. 35 lakh as contended by A-3. Except the so called confirmation letter accused have not been able to show from the books of the firm that M/s. Jaya Publications had shown in its returns the advance of Rs.35 lakhs to M/s Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. on different dates. There is not even a scrap of paper to prove either the borrowal of the funds or the income earned from the business by the firm as contended by A-3. The transaction put forward by A-3 is opposed to Sec.269 SS of I.T. Act. There is also no evidence to show that the firm had turned out printing works during the relevant year. There is no proof regarding the initial capital invested by the partners. Except the computerized statement of accounts there is nothing on record to show that orders were received and printing work was turned out by the firm as contended. The computerized statement of account is neither admissible in law nor does it prove the alleged income of the firm. As a result even the claim set up by the accused in this regard is also liable to be dismissed. 64. Before concluding it should be noted that in support of their claim for inclusion of income from various sources as discussed above the learned counsel for accused have mainly relied on the Income Tax

slide 290:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 290 returns and the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities under the provisions of the I.T. Act. 64.1 Referring to Sec.43 35 13 and Sec. 5 of the Indian Evidence Act the learned Counsel for the accused has tried to persuade the Court to hold that the orders and the proceedings of the Income Tax Authorities are binding on the criminal court as they are the judgment and orders passed by the competent Tribunal discharging official duty. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that Sec.35 of the Evidence Act provides that “an entry in any public or other official book register or record or an electronic record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book register or record or an electronic record is kept is itself a relevant fact.” In support of this argument the learned Counsel has referred to the provisions of Sec.13 and Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act and has relied on the decision reported in AIR 1934 Privy Council 157 and AIR 1948 Madras 388. 64.2 The question as to relevancy and admissibility of the judgments or orders passed by the competent Courts is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated case reported in AIR 1983 S.C. 684 State of

slide 291:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 291 Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh wherein the Honble Supreme Court has expounded the legal position regarding the admissibility of the documents. It is elucidated that the documents may be classified under three heads i Documents which are per-se inadmissible. ii Recitals in judgment not inter-partes iii Documents or judgments opposed litem- motam 64.3 After discussing the various case laws on the subject in para 54 the Honble Supreme Court of India has observed as under “Some courts have used Sec.13 to prove the admissibility of a judgment as coming under Sec.43 referred to above. We are however of the opinion that where there is a specific provision covering the admissibility of document it is not open to the Court to call into aid without general provision in order to make a particular document admissible. In other words if a judgment is not admissible as not falling within the ambit of Sec.40 to 42 it must fulfill the conditions of Sec.43 otherwise it cannot be relevant under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. Other provisions of this Act cannot cover Sec.13 because this Section does not deal with the judgments at all.” In the above decision it is authoritatively held that evidence in judgments not inter-partes unless they are judgments in rem falling u/Sec.41 or relating to the matters of public nature coming within Sec.42

slide 292:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 292 are not admissible in evidence. In para 60 of the above decision it is further held “the cumulative effects of the decisions cited above on this point clearly is that under the Evidence Act a judgment which is not inter-partes is inadmissible in evidence except for the limited purpose of proving as to who the parties were and where a decree passed and the properties which were the subject matter of the suit”. 64.4 In so far as the binding nature of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is concerned in State of Bihar vs. Lalu Prasad 2008 Crl.L.J. 2443 the Hon’ble High Court distinguished three decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishna Reddy vs. State by Dy.Supdt. of Police Hyderabad and State of A.P. vs. J. Satyanarayana and D.S.P. vs. K. Imbasagaram and held that those cases were based on different set of facts and further in para 72 held as under: “Coming next to the acceptance of the order of the I.T.A.T as binding upon the criminal Court and the acceptance of the conclusions of the I.T.A.T. as final and also the view of the trial court that the same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court there can hardly be any doubt that the same is based on a completely erroneous view of the law as laid down in various decisions starting from the privy Council Judgment in Khwaja Nazeer Ahmed’s case and the propositions that the findings of the I.T.A.T. are not binding has been accepted even by the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

slide 293:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 293 However it was tried to be shown by him that the Income Tax return having been filed much prior to the filing of the FIR in the disproportionate asset case the same can be relied upon as having merely conclusive value on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court cited by him but the said submission cannot be considered to be correct.” In the light of this proposition the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the orders of the I.T.A.T. have conclusive and binding force cannot be accepted. 64.5 Thus answering the objections raised by the accused as above and in the light of the above discussion my finding on the total income of the accused during the check period is as under: Total income computed as per Annexure III – Rs.93426053.56 Less: Item No.55 - Rs. 35000.00 Less: Item No.60 - Rs. 122750.00 - Rs.93068303.56 Add: Item No.29 - Rs. 4427.19 Add: Item No.27 - Rs. 115640.00 Add: Item No.48 - Rs. 660064.00 Add: Item No.52 - Rs. 4835000.00 Add: Item No.33 Grape Garden - Rs. 421660.00 Total income -Rs.99105094.75

slide 294:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 294 65. EXPENDITURE INCURRED BETWEEN 1.7.1991 30.04.1996 ANNEXURE - IV Ex.P.2330 Sl. No. Details of Expenditure Amount in Rs Exhibits Witnesses 1 Amount paid towards interest in respect of the loan of Rs.15000000/- availed by M/s. Jaya Publications from Indian Bank Abirampuram while closing the loan account on 25.06.1994 Apart from the principal amount of Rs.15000000/- 5093921 P.1027 PW.182 2 Repayment of Loan availed by M/s. Sasi Enterprises from Indian Bank Abirampuram Rs.1144977.00 P Rs. 687706.00 I Rs.1832683.00 ------------------------ 1832683 P.1260 PW.182 3. Payment of interest on loan of Rs.2800000/- availed by J Farm Houses from Indian Bank Abirampuram. 23774 P.1212 PW.182 4. Payment of Interest on loan of Rs.700000/- availed by M/s. J S Housing Development from Indian Bank Abirampuram. 11887.00 P.1173 PW.182 5. Payment of interest on loan of Rs.500000/- availed by M/s. Jay Real Estate from Indian Bank Abirampuram 11887 P.1163 PW.182 6. Payment of interest on loan of Rs.7500000/- availed by M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. 1181425.16 P.1233 PW.182 7 Payment of interest on loan of Rs.1786000/- availed by M/s. Mahasubha Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam from Indian Bank Abirampuram. 384400.00 P.1356 PW.182 8 Payment of interest on loan of Rs.8300000/- availed by 1752069.00 P.1330 PW.182

slide 295:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 295 M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. from Indian Bank Abirampuram. 9 Amount paid to corporation of Madras towards sanction of building plan in respect of M/s Jaya Publications for change of roof at MF-9 Guindy Industrial Estate Guindy paid on 14.2.94 13840.00 P.65 PW.20 10 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras towards sanction of building plan in respect of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. at No.21 Padmanabha Street T. Nagar Chennai-17 paid on 14.2.94 14560.00 P.64 PW.20 11 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras towards building plan in respect of M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. No.149 and 150 TTK Road Chennai – 18 Paid on 20.12.95 145320.00 P.51 PW.19 PW.20 12 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at No.36 Poes Garden for additional construction paid on 11.12.91 12700.00 P.58 PW.20 13 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at No.5 Murugesan Street T. Nagar Chennai Paid on 7.11.95 70140.00 P.54 PW.19 PW.20 14 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan M/s. Jaya Publications at No.19 Pattammal Street proposed additions and regularization of the existing building Paid on 3.3.93 1350.00 P-63 PW.20 15 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras towards sanction of building plan in respect of M/s. Jaya Publications at Plot No.S-7 Ganapathy Colony Guindy Industrial Estate paid on 19.3.92 99295.00 P-55 56 PW.19 16 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at 26735.00 P.48 to 50 59 PW.19 PW.20

slide 296:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 296 No.36 Poes Garden Additional Block paid on 22.11.91 7.12.92 10.2.93 and 19.2.93 Rs. 2850.00 550.00 2250.00 21085.00 26735.00 17 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at No.36 Poes Garden for additions of Security room Paid on 19.2.93 10925.00 P-60 PW.20 18. Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at No.48 Inner Ring Road Ekkatuthangal Guindy i.e. M/s. Sastri Nuts and Plates Manufacturing P Ltd. Paid on 26.11.93 M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. 29850.00 P-61 PW.20 19 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras towards building plan sanction in respect of the proposed alterations to the existing building at Door No.212 213 St. Mary’s Road Mylapore Chennai – 4 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha paid on 5.2.92 1785.00 P-62 PW.20 20 Amount paid to MMDA for building plan Approval at Plot No.6 Thiru – vi – Ka Industrial Estate Guindy paid on 20.2.96 476525.00 P-66 PW.19 PW.20 21 Amount paid towards demolition cost of the old building at Door No.213 St. Mary’s Road Mandaveli Chennai – 28. 18570.00 P-676 PW.117 PW.20 22 Interest paid towards loan account No.787 dt.7.10.95 of RBF Nidhi Ltd. upto the end of Check period for the loan of Rs.35 lakhs taken by Tmt. J. Elavarasi. 441569.00 PW.211 23 Amount paid to Five Star Departmental Stores from 101315.70 P-823 to 832 PW.154 PW.201

slide 297:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 297 SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala . 24 LIC premium payment made by Tmt. N. Sasikala from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore 26.3.92 13960.50 PW.201 25 Payment made towards DD commission from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore for purchasing DD for Rs.935000/- on 13.7.95 600.00 PW.201 26 Amount paid to Salam Stores on 3.11.92 from SB A/c. 23832 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha of Canara Bank Mylapore 9617.00 PW.201 PW.120 27 Amount paid to Five Star Departmental Stores from C.A- 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala during 1992-95 75198.12 P-823 to 856 P.1519 PW.154 PW.201 28 Amount paid to Alagu Security Services from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 13.2.95 22.12.95 10.1.96 and 17.4.96 9950.00 P.1519 P.1533 PW.201 29 Expenditure incurred towards purchase of books from American Book House Higginbothams and India Book House by Tmt. N. Sasikala from her C.A 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore Account on 3.2.94 and 21.2.94 4074.10 P.1519 P.1527 P.1537 PW.201 30 Amount paid to Latham India from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 22.7.95 9065.00 P.1519 P.1538 PW.201 . 31 Amount paid to V.G.Paneerdoss from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 6.11.95 13450.00 P.1519 P.1539 PW.201 . 32 Amount paid to Rajasekaran Co. Auditor from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 28.1.93 126500.00 P.1519 P.1540 to P.1543 PW.201 .

slide 298:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 298 28.3.95 3.11.95 33 Amount paid to Keerthi from CA 2196 of Canara Bank of Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 11.12.92 6633.00 P-1519 P.1544 PW.201 34 Amount paid to Khuzeema Manuwala from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 14.12.92 7165.00 P.1519 1545 35 Amount paid to LIC of India on 31.3.93 and 30.3.94 from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala 13748.60 x 2 towards policy No.750405742 27497.20 P-1519 PW.201 36 LIC premium paid for March ’95 in Policy No.750405742 of Tmt. N. Sasikala 13748.60 Ex.P.15 46 Doc.1013 Letter of LIC Trichy Dt.23.4.92 37 Amount paid to United India Insurance on 31.3.93 13.4.93 4.8.93 18.3.94 24.3.95 and 17.4.96 from CA 2196 of Canara Bank of Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala 102039.00 P.1519 P.1548 to 1553 PW.201 38 Amount paid towards L.F. charges and DD commission from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 1.12.92 6.9.93 14.10.93 1.10.94 7.10.94 and 31.12.94. 410.00P-1519 PW.201 39 Amount debited towards interest for T.O.D. from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 10.3.92 6.9.93 14.10.93 1.10.94 7.10.94 and 31.12.94 3170.00P-1519 PW.201 40 Amount paid to Abbas from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 2.9.95 23800.00 P-1382 P-1383 PW.201 41 Amount paid to Balus Colour Lab from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 54660.00 P-1382 P-1009 PW.178 PW.201 42 Amount paid to BPL Gallery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. 128530.00 P-1382 P-1384 PW.201

slide 299:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 299 Jayalalitha on 19.9.95 43 Amount paid to Purnendupal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 100000.00 P-1382 P-1385 PW.201 44 Amount paid to Chandrasekar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 12.3.96 25000.00P-1382 PW.201 45 Amount paid to Tmt. N. Sasikala on behalf of Tr. M. Jayaraman towards his share for obtaining the dealership in SPIC Jyothi. 150000.00 PW.198 46 Amount paid to K. Damodarasamy Naidu from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 18700.00 P-1382 P-1386 PW.201 47 Amount paid to Dr. Giri’s Museum from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 57250.00 P-1382 P-1387 PW.186 PW.201 48 Amount paid to HCL Limited from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 7.9.95 1000.00 P-1387 P-1382 PW.201 PW.167 49 Amount paid to J. Haridoss from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 13.7.93 5100.00 P-1382 P-1388 PW.201 50 Amount paid to Tvl. J.K. Brothers from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.1.96 and 5.3.96 Rs.27000 + 82800 109800.00 P-1382 P-1389 PW.201 51 Amount paid to Tr.K.K.Venugopal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.8.93 18.8.93 14.10.93 5.11.93 20.12.93 and 11.4.94 595000.00 P-1382 P-1390 to 1394 PW.201 52 Amount paid to Tr. K.V. Viswanathan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20000.00 P-1382 P-1395 PW.201

slide 300:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 300 21.8.93 53 Amount paid to Tvl. Kapoors from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 30.9.95 130779.40 P-1382 P-1396 P-678 PW.118 PW.201 54 Amount paid to Tvl. Kapoors by cheque on 15.7.95 Cheque No.082199 of Canara Bank 12721.00 P-1519 P-1554 P-678 PW.118 PW.201 55 Amount paid by cash to Tvl. Kapoors on 4.5.95 and 7.6.95 44264.00P-678 PW.118 56 Amount paid to Tr. Kishore from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 10.10.95 25000.00 P-1382 P-784 PW.146 PW.201 57 Amount paid to tmt. Latha Krishnnamoorthy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 4.9.95 75000.00 P-1382 P-1397 PW.201 58 Amount paid to MMWSS Board from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 12.12.91 to 6.12.95 37046.00 P-1382 P-1398 to 1411 PW.146 PW.201 59 Amount paid to Tr. G. Mohan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.4.95 20000.00P-1382 PW.148 PW.201 60 Amount paid to Madurai Kamaraj University from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.7.93 500000.00 P-1382 P-1412 PW.108 PW.201 61 Amount paid to New India Assurance from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.8.92 9517.00 P-1382 P-1413 PW.201 62 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 22.2.93 24.2.93 15.10.93 and 14.2.94 1858.00 P-1519 PW.201 63 Amount paid to Tvl. Moulis Advertisers from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 18.9.95 1100000.00 P-1382 P-1284 PW.183 PW.201

slide 301:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 301 64 Amount paid to Tr. K.A- Panchapakesan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.11.95 10000.00 P-1382 P-1414 PW.201 65 Amount paid to Tr. K.Prem Chand from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 12.4.93 178279.80 P-1382 P-1415 PW.201 66 Amount paid to Tvl. Rajasekaran Co. from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.3.93 20.1.95 9.3.95 and 3.11.95 236120.00 P-1382 P-1416 P-1417 PW.201 67 Amount paid to Tr. Ramamurthy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 12075.00 P-1382 P-1418 PW.201 68 Amount paid to Tr. Ramgopal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 12075.00 P-1382 P-1419 PW.201 69 Amount paid to Tr. Ramson’s from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 5.8.95 6447.00 P-1382 P-1420 PW.201 70 Amount paid to Ramnad District Consumer Forum from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 6.6.92 Two entries 5940.00P-1382 PW.201 71 Amount paid to Tmt. Rangammal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.2.92 29.4.92 26.9.92 3.4.93 8.10.93 30.12.94 and 20.5.95. Rs.3000+12000+7000+300 0+4000+ 7000+7000 46000.00 P-1382 P-818 819 PW.201 PW.152 M.O.637 PW.126 72 Amount paid to Tr. Rangasamy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 35000.00 P-1382 P-1421 PW.201

slide 302:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 302 15.11.95 73 Amount paid to A-P.Telecom from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.01.1996 8915.00 P-1382 P-1422 PW.201 74 Amount paid to Tvl.Rock Advertising from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 two entries 277666.00 P-1382 P-1423 PW.201 PW.188 M.O.1593 75 Amount paid to R.O.Corporation of Madras from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha between 4.9.91 to 27.6.95 219566.80 P-1382 P-1424 to 1432 PW.201 76 Amount paid to Salam Stores from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha from 9.7.91 to 6.12.95 1273642.00 P-680 P-1382 To P- 1452 PW.201 PW.120 77 Amount paid to Romaga Foam from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha from 9.7.91 to 6.12.95 75352.00 P-1382 P-1453 PW.201 78 Amount paid to C. Sango from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 19.4.94 10258.56 P-1382 P-1454 PW.201 79 Amount paid to SBKC Carrier from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 6.1.95 and 1.12.95 42400.00 P-1382 P-1455 PW.201 80 Amount paid to SE MEDC from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore Selvi J. Jayalalitha between 10.7.91 and 6.11.95 58463.00 P-1382 P-1456 to 1462 PW.201 81 Amount paid to Tr. V.Selvaraj from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.7.95 and 2.12.95 13000.00 P-1382 P-820 P-821 PW.152 PW.201 M.O.637 – Page 223 82 Amount paid to SMCS Ltd. from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.11.95 8017.25 P-1382 P-1463 PW.201

slide 303:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 303 83 Amount paid to Tr. D.Swameswara Rao from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.05.95 100000.00 P-1382 P-1464 PW.201 84 Amount paid to Tr. Ram Jethmalani from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 19.7.95 and 9.9.95 200000.00 P-1382 P-1465 P-1466 PW.201 85 Amount paid to Venkateswara Cine from C.A- 2018 on 14.10.1995 14000.00 Ex.P138 2 P.783 86 Amount paid to Adyar Gate Hotel from C.A- 2018 on 19.09.95 175246.25 Ex.P.13 82 P.1467 87 Amount paid to Agarwal Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 23.5.92 12000.00P-1382 PW.201 88 Amount paid to Vijaya Lakshmi Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.5.92 12320.00 P-1382 P-1468 PW.201 89 Amount paid to Annapoorna Cafeteria from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.97 19600.00 P-1382 P-1469 PW.201 90 Amount paid to Egmore Bhavan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.5.92 19300.00P-1382 PW.201 91 Amount paid to Arasan Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 16225.00 P-1382 P-1470 PW.201 92 Amount paid to Vasantha Bhavan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 11160.00 P-1382 P-1471 PW.201 93 Amount paid to Archana Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 75675.00 P-1382 P-679 PW.201 PW.119

slide 304:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 304 21.5.92 94 Amount paid to Arya Bhavan Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 22.5.92 77580.00P-1382 PW.201 95 Amount paid to Welcome Hotel from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.5.92 22000.00 P-1382 P-1473 X-18 PW.201 PW.112 96 Amount paid to Ashok Bhavan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.6.92 21250.00P-1382 PW.201 97 Amount paid to Bombay Milk Bar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 25.5.92 7500.00P-1382 PW.201 98 Amount paid to Bombay Sweet Stall from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore on 25.9.92 15000.00P-1382 PW.201 99 Amount paid to Central Café from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 30.5.92 48645.00 P-1382 P-1474 PW.201 100 Amount paid to Coffee House from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 17450.33 P-1382 P-1475 PW.201 101 Amount paid to Devanathan Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 23.5.97 18042.00P-1382 PW.201 102 Amount paid to Ganapathy Vilas from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92 12996.00P-1382 PW.201 103 Amount paid to Hotel Akash from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.6.92 18422.00P-1382 PW.201 104 Amount paid to Jothi Ananda Bhavan on 4.6.92 from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. 8840.00P-1382 PW.201

slide 305:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 305 Jayalalitha 105 Amount paid to Lakshmi Vilas from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 4.6.92 1880.00P-1382 PW.201 106 Amount paid to Master Bakery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 9091.50 P-1382 1476 PW.201 107 Amount paid to Sri. Jayaram Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.6.92 10224.00 P-1382 P-1477 PW.201 108 Amount paid to Mayil Mark Mittai Kadai from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.6.92 39000.00 P-1382 P-1478 PW.201 109 Amount paid to Nandini from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.5.1992 21000.00 P-1382 X-15 to 17 PW.201 PW.111 110 Amount paid to New Rama Café from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92 74342.25P-1382 111 Amount paid to New Agarwal from CA 2018 Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92 14000.00P-1382 112 Amount paid to New Bombay Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 15150.00 P-1382 P-1479 113 Amount paid to Ramalakshmi Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.6.92 16637.40P-1382 114 Amount paid to Roland Bakery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 18.6.92 13302.90P-1382 115 Amount paid to Salem Café from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 13520.00 P-1382 P-1480

slide 306:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 306 116 Amount paid to AGK Travels from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 15814.00 P-1382 P-1370 PW.201 PW.199 117 Amount paid to Anchor Cabs from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 19211.00 P-1382 P-1286 PW.201 PW.185 118 Amount paid to Annamalai Bus from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.7.93 and 12.3.94 47790.30 P-1382 P-1481 P-1482 PW.201 119 Amount paid to Govind Cabs from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.9.95 15903.00 P-1382 P-1483 PW.201 120 Amount paid to Vincent Travels from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 27502.00 P-1382 P-1285 PW.201 PW.184 121 Amount paid as interest towards T.O.D. between 27.1.92 and 3.11.95 from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 11861.00P-1382 PW.201 122 Expenditure incurred by way of DD Commission from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 25.1.93 27.9.94 2.5.95 1.9.95 228.95 and 17.10.95 5011.00P-1382 PW.201 123 Expenditure incurred by way of folio charges from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on different dates 575.00P-1382 PW.201 124 Amount paid to CM’s Relief Fund from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 5.10.93 100008.00 P-1382 P-1484 PW.201 125 Amount paid to Kanagabisheka Samith from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.3.93 108000.00 P-1382 P-1485 PW.201

slide 307:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 307 126 Amount paid to Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 8.9.92 100000.00P-1382 PW.201 127 Amount paid to Rama Anchaneya Trust from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 12.5.94 100008.00 P-1382 X-12 13 14 PW.201 PW 110 128 Amount paid to Tamilaga Inipagam from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.6.92 27000.00 P-1382 P-1486 PW.201 129 Amount paid to TNG Music Academy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.12.91 100000.00P-1382 PW.201 PW.109 130 Amount paid to President of Thevar Peravai from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.1.94 100000.00 P-1382 P-1487 PW.201 131 Amount paid to R.V. Tower from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 17.3.92 50000.00 P-1382 P-1488 PW.201 132 Amount paid to Warla Trust from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 14.9.93 100000.00 P-1382 P-1489 PW.201 133 Amount paid to Tamil Nadu Films from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 49500.00 P-1382 P-1490 PW.201 134 Amount paid to A-K. Vijaya Shankar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 17.9.93 5.4.95 22.7.95 20.8.94 and 26.10.95 80000.00 P-1382 P-1491 To 1494 PW.201 135 Amount paid to Sun Shine from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.10.95 76450.00 P-1382 P-1496 PW.201 136 Amount paid to Tr. Saminathan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of 94000.00 P-1382 P-1496 PW.201

slide 308:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 308 Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.9.95 and 10.10.95 137 Amount paid to Tamil Nadu Government Fund from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.1.92 108000.00P-1382 138 Amount paid to United India Insurance from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.1.92 28.3.92 31.3.93 29.7.93 18.3.94 16.3.95 and 24.3.95 132796.00 P-1382 P-1497 to 1500 139 Amount paid to VI G Tech from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 10.1.96 91157.64 P-1382 P-1018 PW.201 PW.180 140 Amount paid to Chinna Thambi from Ca 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.5.92 7500.00 P-1381 P-1501 PW.201 141 Amount paid to Vision Hire from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.3.93 250000.00 P-1382 P-1502 PW.201 142 Amount debited from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha towards Indian Bank Account Government transactions on 28.8.95 1590726.00 P-1382 P-1503 PW.201 143 Amount paid to Post Master T. Nagar from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 30.6.95 399.00 P-1519 P-1555 PW.201 144 Amount paid to Madras Telephones from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 30.8.94 and 23.3.94 9301.00 P-1519 P-1556 To P- 1565 PW.201 145 Amount paid to MMWSSB from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala between 7.4.93 and 16.3.95. 2285.00 P-1519 P-1566 P-1567 PW.201 146 Amount paid to Marine Waves from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of 8000.00 P-1519 P-1568 PW.201

slide 309:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 309 Tmt. N. Sasikala on 27.2.93 147 Amount paid to SE MDC from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 24.1.96 14313.00 P-1519 P-1569 PW.201 148 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras of MS from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 20.6.92 1393.95P-1510 PW.201 149 Amount paid to R.O. Corporation from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 5.9.91 1858.60P-1510 PW.201 150 i Amount paid in cash to M/s. Nathella Anjaneyalu Chetty and Sons towards cost of Silver items for Puja purposes silver Kavacham for Vinayaga Idol situated in front of Poes Garden residence for Gold Polishing and blass plates on the main doors of Poes Garden and towards the cost of six gold necklaces during Sept to Nov. 1995. Rs.152000 ii Amounts paid to M/s. Nathella Anjaneyalu Chetty and Sons by cheque No.93293 and 93294 of Canara Bank Mylapore towards cost of two pairs of Gold Ear studs studded with Diamonds Vide bill No.45598 and 45599 – Rs.436978/- 588978.00 P-1510 P-1570 P-1571 P-2262 P-2263 PW.201 PW.238 PW.238 151 Amount paid to Tvl. N. Rajasekaran and Sons from SB 24621 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 28.1.93 30000.00 P-1572 P-1574 152 Amount paid to United India from SB 24621 of Canara Bank Mylapore of V.N.Sudhakaran 5710.00 P-1572 P-1575 153 Amount paid to S. Srinivasan from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 21.10.94 4500.00 P-1576 P-1590

slide 310:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 310 154 Amount paid to R. Loganathan from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 28.2.94 3000.00 P-1576 P-1591 155 Amount paid to United India from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 18.3.94 24.3.95 6.12.95 and 27.3.96 32087.00 P-1576 P-1592 to 1595 156 Amount paid to OM Enterprises from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 13.3.96 36105.00P-1576 157 Amount paid to Tr. P. Raghur from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 13.8.94 2500.00 P-1576 P-1596 PW.201 PW.96 158 Amount paid to SAI Bhas from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 21.10.94 4500.00 P-1576 P-1597 159 Amount paid to Tr. Sampath from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 26.10.95 34960.00 P-1576 P-1598 160 Amount paid to Madras Telephones from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 19.9.95 7.11.95 26.2.96 and 26.4.96 Rs.399 x 5 1995.00 P-1576 P-1599 to 1603 161 Amount debited towards DD Commission from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 16.7.93 17.1.94 19.1.94 and 14.5.94 300.00P-1576 162 Interest paid towards TOD from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 31.12.94 15.12.95 and 7.3.96 813 + 930 + 360 2103.00P-1576 163 Amount paid to Tr. Krishna from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 9.11.94 2500.00 P-1576 P-1604 164 Amount paid to Post Master from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN 399.00 P-1576 P-1605

slide 311:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 311 Sudhakaran on 30.6.96 165 Amount paid to upfront from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 27.10.95 3500.00 P-1576 P-1609 166 Amount paid to Tr. Anilkumar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. 2500.00 P-1618 P-1619 PW.201 PW.97 167 Amount paid to Tr. Narayana Rao from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 6.10.94 4500.00 P-1618 P-1620 PW.201 PW.195 168 Amount paid to Tr. G. Prabhakar Reddy from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 12.8.94 2500.00 P-1618 P-1621 PW.201 169 Amount paid to Tr. P.V.Ravikumar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 28.9.94 1000.00 P-1618 P-1622 PW.201 PW.114 170 Amount paid to Tr. Suresh Bhatia from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 14.3.95 200000.00 P-1618 P-1623 PW.201 171 Amount paid to Tr. R. Vijayan from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 27.4.95 2000.00P-1618 PW.201 172 Amount paid to Tr. A- K.Vijaya Shankar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 5.4.95 20000.00 P-1618 P-1624 PW.201 173 Amount paid to Milan Jothi from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 21.3.94 12500.00 P-1618 P-785 to 787 PW.201 PW.147 174 Amount paid to United India Insurance from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 18.3.94 24.3.95 and 27.3.96 21494.00 P-1618 P-1625 PW.201 175 Amount paid to MMSWWB from CA 2219 of Canara 17305.00 P-1618 PW.201

slide 312:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 312 Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 2.6.95 176 Amounts debited from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi towards cheque book and DD Commission etc. on different dates 1203.00P-1618 PW.201 177 Amount paid to MMDA for allotment of a plot at Door No.E-83 Besant Nagar by A-3 on 3.3.93 and development charges Rs.1500/- on 3.3.93 and scrutiny fee of Rs.475/- on 1.3.93. Plot cost Rs.288750.00 Dev. Ch. Rs. 1500.00 Scrutiny feeRs. 475.00 Rs.290675.00 290675.00 P-725 P-718 P-726 P-727 PW.128 178 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1987- 88 Rs.2675.00 11/92 Rs.227770.00 28.8.95 250445.00 PW.227 179 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1988- 89 Rs.9282.00 11/92 Rs.554200.00 28.8.95 563482.00 PW.227 180 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1989- 90 Rs.9905.00 11/92 Rs.808256.00 28.8.95 818161.00 PW.227 181 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1990- 91 Rs.61549.00 11/92 Rs.500000.00 20.11.95 Rs.500000.00 8.12.95 Rs.500000.00 18.01.96 Rs.500000.00 25.02.96 Rs.500000.00 19.03.96 Rs.500000.00 24.04.96 3061549.00 PW.227 182 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1991- 92 Rs.378065.00 20.11.92 2578065.00 PW.227

slide 313:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 313 Rs.1000000.00 1.10.94 Rs.500000.00 26.12.94 Rs.700000.00 22.1.94 183 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1992- 93 Rs.3891.45 23.11.92 Rs.3343.00 11.2.93 392488.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 184 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1993- 94 Rs.523757.00 15.12.92 Rs.349171.00 16.3.93 Rs.15442.00 13.3.96 888370.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 185 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1994- 95 Rs.87158.00 15.9.93 Rs.87158.00 15.12.93 Rs.116212.00.15.3.94 290528.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 186 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1995- 96 Rs.87158.00 15.9.94 Rs.87158.00 15.12.94 Rs.116212.00.15.3.95 290528.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 187 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1997- 98 Rs.87158.00 13.9.95 Rs.87158.00 8.12.95 Rs.116212.00.14.3.96 924316.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 188 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1987- 88 during 11/92 34381.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 189 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1988- 89 during 11/92 89619.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 190 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1989- 90 during 11/92 268475.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 191 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1990- 91 during 11/92 602757.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 192 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1991- 718542.00 PW.201

slide 314:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 314 92 on 23.11.92 193 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y.1992- 93 on 23.11.92 1351590.00 PW.201 194 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1991-92 during 2/93 223750.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 195 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1992-93 during 2/93 300550.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 196 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1993-94 during 13.3.96 762151.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 197 Wealth Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1991-92 during 2/93 14240.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 198 Wealth Tax reitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1992-93 during 2/93 117955.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 199 Expenditure by way of DDs and P.Os taken in favour of Tr. Syed Saleem of Pet Basheerabad. 7045 x 4 28100.00 7035 x 5 35175.00 63355.00 From the SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha during the check period 63355.00P-936 PW.164 200 Amount paid to Tr. Ravinder Reddy through Andhra Bank Basheerabad Branch SB 2803 from SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha during check period 1035 x 6 60210 10040 x 13 130520 190730 190730.00P-936 PW.164 201 Amount paid to J.R. Rao on 1.2.95 from SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 76337.00P-936 PW.164

slide 315:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 315 202 Amount paid to Thirumala Fertilizers from SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.1.94 3835.00P-936 PW.164 203 Tax deducted at source in respect of MIDR 66/9 on 26.3.92 3332.00P-936 PW.164 204 Amount paid towards BPO Commission from CA 1068 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 21.12.94 301.00P-1111 PW.182 205 Amount paid towards I.C. Charges and Folio Charges from CA 1068 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 16.4.94 13.5.94 15.3.95 28.3.95 and 31.3.95 125.00P-1111 PW.182 206 Amount paid to Temporary OD as interest from CA 1068 of Indian Bank Abirampuram on 31.12.94 388.00P-1111 PW.182 207 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu on 12.5.95 from CA 1068 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tr. VN Sudhakaran. 4410.00P-1111 PW.182 208 Amount paid to Tr. A- K.Vijaya Shankar from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 22.7.95 20000.00P-1109 PW.182 209 Amount paid to Tr. D. Srinivasan from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 7.2.96 140000.00P-1109 PW.182 210 Amount paid to Tr. Dasan from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi 14.10.95 1052.00P-1109 PW.182 211 Amount paid to Tr. Ramadoss from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 14.10.95 5845.00P-1109 PW.182 212 Amount paid to Tr. Ramson’s from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram 9963.00P-1109 PW.182

slide 316:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 316 of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 26.10.95 213 Amount paid to Tr. Vedagiri from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 3.11.95 20000.00P-1109 PW.182 214 Amount paid to Tr. Veerasamy from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 7.11.95 3500.00P-1109 PW.182 215 Amount paid to Tr. Durai Samy Nadar from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 8.11.95 12.12.95 7.2.96 9.9.96 and 14.3.96 Rs.13500 + 13150 + 27025 + 10800 + 27550 92025.00P-1109 PW.182 216 Amount paid to Tmt. Lakshmi from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 4.12.95 591.60P-1109 PW.182 217 Amount paid to Tr. D. Vimal Kumar from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 29.3.96 21000.00P-1109 PW.182 218 Amount paid to Supdt. Engineer from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 24.1.96 1434.00P-1109 PW.182 219 Amount paid to telephone departments from CA 1171 to Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 29.12.95 24.1.96 and 23.3.96 Rs.399 x 3 1197.00P-1109 PW.182 220 Amount paid towards interest for T.O.D from CA 1171 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 17.9.95 and 31.12.95 Rs.6455 + 9715 16170.00P-1109 PW.182 221 Amount paid to DD Commission and other charges from CA 1171 of 6865.00P-1109 PW.182

slide 317:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 317 Indian Bank Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 19.10.95 7.2.96 9.2.96 14.2.96 15.3.96 and 31.3.96 222 Amount paid to Tele Communication Department. From SB 4119 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of J. Vivek s/o. Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 14.7.95 13072.50P-1138 PW.182 223 Amount paid to Tr. M. Natarajan Tamilarasi Press from CA 1053 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. towards the loan A/c in Indian Bank Abirampuram in respect of the loan availed by Tamilarasi Publication P Ltd. on 25.6.94 4096565.00 P-1238 P-1226 PW.182 224 Amount paid to Tamilarasi Private Limited Account No.CA 372 of Indian Bank Abirampuram from CA 1053 of Indian Bank Abirampuram of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. on 14.7.94 1203435.00 P-1226 P-1239 PW.182 225 Other items of household expenditure of Selvi J. Jayalalitha at Poes Garden as per the following particulars. i. Salary for Tr. Jayaraman at Rs.3000/- per month from 9/93 to 10/96 37 months - Rs.111000/- ii. Salary for Tr. Vijayan from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month for 59 months - Rs. 88500/- iii. Salary for 6 drivers from 6/91 To 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month 1615500.00 PW.198

slide 318:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 318 For 59 months - Rs.531000/- iv. Salary for Electrician for 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month for 59 months. - Rs. 88500/- v. Salary for two sweepers from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.750/- per month for 59 months. - Rs. 88500/- vi. Salary for Cook Tr. Selvaraj at Rs.750/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 44250/- vii. Salary for Tmt. Rajamma cook at Rs.500/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 29500/- viii. Salary for 7 Assistant Maids Male and Female servants at Rs.200/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 82600/- ix. Salary for Dhoby at Rs.3000/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs.177000/- x. Milk expenditure 18 Ltrs. Per day At Rs.7.50 per litre for 59 months From 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs.238950/- xi. Telephone Bill for Phone No.4991414 for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1000/- per month

slide 319:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 319 Average bill amount - Rs. 59000/- xii. Flowers purchased for 59 months For 59 months at Rs.1300/- per month 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 76700/- 226 Expenditure incurred in connection with the marriage of foster son Tr. VN Sudhakaran with Tmt. Sathiyalakshmi on 7.9.95 A- Expenditure incurred for erection of marriage pandal over and above the admitted / recorded payments as estimated by P.W.D authorities Rs.52123532.00 b. Expenditure incurred towards cost of food mineral water and thambulam assessment based on available materials Rs. 11496125/- c. 34 Nos. TITAN Watches purchased on cash payment. Rs.134565.00 d. Amount paid to Tr. Syed Bawker towards stitching charges for wedding dress of Tr. VN Sudhakaran - Rs.126000/- e. Amount paid for purchase of 100 silver plates paid by Tmt. N. Sasikala Rs.400000 f. Postal expenses for dispatch of 56000 wedding invitations – Rs.224000 64504222.00 P-1019 P-1371 to P- 1376 P-1292 PW.181 PW.200 PW.192 PW.196 PW.238 PW.189 PW.228 227 Kodanad Tea Estate in S.No.168 of Kothagiri Village i. Expenditure incurred for 1220310.00 P-1964 P-1965 PW.205

slide 320:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 320 construction of bunglow structure – Foundation only – Rs. 700000/- ii Expenditure incurred towards laying HDPE Pipes Rs. 520315/- 228 Amount paid by Tmt. N. Sasikala to Tr. V.N. Kanniyappan Proprietor Lakshmi Marbles Choolaimedu Chennai – 94 towards the cost of marbles and blaze titles supplied to Sengamala Thayar Memorial College for Women at Mannargudi. 1082420.00 P-1382 P-1109 PW.190 229 Amount spent towards electricity power connection for 31-A Poes Garden new residence for SC Account Nos.203-43-209 SC Connection charge Rs.1400/- security deposit Rs.1000/- Electricity consumption charges upto 30.4.96 – Rs.30210/- 40690.00P-67 PW.21 230 Amount spent for securing electricity power connection in respect of SC No.208-43- 216 to 208-43-219 for 31-A Poes Garden at the rateof Rs.6400/- per service connection 25600.00P-67 PW.21 231 Amount paid to Tr. Rajesekaran from SB A/c. No.25389 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 28.1.93 30000.00 P-1613 P-1614 PW.201 232 Amount paid to United India Insurance Company from SB No.25389 of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 31.3.93 9369.00 P-1613 P-1615 PW.201 233 Amount paid to Tr. Subbarama Reddy from SB A/c. No.25389 Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 12.5.95 4410.00 P-1613 P-1616 PW.201 234 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu Reddy from S.B. 4590.00 P-1613 P-1617 PW.201

slide 321:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 321 A/c. No.25389 Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 12.5.95 235 Amount spent towards providing extra amenities in Swaraj Mazda Vans Three TN -09/H-3541 TN-09/ H- 3595 and TN-09/H-3506 of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. paid to Tr. Mohan Nikhil enterprises Chennai - 1 4 750000.00 P-1940 P2031 PW.201 PW.148 236 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges in respect of SC No.211-11-179 dt 1.8.75 of Jaya Publications at C-8 Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate Chennai – 32 for the check period 227750.00P-805 PW.149 237 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges in respect of S.C. No.211-11-180 dt. 1.8.75 of Namadhu MGR at C-8 Tr-vi- ka Industrial Estate for the check period 27529.00P-806 PW.149 238 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges in respect of SC No.211-11-261 dt 17.3.90 at MF-9 Guindy Industrial Estate Chennai – 32 in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications. 269102.00P-798 PW.19 239 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges for the premises of M/s. Jaya Publications at MF-9 Industrial Estate Chennai-32 for the check period including deposit of Rs.12000 97381.00P-789 PW.149 240 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges including deposits in respect of the premises of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. at No.48 Jawaharlal Nehru Road Chennai – 97 1594.00P-804 PW.149

slide 322:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 322 241 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges and deposits in respect of SC No.211-11- 273 of M/s. Jaya Publications for the period from 9/92 to 12-93 108138.00P-807 PW.149 242 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges and deposits in respect of SC No.211-11- 303 of M/s. Sasi Enterprises at A-28 Industrial Estate Chennai – 32 for the check period 58889.00P-808 PW.149 243 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. in the name of the following service connections viz. i. M/s. Sastri Manufacturers SC No.211-05-141 for the period 9/93 to 4/96 – Rs. 133766/- ii. M/s. Sastri Manufacturers SC No.211-05-142 for the period 9/93 to 2/95 disconnected – Rs. 1447/- iii. M/s. Uni Offset Printers SC No.211-05-273 for the period 9/93 to 4/96 – Rs. 182127/- iv. M/s. Amar Enterprises SC No.211-05-275 for the period 9/93 to 4/96 – Rs. 421093/- 738433.00 P-800 To 803 PW.149 244 Amount paid to over and above the document value concerned in document No.282/94 dt. 27.6.94 of SRO North Madras M/s. Fiesta Properties P Ltd. by M/s. Jaya Publications towards the cost of acquisition of flat at Door No.9899 of Luz Church Road Chennai – 4 463000.00 P-1903 P-1924 P-1925 P-1935 P-1903 P-1933 To P- 1935 PW.30 PW.201

slide 323:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 323 Total 115656833.41 245 Vijayasekar Services 44341.35 PW.194 246 Thevar Automobiles 973452.00 PW.197 247 Kumaran Silks 484712.00 P-1387 P-1382 PW.201 248 James Fredrich 3000000.00 PW.167 Grand Total 120059338.76 65.1 The expenditure incurred by the accused between 1.7.1991 and 30.04.1996 are detailed in Anx.IV Ex.P.2330. The said expenditure consist of i Amount paid towards interest in respect of the loan. ii Amount paid to Corporation of Madras towards sanction of building plan. iii Amount paid to Corporation MMWSSB. iv Amount paid for the purchase of provisions. v Amount towards LIC premium. vi Amount paid towards DD Commission. vii Amount paid to telecom and Electricity Department. viii Income Tax and Wealth Tax. ix Household Expenses. x Marriage Expenses. xi Other outgoings. 65.2 In proof of the above expenditure the prosecution is examined PWs.19 20 21 47 52 96 97 110 111 112 114 118 119 128 145 146 147 148 149 152 154 164 178 180 182 183 184 186 190

slide 324:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 324 195 196 198 199 200 201 205 215 224 227 228 237 238 and has produced large number of exhibits which are discussed herebelow: 65.3 Item Nos. 1 to 8: The expenditure incurred by the accused towards payment of interest on the loan availed by M/s Jaya Publications Sasi Enterprises J. Farm Houses J.S. Housing Development J. Real Estate M/s Anjaneya Printers M/s Lex Property Development P Ltd. and Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mantapam is spoken to by PW 182 Sri. Arunachalm the Chief Manager Indian Bank of Abhiramapuram Branch. Through this witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P-1027 true copy of the bank ledger note book which discloses the grant of medium term loan of Rs.1.50 Cr. to M/s Jaya Publications on 28.5.1992. The said loan amount was closed on 25.6.1994 by which date a sum of Rs. 5093921/- has been paid towards the principal interest and security deposit. The statement of account in respect of Account No. OMTL 52 marked through PW.182 as Ex.P.1260 reveals that an amount of Rs. 15 lakh was released to M/s Sasi Enterprises on 13.7.1994 and an amount of Rs. 10 lakh on 13.1.1995. In respect of this account an amount of Rs. 687706/- is seen to have been paid towards interest upto 31.3.1996 and an amount of Rs.

slide 325:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 325 1144977/- was paid towards the repayment of principal. It is shown therein that a sum of Rs. 1283678/- is due under this account. Ex.P-1212 marked through PW 182 is the OMTL statement of account pertaining to J Farm House. As on 30.4.1996 an amount of Rs. 23774/- is seen to have been paid towards the interest in respect of this loan. Ex. P-1173 is the statement of account relating to JS Housing Development. As per the evidence of PW 182 an amount of Rs. 11887/- was transferred to this account from Current A/c. No. 1062 towards interest. This entry finds place in Ex. P-1173. In respect of the loan availed by J Real Estate from the Indian Bank of Abhiramapuram Branch a sum of Rs.11887/- is shown to have been transferred to this account on 27.2.1996 towards the interest which has been duly shown in item No. 5 of Annexure-IV. This entry finds place in Ex. P-1163. Ex.P-1233 is the OMTL statement of account of Anjeneya Printers. It is evidenced therein that an amount of Rs. 770656/- towards interest and an amount of Rs. 4 lakh was paid towards the principal leaving a balance of Rs. 5198749/- as on 30.4.1996. Thus the repayment of interest of Rs. 1181425/- is duly shown in item No. 6.

slide 326:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 326 Ex.P-1356 is the statement of account of Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mantapam. According to PW.182 the said concern availed temporary OD facility as per the letter Ex. P-1357 dt. 13.12.1994 and the account extract relating to this OSA/TOD/3 an amount of Rs. 384400/- was paid by way of interest during 29.12.1994 to 20.1.1996. PW.182 has also spoken about the loan account bearing No. OMTL-65 standing in the name of Lex Property Development P Ltd. and has stated that the Head office asked the Branch office to include Rs. 45 lakh already released under this account and has deposed that an amount of Rs. 1752069/- has been repaid towards the interest under this account. This entry finds place in Ex. P-1330. The accused have not disputed the loan transaction or the contents of the statement of accounts produced by the prosecution as above. Even otherwise these documents being the statements of accounts maintained by the bank in the regular course of its business are admissible in evidence as per the provisions of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act. As a result I hold that the prosecution has proved the item Nos. 1 to 8 of Annexure - IV. 65.4 Item Nos. 9 to 21 : These items pertain to the amount paid to the Corporation of Madras towards the sanction of building

slide 327:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 327 plans and the incidental charges levied by the Corporation. In proof of this expenditure the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW.s 19 and 20. PW.19 Subhash Chandran is the Sr. Planning Organizer in the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. This witness has deposed that A-1 had submitted an application seeking permission to construct two residential portions at No. 36 Poes Garden in an area of 4888.67 Sq. ft. Ex. P-48 is the file relating to the said sanction. A-1 has signed the application as the Prop. of Natya Kalinikethan. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority collected Rs. 2850/- as development charges on 22.11.1991 and granted permission on the same day. This witness further deposed that A-1 submitted another application to construct a residential building on 30.11.1992. Ex. P-49 is the file contains that application Indemnity Bond copy and copy of the original document. On 7.12.1992 Rs. 550/- was collected as a fee and the permission was granted on 7.12.1992. This application also submitted by her as Prop. of Natya Kalanikethan. PW-19 further deposed that an application seeking permission to construct 4 residential portions in RS No. 1567/63 and 1567/50 on Mylapore was received from A-1 on 25.1.1993 to construct a building measuring 953 Sq. mtrs. with basement ground floor and three upper

slide 328:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 328 floors. Ex. P-50 is the file relating to the said permission. Rs. 2250/- was collected as development charges and the permission was granted on 10.2.1993. On 10.11.1995 an application seeking permission to construct a building for Lex Property Development P Ltd. at No. 149/150 TTK Road Alwarpet was received under the signature of Mr. V.N. Sudhakaran as per the file Ex. P-51. The permission was sought to construct a basement ground floor and two more floors. Rs. 5300/- was collected as development charges and Rs. 1800/- as scrutiny amount and Rs. 99600/- was paid as security deposit on 11.2.1995 and the permission was accorded on 12.12.1995. PW-19 further deposed that an application seeking permission to construct a house at Sy. No. 2/1-B/3A Sea Shell Avenue at Sholinganallur on behalf of J Farm House was submitted by Mrs. Elavarasi on 9.2.1996. The permission was refused as per Exs. P-52 and P-53. An application seeking permission to construct a house at No. 5 Murugeshan Street in T. Nagar was submitted by Mr. V.N. Sudhakaran in his capacity as a partner of J Real Estate to construct a house measuring 584.44 Sq. mtrs. The requisite permission was given on 22.11.1995 as disclosed in Ex.P-54.

slide 329:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 329 This witness has further deposed that on 13.3.1992 an application under the signature of the partner of Jaya Publications was received for construction of a commercial complex at S-7 Thiru Vi- Ka Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai along with the required documents and the requisite permission was granted on 18.3.1992 after collecting the development charges of Rs.2500/- security deposit of Rs. 21000/- and Rs. 30000/- by way of car parking relaxation as evidenced in Ex. P-55. On 7.10.1991 another application under the signature of the partner of Jaya Publications was filed seeking permission to construct office building at S-7 Ganapathy Colony Thiru. Vi-Ka Industrial Estate for construction of ground and 1 st floor and the permission was granted on 18.3.1992 as per Ex. P-56. This witness further deposed that permission was also sought for construction of the house at plot No.E-83/A in Sy. No. 151 of Thiruvanmuyur village by A-3 as per Ex.P-56 and on 26.2.1993 he filed another application seeking permission to construct a house with ground and 3 upper floors and the permission was granted on 3.3.1993 by collecting the fee of Rs. 1500/- as per Ex. P-57. There is no cross-examination of this witness and the accused have not disputed the documents marked through this witness. Thus establishing the payment of the requisite charges and

slide 330:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 330 fees to the Corporation of Madras towards sanction of the building plans as detailed in item Nos. 9 to 21. PW-20 the Chief Engineer of Chennai Corporation who has deposed that A-1 sent a signed application seeking to construct a ground floor and 1 st floor on No. 36 Poes Garden on behalf of Natya Kalanikethan as per the file Ex. P-58. In respect of the said permission the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority collected Rs. 12480/- as development charges and scrutiny fees of Rs. 200/-. This witness further deposed that A-1 submitted another application on 19.2.1993 seeking permission to construct an additional building at No.36 Poes Garden. The place was inspected and on the same day the permission was granted to construct the underground ground floor and 3 more floors of the total area of 10257.05 Sq. ft. by collecting fee of Rs.21085/- as disclosed in the file Ex.P-59. On the same day the property was inspected and permission was granted as per Ex.P-60 on collecting the fee of Rs.10925/-. This witness further deposed that permission was sought by Sastri Nuts and Bolts Manufacturing Ltd. to expand the existing factory at No. 48 and applied for the permission and as per the application dt. 12.11.1993 permission was granted on 26.11.1993 and it could be seen in the file Ex. P-61. This witness identified the

slide 331:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 331 building plan Ex. P-42 and further stated that the permission was sought to construct ground floor and 1 st floor measuring 6568 Sq. ft. and Rs. 28600/- was collected as fee. This witness also spoke about Ex.P-62 the file relating to the permission sought for by A-1 to expand the building at No. 212-213 St. Mary’s Road Chennai and deposed that a sum of Rs. 1785/- was collected and permission was granted on 5.2.1992. Likewise A-3 V.N.Sudhakaran applied for extension of the building at No. 5 Murugeshan Street and permission was granted on the same day on collecting Rs.70140/- as mentioned in the file Ex.P-54. This witness also spoke about the permission granted for modification of the building at No. 19 Pattammal Street Mylapore as per Ex.P-63 on the payment of Rs. 1400/- towards the fee and further deposed that A-3 applied for permission to demolish the house at No. 21 Padmanabha Street as Prop. of Anjaneya Printers and the permission was asked to build a ground floor and the 1 st floor and the same was accorded as per Ex.P-64 on collecting the fee of Rs.14560/-. According to this witness Ex.P-56 is the file containing the building plan permission and the receipts for payment of the licence fee to Madras

slide 332:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 332 Metropolitan Development Authority and scrutiny fees on behalf of Jaya Publications for additional constructions II Floor S.7 Ganapathy Colony amounting to Rs.45795/-. Through this witness Ex.P.65 the file relating to the application submitted by N. Sasikala for M/s. Jaya Publications for change of roof in the rest room of the workers at Jaya Publications building at Guindy Estate is marked and this witness and deposed that Rs.13840/- was collected as fee. Towards the construction of underground ground floor and two more floors the Corporation collected Rs.145320/- as per Ex.P-51. Likewise the Prop. of M/s Sasi Enterprises submitted an application to construct a factory at Thiru Vi-Ka Industrial Estate on 1.2.1996 and the permission was accorded on the same day on collecting the fee of Rs.476575/- as per Ex. P- 66. This witness also identified the file Ex.P-292 containing the documents submitted by A-3 seeking permission to construct a house at 7 th Avenue Thiruvanmiyur and stated that Rs.14576/- was collected towards the fee. Though this witness is cross-examined nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to doubt the veracity of the testimony of this witness and the genuineness of the documents produced by him. Even otherwise the documents produced by this witness being the copies of the public records maintained in the

slide 333:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 333 course of performance of official acts are attached with legal presumption and are admissible in evidence without any further proof. The accused have no where disputed the statutory permission obtained by them for constructing new buildings and additions to the building as noted in Exs. P-65 64 51 58 54 63 56 48 49 50 59 60 61 62 66 and 76 respectively. The files produced by PWs 19 and 20 referred above contain the applications with the signatures of the respective accused building plans copies of the title deeds and the receipts for having paid the charges as well as the proceedings maintained by the concerned Municipal Authority. 65.5 Item Nos. 23 to 35 37 to 44 46 48 to 54 56 to 176: PW-201 Vidhya Sagar officer in Canara Bank of Mylapore Branch Chennai is examined to prove various payments made to different persons and concerns mentioned in item Nos. 23 to 35 37 to 44 46 48 to 54 and 56 to 176 and through this witness the prosecution has marked the corresponding documents as exhibits as shown in the last but one column of the above table. The learned counsel for the accused have not disputed the above payments and the genuineness of the documents marked through this witness in proof of the expenditure incurred by A-1 as a result the

slide 334:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 334 prosecution has proved the expenditures detailed under the above items. 65.6 Item Nos. 178 to 198: PW.227 Sundarajan Commissioner of Income Tax has given the details of Income Tax remitted by A-1 and through this witness the relevant exhibits are marked in proof thereof as detailed in the above table. Likewise PW.228 Rajasekharan the Chartered Accountant working for A-1 and A-2 has spoken about the wealth tax returns submitted by A-1 and the wealth tax paid by her. The expenditure incurred by A-1 in this regard is not in dispute. 65.7 Item Nos. 229 230: PW-21 Narayanan the Superintending Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has spoken about the test reports submitted by him regarding the electric connection given to the house at No.34-A Poes Garden. Through this witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P.67 the file containing the details of the electrical installation. According to this witness electric connection was given only after completion of the construction of the building This witness has clarified that in Ex.P-67 instead of Door No. 36 and 34-A it is mentioned as 36 and 36-A. This witness has further stated that after personal inspection and on

slide 335:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 335 ascertaining the completion of the electrical work on 22.4.1996 he gave the electric connection to 4 floors situate at Door No. 34-A. This witness is not cross- examined by the accused and the document marked through this witness is not challenged. Ex.P-67 marked through this witness contain the details of 7 domestic services existing at 36 and 36-A of Poes Garden and the details of service connection charges security deposit development charges and the collection details which are duly signed by the Executive Engineer Operation Maintenance. PW-118 S.R.Kapoor is examined by the prosecution to prove the expenditure shown at item No. 53 of Annexure - IV. According to this witness since 1992 he has been running ‘Kapoor’s Furnishing Fabrics Company’ at Peter’s Road Chennai. From May 1995 to September 1995 he sold window curtains and kosa covers to A-1 and he was paid Rs.40000/- and another time Rs.4264/- in cash and received two cheques for Rs.12721/- and Rs.130779.40. Through this witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P-678 the accounts statement maintained by him. In the cross-examination it is elicited that Ex.P-678 the statement was prepared and submitted before the court on the date of his examination as such the said document cannot be relied. But the accused have not disputed the payment of cheque of Rs. 130779.40 by A-1 towards the

slide 336:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 336 purchase of the window curtains which are duly corroborated by Exs.P-1382 and P-1396 as spoken to by PW.201 as a result the prosecution has convincingly proved the expenditure detailed in item No. 53. PW-111 Achuthan Manager of Nandini Sweets has stated that on the instructions of the Assistant of A-1 on 13.4.1992 he sent 1000 packets of sweets worth Rs. 21000/- to the house of A-1 on 14.4.1992 and in the next month he received a cheque for Rs.21000/-. The photo copy of the bank challan is marked through this witness as Ex.P-15. In the cross-examination this witness has reiterated that the police had enquired him during the investigation but the police did not seize the books of account from his possession. He has further stated that the originals of Exs.P-15 to P-17 were written by the Accountant and he has brought the said books before the court on the date of his examination. He has also admitted that his signature does not find place in Exs.P-15 to P-17. There is no cross- examination by the accused in respect of sale of sweets and receipt of Rs.21000/- by way of cheque as stated by this witness. He has asserted in the cross- examination that the cheque was given to him personally. The oral testimony of this witness is duly corroborated by the documentary evidence and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony

slide 337:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 337 of these witnesses regarding the purchase of sweets amounting to Rs. 21000/- by A.1. PW-112 Venkatarama Upadhyaya has deposed that he has been running a hotel by name ‘Welcome Hotel’ at Purasaivakkam. In 1994 on Tamil New Year Thandiyarpet Tahsildar asked him to supply 1000 packets of kara and sweets and accordingly he supplied the said items and towards its price the Tahsildar gave him a cheque for Rs.22000/- which was signed by A-1. This witness deposed that he has brought the original and photo copies of the day book. Through this witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P-18 viz. pages 70 and 71. In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW 112 is not acquainted with the signature of A-1 and Ex.P-18 is written by his Accountant Kasthuri Raja who is presently working in his brother’s hotel. He denied the suggestion that Ex. P-18 is a fabricated document and asserted that Ex. P-18 was submitted for Sales Tax Assessment and the office seal is found on 526 th page. On going through his evidence I find that PW.112 is an independent witness and no circumstances are brought out in the cross-examination to show that he has given false evidence before the court. PW-119 Raju owner of ‘Archana Sweets’ has deposed that Ex. Chief Minister bought sweets from his shop on 12.4.1992. Four persons purchased the sweets

slide 338:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 338 for Rs.24000/- as per Bill No.410 and on 13.4.1992 one Siddaiah came to the shop with few others and bought sweets for Rs. 51675/- and in respect of the said purchases about one month thereafter money was paid through two cheques drawn on Canara Bank. The said cheques were signed by A-1. Through this witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P-679. Ex.P.679 is the zerox copy of the Day Book maintained by PW.119 containing the entries regarding the cheque payment of Rs.24000/- and Rs.51675/-. In the cross- examination it is suggested that during the enquiry he stated before the police that two persons from AIADMK party had come to his shop and he prepared the 1 st bill in the name of Lakshmi and another bill in the name of Siddaiah. He reiterated that the cheques were drawn by A-1. PW-178 Armugam is examined to prove item No. 41 amounting to Rs. 24660/-. According to this witness he is running a photo studio by name ‘Balu Colour Lab’ for the past 21 years. He knows A-1 and he had taken many photographs in AIADMK party functions. In the year 1995 during the marriage of A-3 the foster son of A-1 which took place in Chennai he took photographs for 4-5 days during wedding function. He was assisted by his two sons Shankar and Balu and two workers. After developing the prints he gave them to Chief Minister’s office and received Rs. 54660/-

slide 339:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 339 through Canara Bank cheque signed by A-1. He identified the cheque Ex. P-1009. Through this witness the prosecution has also marked the letter written by him to A-1 as per MO 725 and three albums as MO 720 A B C. This witness stated in the chief-examination that he gave the negatives of those photos to A-1. This witness also identified the photographs taken by him as per MO.s 722 and 667 but relating to M.O.772 the photographs this witness stated that he does not remember having taken those photographs. PW-114 Ravi Kumar has deposed that he along with Srinivasa Reddy started Lex Property Development P Ltd. He had invested Rs.1000/- and Srinivasa Reddy had invested Rs. 4500/-. They opened Current A/c. in Indian Bank at Peter’s Road. In 1991 Subbirama Reddy was elected as an M.P. and stayed at Delhi. So he could not commence the business. In June 1993 he wanted to change the company to his friends. So he handed over the companies documents and unused cheques to Sudhakar Reddy who was with Subbarama Reddy. This witness further deposed that after sometime Sudhakar Reddy gave him a cheque for Rs.1000/- and another cheque for Rs.4500/- in the name of Srinivas Reddy. He identified his signature on Ex.P.573 and P.574. i.e. zerox copies of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd.. There is no cross-

slide 340:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 340 examination of this witness as such the prosecution has proved that the aforesaid sum of Rs.5500/- was received by PW.114 from A.4. PW-128 Balakrishnan has deposed that he was working as an Asst. Secretary Co-ordination in Tamil Nadu Housing Board from December 1996 to January 2000. Regarding this case he produced Exs.P-718 and P.719 the files maintained in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He further deposed that A-3 submitted an application for allotment of a site as per Ex.P-721 and he was allotted the site measuring 1800 Sq. ft. for Rs.288750/-. A-3 paid the said amount on 30.7.1992 as per Ex. P-725 and Rs.100/- towards the registration fees vide Ex. P-726 the receipt. The very same witness deposed that A-4 was also allotted a site as per Ex.P.729 and in respect of the said site at the time of submitting the application Ex. P-730 she paid Rs.1000/- as EMD as per receipt marked as Ex. P-731. As per Ex. P-735 she paid Rs.1270/- for the fence. PW-228 Raja Shekaran Chartered Accountant has deposed that he filed the Income Tax and Property Tax Returns on behalf of A-1 and A-2 and he received his salary through crossed cheques from A-1 and A-2 for the respective years of submitting the tax returns.

slide 341:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 341 PW-96 Raghuram has deposed that in 1990 he and Prabhakar Reddy started a Partnership Company called Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. but no business or transaction was being done. Subbarama Reddy suggested to sell the concern. In June 1994 Prabhakar Reddy and he went to Subbaramu Reddy’s office and signed some papers for transfer of the Company in the names of Sudhakaran and Elavarasi and they gave them Rs.2000/- each in the form of two cheques. The cheque received by him was signed by Sudhakaran. Through this witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P.576 and P.577 the certified copies of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. Even in the cross-examination he reiterated that when he signed the forms the name of V.N.Sudhakaran and Elavarasi were mentioned therein. PW-97 Anil Kumar Reddy has stated that he and Krishnakumar Reddy started an office by name Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. at No.5 I Street Subba Rao Avenue Numgambakkam in 1990. They took 250 shares each. They started the Company with the idea of doing real estate business in agricultural lands but they did not have sufficient funds. In 1993 Subbarama Reddy Ex-Parliamentary Member asked him whether they were interested to sell the Company. In 1994 he asked them to come over to his office and took their signatures in some printed forms and paid them

slide 342:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 342 Rs.2500/- each by cheques. This witness further deposed that the files related to Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. were handed over to Sudhakaran Reddy. The cheque given to him was signed by Elavarasi and within a week therefrom Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. office was changed to different address. This witness identified the signatures on Ex.P.595 and P.596 and further stated that after subscribing their signatures they did not continue with the Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. In the cross-examination also this witness reiterated that they signed a printed form given to them. Form No.32 was one of them and he does not remember about the other forms. PW-145 Chattibabu is examined to prove the cost of curtains sold by him to the house of A-1. According to this witness he his son and three workers went over to the house of A-1 and completed the work of fixing the curtains in front of the screen in the theatre and after some days Vijayshankar made the payment through cheque for Rs.14000/- signed by A-1. Through this witness the cheque is marked as Ex.P.783. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he did not collect the balance amount. PW-146 Kishore has deposed that he was working at Prashant Film Laboratory as Chief Engineer in the

slide 343:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 343 recording section in 1995. In August 1995 Vijayan from Ex-C.M.’s house asked him to come to the house of A-1 and instructed him to install the projection equipments and sound system in the theatre constructed in the 3 rd floor of the multi-storeyed building in the house No.36 Poes Garden. He worked for 4 to 5 days and installed them and gave a bill for Rs.25000/-. After some days he received the cheque signed by A-1 for Rs.25000/- as per Ex.P.784. His testimony is not shaken in the cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that he did not carry out the work of installation in the house of A-1 PW-147 Madanlal the owner of cloth shop by name ‘Milan Jyothi’ is examined to speak about the sale of 69 Garden Sarees and 61 Garden Sarees. Through this witness the carbon copy of the receipt are marked as Ex.P.785 786 787. This witness further deposed that in connection with the said sale he received a cheque for Rs.12500/- signed by A-2 cheque for Rs.12500/- signed by A-3 and cheque for Rs.20831/- signed by A-1 and he credited the said cheques to his bank account in the Bank of Baroda T.Nagar Branch. In the cross-examination this witness answered that the originals of Ex.P.785 P.786 and P.787 were written by him. Further it is elicited that during the enquiry by the Police he stated that he had taken three cheques but did not tell the police that A.4 Smt. Elavarasi had given a cheque. This witness was again recalled on

slide 344:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 344 13.11.2002 and at that time this witness answered that there is nothing to show that the above documents are the duplicate receipts. Ex.P.785 P.786 and P.787 are stamped with the seal ‘dress fabrics’. All the receipts produced by him are the cash receipts. Further it is elicited that the payment for the sarees was not made on the day of the sale so it is not a cash sales. It is also elicited that he has not seen the ladies who purchased those sarees either before or after the purchase. He did not try to find out the background of those ladies. The police did not examine Daily Ledger and Ledger Books. In appreciating the evidence of the above witness it is pertinent to note that on the date of his examination before the Court on 10.5.1999 he had brought the account books of his cloth shop and the carbon copies thereof were marked in evidence and the accused did not raise any objection to mark those documents. It is only after the recall of the witness three years thereafter the above statements are extracted from his mouth. But solely on that ground the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded as the statements made by this witness in his chief- examination find corroboration in the evidence of PW.201 who has stated before the Court as under

slide 345:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 345 “Cheque for Rs.12500/- was given to Milan Jyothi on 21.3.1994 and the sum deduced from C.A. 2196.” PW-148 Mohan has deposed about the payment made to him for carrying out the upholstery work. According to this witness from 1988 onwards A-2 was his regular customer. In 1994 he made seat covers for Tempo Traveller vehicles and received Rs.60000/- through two cheques. One cheque was issued from the account of Sasi Enterprises and another from the account of Vinod Video Vision. This witness further deposed that before 1996 election Ex-Minister Sangottiyan asked him the quotation for making seat covers for Swaraj Mazda and PW.148 told him that each vehicle will cost Rs.413000/- but he agreed to pay Rs.350000/- and paid Rs.2 lakhs in advance. Minister Sangottiyan’s P.A. gave Rs.1 lakh in cash and in all he received Rs.850000/-. This witness deposed that all the said three vans were in the name of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. and further stated that Smt. Sasikala was not in a position to come and therefore she sent the amount through the above persons. In the cross-examination he answered that he did not produce any proof for having received a cheque for Rs.60000/- from Sasi Enterprises and there is no proof for having received Rs.2 lakhs from Sangottiyan. He did not issue any receipts in respect of the said amount. He did not show the receipt of Rs.850000/- in

slide 346:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 346 his Income Tax statement. He does not know the model or the registration number of the three Swaraj Mazda on which he undertook the work. This evidence is not sufficient to prove the expenditure shown by the prosecution. Hence the amount of Rs.7.50 lakhs included in item No.235 is liable to be deducted. PW-152 Selvaraj has stated that his deceased mother Rangammal rented out the house to the then Chief-Minister A-1 on a rent of Rs.1000/- per month as per rental agreement Ex.P.817. The house was given for five years from 12.01.1992 to 11.07.1997 and towards the rent his mother received Rs.34000/- and after her death he received Rs.13000/-. Through this witness Ex.P.818 P.821 cheques are marked. In his cross-examination it is elicited that the receipt of advance is not mentioned in Ex.817 and A-1 did not personally pay the rent in respect of the said building but the factum of A.1 taking the house on rent is not disputed. Certainly PW.152 is an independent disinterested witness and there is no reason for this witness to state that his mother had received the rents in respect of the said premises. PW-154 Kamal Pasha owner of Super Market by name ‘Five Star’ is examined to prove the payment received by him towards the supply of provisions to the house of A-1 and through this witness the account

slide 347:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 347 register Ex.P.823 P.824 P.825 P.827 P.828 P.830 P.831 P.832 are marked. This witness has further deposed that from 1991 to 95 he supplied provisions worth more than 4 lakh to No.36 Poes Garden and received the payment through cheques as per Ex.P.833 to P.856. In the cross-examination it is elicited that in Ex.P.823 the address and telephone numbers of 17 customers is not mentioned. His elder brother’s son Mubarak Ali Ahmed Basha and Kamal Basha write the Ledger. He maintains the Day Book in respect of the things sold on credit. He has obtained licence to run a medical shop also. He is having a Pharmacy. Ex.P.823 is meant for medicines. A-2 had an Accountant in their shop. He has further answered that A-2 had given cash and cheques for the things purchased and he has been inquired by the police in connection with the above dealings. The testimony of this witness having been corroborated by the documentary evidence deserves acceptance. PW-164 H. Prabhakaran Senior Manager Central Bank of India Secunderabad has spoken about the entries contained in S.B. No.20614 standing in the name of A-1 and in respect of S.B. A/c. No.22792 standing in the name of A-2 and the certified copies thereof are marked as Ex.P.936 and 937. His evidence is already discussed.

slide 348:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 348 PW-180 Sukeela is examined to prove the sale of 30 stabilizers to A-1 for the total cost Rs.91157.64 and has stated that they received the amount through cheque of Canara Bank Mylapore signed by A-1. The invoice is marked as Ex.P.1017. The Bank A/c. counterfoil as at Ex.P.1018. 66. HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES: Item No.225: Other items of household expenditure Of Selvi J. Jayalalitha at Poes Garden As per the following particulars. Rs. 1615500.00 i Salary for Tr. Jayaraman at Rs.3000/- per month from 9/93 to 10/96 37 months Rs.111000/- ii Salary for Tr. Vijayan from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month for 59 months. Rs. 88500/- iii Salary for 6 drivers from 6/91 To 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month For 59 months. Rs.531000/- iv Salary for Electrician for 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month for 59 months. Rs. 88500/- v Salary for two sweepers from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.750/- per month for 59 months. Rs. 88500/- vi Salary for Cook Tr. Selvaraj at Rs.750/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 Rs. 44250/- vii Salary for Tmt. Rajamma cook at Rs.500/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 Rs. 29500/-

slide 349:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 349 viii Salary for 7 Assistant Maids Male and Female servants at Rs.200/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 Rs. 82600/- ix Salary for Dhoby at Rs.3000/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 Rs.177000/- x Milk expenditure 18 Ltrs. Per day At Rs.7.50 per litre for 59 months From 6/91 to 4/96 Rs.238950/- xi Telephone Bill for Phone No. 4991414 for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1000/- per month Average bill amount Rs. 59000/- xii Flowers purchased for 59 months For 59 months at Rs.1300/- per month 6/91 to 4/96 Rs. 76700/- 66.1 Regarding this amount A-1 has raised two fold contentions / objections as under i The prosecution has not produced any reliable and convincing evidence in proof of the alleged house expenses amounting to Rs.1615500/- except the oral testimony of PW.198 there is no other reliable evidence in proof of the above expenses. The prosecution has not examined any of the persons named by PW.198 and no documentary evidence is produced before the Court to corroborate the testimony of this witness. ii The expenses are generally calculated in item Nos.26 27 28 40 to 52 of Annexure-IV and

slide 350:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 350 therefore the prosecution is not justified in separately calculating the exorbitant sum of Rs.1615500/- under item Nos.225 as it clearly amounts to double entry. 66.2 Both the above contentions in my opinion are liable to be rejected. Coming to the second objection raised by the accused it is pertinent to note that in order to prove the expenses listed under item No.225 of Annexure-IV the prosecution has relied on the oral testimony of PW.198 and corresponding documents are marked through this witness as per Ex.P.67 P.811 P.1135 P.1120 P.1159 P.1169 P.1188 P.1206 P.1247 P.1360 P.1361 to P.1369. As against this evidence item Nos. 26 27 28 40 to 52 are sought to be established through PW.201 PW.154 PW.178 and by production of Ex.P.1519 P.1533 P.1382 to P.1395 which makes it evident that both items and expenditure are separate and distinct. Hence the argument of the learned Counsel that these entries are overlapping and amount to double entry cannot be accepted. 66.3 In so far as the first objection raised by the accused is concerned it is relevant to note that under this item the prosecution has sought to include the payments based on the evidence of PW.198 M. Jayaraman who has deposed that he was working as Under Secretary in PWD Govt. of Tamil Nadu and

slide 351:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 351 retired on 31.07.1992. He was re-employed from 01.08.1992 to 31.07.1993 and thereafter for another six months from 01.08.1993 to 31.01.1994. At that time A-1 was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. After the second reemployment Mr. Karuppanan Secrety to the Chief Minister took him to Poes Garden and introduced to A-1 who instructed PW.198 to join Mr. Vijayan in taking care of the house work. Accordingly from 26.08.1993 to 12.10.1996 he worked in Poes Garden. He was paid a monthly salary of Rs.3000/- in cash. He used to attend the phone calls of Sasikala V.N.Sudhakaran and others and used to deposit the amount given to him in the names of the Company mentioned by them in Canara Bank Mylapore Branch and in Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. These works were done by him and Vijayan. Smt. Sasikala used to instruct him through intercom about the details of the Bank to which the deposits should be credited she used to send the amount either in suitcase or bag through domestic servant. Along with the money she used to send the challan books and he used to fill it as directed by A-2. In the course of his chief-examination he identified the challans for having remitted the amount to the bank which came to be marked as Ex.P.1123 P.1124 P.1139 P.1190 P.1299 and P.1304. He also identified his signatures on all these challans and further deposed that apart from him Mr. Vijayan

slide 352:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 352 also used to go to the Bank for remittance of the money. The said Vijayan is no more. 66.4 PW.198 further deposed that he and Vijayan used to disburse the monthly salary for the workers of Poes Garden. During that period building construction was going on in Poes Garden house. When he was working in Poes Garden Sasikala Sudhakaran Elavarasi Vivek S/o. Elavarasi Satyalakshmi W/o. Sudhakaran were permanently residing with A-1. A-2 used to issue all the orders in the above house. Relatives of Sasikala A-2 viz. Sundaravadanam brother of Sasikala his wife Santhana Lakshmi their daughters Prabha Anuradha Srethaladevi daughter of Sasikala’s sister Srethaladevi’s husband Bhaskaran Sasikala’s elder brother’s son Mahadevan Sasikala’s elder sister Vanithamani her husband Vivekanandan their son Baskaran his wife Subhashree used to come to Poes Garden. There were five telephone connections in Poes Garden house with intercom facility. There was a separate telephone connection given by the Government bearing telephone No.4991414. A-1 used to pay the bills for the telephone and the monthly average bill would be Rs.1000/-. P.W.D used to pay electrical charges of Poes Garden house. A-1 used to pay the electric bills of house No.31-A. 66.5 Apart from this A-1 used to pay water tax sewage tax property tax of the said house. There were

slide 353:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 353 12 to 13 vehicles in Poes Garden. Petrol and diesel used to be filled in Dewar Automobiles Petrol Bunk in Alwarpet and the coupons in this regard used to be sent by PW.198 and Vijayan once a month the payment used to be made to the petrol bunk through cheque. A- 1 only used to pay insurance road tax and other taxes for the said vehicle. There were six drivers by name Shivakumar Ayappan Mani Mohan Nagarajan and Kannan. Among them Ayyappan Nagarjun and Kannan were staying in Poes Garden. A monthly salary of Rs.1500/- was given to each drivers. They were in service till PW.198 left the job. The vehicles were repaired at Vijay Sales Corporation Thousand Lights. 66.6 Regarding purchase of provisions PW.198 deposed that provisions for the house were purchased from Salam Store T. Nagar and from 5 Star Departmental Store in Gopalapuram and the payment used to be made through cheques only. Rajammal was in-charge of cooking. There were two other cooks to assist her. There were five girls and two boys aged about 10 to 15 years to attend to the domestic work who were paid Rs.200/- per month as their salary and they used to eat and stay in Poes Garden. A washer- man used to come to wash clothes. His monthly salary was Rs.300/-. Three guards from AZAGU Security Services were appointed on payment of Rs.1500/- per month each. There were two sweepers by name

slide 354:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 354 Ramaiah and Ganesan and each was paid Rs.750/-. There was a electrician by name Vedhagiri who was paid Rs.1500/- per month. There were 10 to 12 dogs in the house and 8 kgs of mutton used to be bought daily for feeding the dogs from Pondy Bazar. Rajammal was paid Rs.500/- per month towards her salary. There was another cook by name Selvaraj to prepare food for servants. He was paid Rs.750/- per month as salary. One Azagammal supplied 8 liters of milk in the morning and 10 liters of milk in the evening and the bills amounting to Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- per month which used to be paid once a month. A person was supplying flowers daily in the evening and he was paid Rs.1000/- per month. All these payments were made in cash. The newspaper and magazine expenses were borne by the Government. 66.7 This witness was cross-examined on 13.10.2000 and the defence could not shake the veracity of the testimony of this witness even to a shred. Even in the cross-examination he reiterated that not even once he was paid his salary by cheque. He also reiterated that he remitted the cash in the bank. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to Canara Bank Mylapore Branch and did not remit the cash to the Bank. He further answered that ledgers regarding the payment of wages to the workers were not maintained and the said payment used to be written in

slide 355:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 355 a paper and sent to A-1 and thereafter their signatures were obtained and the salary used to be disbursed. The police did not ask for any written evidence regarding the disbursement of the salary and therefore he did not inform this fact to the police. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that apart from the vehicles mentioned in the chief-examination the accused were also using other vehicles belonging to the companies. In respect of those Company vehicles A-2 used to give money to pay the taxes. The visitors were served coffee Horlicks and a separate servant was employed for this purpose. He asserted in the cross-examination that the Chief-Minister’s house was not maintained by the Government and A.1 on her own kept the workers to maintain the house. He further reiterated that he did the job of purchasing meat to maintain the dogs but there is no voucher or account books for having purchased the meat. He denied the suggestion that no money was spent on dogs. In the cross-examination it is also elicited that through the Ex-Housing Board Minister Sri.Raghupathy he got allotted two sites in the name of his two sons and further stated that since he was an Under Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Officer he was able to get the said two sites. 66.8 Even though PW.198 was fully cross- examined by the accused in the year 2000 curiously on 2.12.2002 PW.198 was re-called by the accused and as

slide 356:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 356 expected PW.198 contradicted his own statements made on oath and denied almost all the statements made during his chief-examination. During his further cross-examination PW.198 even went to the extent of saying that he cannot identify the people whom he mentioned in the chief-examination and he did not buy provisions to the house of A-1 and did not disburse salary to the workers. This witness was again recalled and was subjected to re-examination by the learned Spl. P.P. by putting the following question “Question: In the year 2000 when you were examined for the first instance you were given evidence but in 2002 when you were recalled you made contradictory statements. Which of the two versions is true and correct Ans : The first version given in 2000 is true and correct”. 66.9 In appreciating the evidence of PW.198 it is pertinent to note that but for his prevarication during the further cross-examination in 2002 this witness had stood by the case of the prosecution. The circumstance under which the witnesses turned hostile in this case is already noted by me in the preceding part of this Judgment. The circumstances brought out in the evidence clearly suggest that only after A-1 assumed the office of Chief Minister the Government officials including PW.198 had deposed at variance with the statements made by them during their chief-

slide 357:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 357 examination. But during his re-examination PW.198 having confirmed that the statements made by him during his chief-examination were true and correct his entire testimony cannot be thrown out. The testimony of this witness that at the relevant point of time he was in-charge of the household affairs of A-1 has not been denied in the cross-examination. It cannot be believed that a retired Government servant could give the details of the household expenses of the Chief-Minister and the in-mates of the house with such precision and accuracy unless he was acquainted with the true facts. In appreciating his evidence it is also relevant to note that during trial the prosecution has produced the photographs which substantially corroborate the testimony of this witness regarding the amenities provided in the house including the rearing of dogs. Therefore merely because the witness was prevailed upon to speak contrary to the true state of facts his testimony cannot be discarded especially when suitable corroboration is available from the other material produced before the Court. Moreover the witness himself having admitted in his re-examination that whatever he has stated during his chief-examination is true and correct there is no reason to discard his evidence. 66.10 The factual situations spoken to by this witness find intrinsic support and corroboration from

slide 358:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 358 the other evidence produced by the prosecution and the surrounding circumstances established in evidence. Even though this witness is subjected to cross- examination on two occasions there is not even a remote suggestion to the witness that the large number of domestic servants and employees and drivers were not employed in the house of A-1 at the relevant point of time. Though the prosecution has not produced any documents regarding the disbursal of salary to these employees the mode of payment of remuneration to these employees having been clearly spoken to by PW.198 which has not been falsified in the cross- examination I do not find any reason to disbelieve his evidence. Having regard to the status of A-1 and the number of inmates residing with her during the check period it cannot be said that PW.198 has given exaggerated picture of the household expenses of A-1. Therefore on over all consideration of all the above facts and circumstances I hold that by the testimony of PW.198 deserves full credence. By the testimony of PW.198 the prosecution has proved the household expenses incurred by A-1 during the check period as detailed in item No.225 of Annexure-IV. 66.11 As against the above evidence the contention of A-1 is that she has disclosed all the expenditure incurred by her during the check period in the Income Tax returns submitted before the Income

slide 359:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 359 Tax Authorities as evidenced in the documents produced by the prosecution at Ex.P.2334 Ex.P.2173 Ex.P.2175 and Ex.P.2176 coupled with the orders passed by the Commissioner of the Income Tax as per Ex.P.61. It is seen from Ex.P.61 that during the check period she had disclosed the following household expenses. Year As on 31.03.1998 Household expenses declared before the Income Tax Authorities Exhibits 1992-93 Rs.177988.00 Rs. 12036.00 Ex.P.2334 1993-94 Returns not filed 1994-95 Rs.311723.00 Ex.D.61 1995-96 Rs.420.192.60 Ex.P.2176 66.12 It is the submission of the learned Counsel for A-1 that the total expenses incurred by the A-1 for the maintenance of the household during the check period is only Rs.1615500/-. The said amount is already included in item Nos.26 27 and 28 and item Nos.40 to 52 of Annexure-IV and therefore the amount of Rs.1615500/- shown under item 225 of Annx-IV is liable to be excluded. 66.13 In the absence of any corroborating evidence in support of the expenses declared by A-1 in the returns filed by her merely on the basis of the said returns the positive evidence produced by the prosecution through PW.198 cannot be rejected. There

slide 360:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 360 is no hard and fast rule regarding the extent of expenses to be considered vis-à-vis the income of accused. In Sajjan Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC.464 on the factual matrix of the said case the Honble Supreme Court had considered 1/3 rd of the total income of the accused as the approximate expenses. In the instant case the prosecution has computed the expenses on the basis of the actual amount paid either through bank or in cash. The outgoings from the bank account are evidenced by the various documents referred above which are beyond challenge. With regard to the payment made in cash the oral testimony of PW.198 deserves acceptance. Therefore it cannot be said that the computation of the household income by the prosecution is without any basis. Hence the objection is rejected. 67. EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE OF FOSTER SON TR. V.N.SUDHAKARAN Item No.226 : A sum of Rs.64504222/- is included in Annexure-IV as the expenses incurred by A-1 for the performance of the marriage of her foster son Tr. VN Sudhakaran A-3. The break-up of the said expenses are given as under

slide 361:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 361 a Expenses towards the erection of marriage pendal over and above the admitted / recorded payments Rs.52123532/- b Expenditure incurred towards cost of food mineral water and tamboolam Rs.11496125/- c Cost of 34 Titan Watches Rs. 134565/- d Amount paid to Tr. Syed Bawkar towards stiching of wedding dress for A-3 Rs. 126000/- e Amount paid for purchase of 100 silver plates paid by N. Sasikala Rs. 400000/- f Postal expenses for dispatch of 56000 wedding invitations Rs. 224000/- a EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS THE ERECTION OF MARRIAGE PENDALS : 67.1 According to the prosecution A-1 performed the marriage of A-3 her foster-son on 09.07.1995 with all fanfare pomp and grandeur spending a sum of Rs.64504222/-. In order to prove the said expenditure the prosecution has relied on the oral evidence of PW.178 181 183 184 185 186 189 191 199 200 214 215 224 228 237 243 and 259 and large number of documents are marked through these witnesses.

slide 362:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 362 67.2 PW.181 Sri. Thangarajan was the Asst. Engineer P.W.D at the relevant point of time. According to this witness on 17.04.1997 the Chief Engineer P.W.D. ordered him to meet the Supdt. of Anti Corruption Bureau. Accordingly on 18.04.1997 PW.181 and the Jr. Engineer Tr. Vasudevan met PW.259 in his office. PW.259 entrusted him the work of estimating the expenses incurred towards the wedding reception of Tr. V.N.Sudhakaran A-3 the foster son of A-1. In order to prepare the estimation he consulted the Architect Vijayshankar Art Directors Thota Tharani and Gopinath assistant of Thota Tharani Mr. Ramesh Shrinivasan assistant of Mr. Ramesh B.S. Mani the Electrician Sayyed Mohammed and others. He visited MRC Nagar the venue of wedding and saw the place of reception at Film City presently named as MGR Film City and prepared a report of estimation as per Ex.P.1019 duly signed by him and Vasudevan and submitted it to the Police. 67.3 PW.181 further deposed that Architect Vijayshankar gave him the drawing of the choultry and the measurements of the pendals which are enclosed to the report. He maintained in his evidence that he came to know the measurements on enquiry with the above persons and on that basis and with reference to the expenses incurred towards the erection of shamiyanas for Government functions at P.W.D he prepared the

slide 363:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 363 estimate report as per Ex.P.1019. He clarified that the estimate of the items which did not fall under the price list of P.W.D were found out through local market enquiry. This witness further deposed that for the wedding at MRC Nagar a pendal measuring 235200 sq.ft. with coconut fronds inclined on both sides was erected with estimated cost of Rs.1881600/-. For dining a separate coconut thatched pendal was laid in an area of 216000 sq.ft. Its estimate value is Rs.1728000/-. For the V.I.Ps a separate meal lounge with iron sheet roof was erected in an area of 24000 sq. ft. Its estimated cost is Rs.384000/-. At the entrance of main pendal false ceiling with decorations were laid in 157980 sq. ft. The colour spreads were decorated with gift wrappers with estimated cost of Rs.6635160.00. A permanent wedding dais was constructed with brick steel sheets and asbestos roof with two bedrooms two reception halls and bathrooms. The stage was built in 9392 Sq.Ft. Its estimated value is Rs.3522000/-. Four air conditioners were fixed for the bride and groom. The expenses incurred in that regard are estimated at Rs.3 lakhs. 2500 VIP chairs valued at Rs.125000/- 10000 ordinary chairs valued at Rs.150000/- 12800 chairs at the dining hall valued at Rs.128000/- and 4800 dining tables costing Rs.48000/- were used. For the VIP dining tables and chairs Rs.272880/- has been spent as per the receipts. Rs.728527/- has been spent on roads. Thus

slide 364:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 364 a total of Rs.21100000/- was spent on pendal wedding dais and chairs and tables for the wedding at MRC Nagar. 67.4 PW.181 has also estimated the details of the expenses incurred for the arrangements at the Film City and has stated that the main pendal was erected in 14400 sq. ft the dining pendal in 7000 sq. ft. with the total expenses estimated at Rs.15 lakhs. Thus according to PW.181 an amount of Rs. 59100000/- was the estimated cost of the various pendals and the facilities provided therein for the bride and bridegroom and for the guests excluding the expenses for the dinner tiffin drinking water crackers tonga elephant horse chariot video music concerts and Bharata Natya as detailed in his report Ex.P.1019. 67.5 This witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination running to 80 pages. Based on the answers elicited in cross-examination of this witness the learned Counsel for the accused would submit that PW.181 is an obliging witness set up by the prosecution more than two years after the marriage of A-3 solely with a view to inflate the expenditure by creating a document purported to be the estimation of the reception and the marriage arrangements of A-3. The learned Counsel at the outset pointed out that during the cross-examination this witness has admitted that he was not invited for the wedding and he did not attend

slide 365:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 365 the wedding or the reception. He has also admitted that he has personally not seen the reception function marriage pendals or the decorative arches and the like. According to PW.181 he gathered the information about the measurements of the stage and the pendals and other arrangements from Sri. Vijayshankar Ethiraj Thotta Tharani Gopikant A.K.Ramesh and Shrinivasan who are not examined before the Court as a result there is no basis whatsoever for PW.181 to prepare the estimation as per Ex.P.1019. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the names of the above persons do not find place in Ex.P.1019 and therefore to that extent the evidence given before the Court is an improvement and hence no credence could be given to the testimony of PW.181. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that even otherwise the above portion of his evidence is nothing but hearsay which is not admissible in law and therefore solely on this ground the oral testimony of PW.181 as well as the report prepared by him at Ex.P.1019 is liable to be rejected. 67.6 Alternatively it is argued by the learned Counsel for A-1 Sri. B.Kumar that Ex.P.1019 produced by the prosecution is a mere estimation and cannot be treated as the actual cost incurred thereon. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that PW.181 has admitted that he visited the place of function only 2½ years later and did not see any of the pendals lighting

slide 366:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 366 and sitting arrangements with his eyes hence the evidence given by him to the effect that 2500 VIP chairs 10000 ordinary chairs were used for the marriage function and 12800 chairs and 4800 dining tables were used in dining hall etc. demonstrates that PW.181 has played into the hands of the prosecution and has issued the estimation as per Ex.P.1019 to suit the prosecution and has given false evidence before the Court. The learned Counsel has further argued that PW.181 came to picture only on 17.04.1997 much after the finalization of Annexures I to VII which again leads to the inevitable conclusion that this witness was propped up only to create evidence in a bid to justify the exorbitant amount included in Annexure-IV as the expenditure in connection with the marriage of A-3. The learned Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that Ex.P.1019 is neither dated nor the persons who signed Ex.P.1019 have written the date therein indicating that this document has been got up solely to support the false claim laid by the prosecution. 67.7 I have carefully gone through Ex.P.1019 and the evidence of PW.181. I am in full agreement with the counsel for A-1 that PW.181 was neither an eye witness to the marriage arrangements made at the venue nor had he any personal knowledge about the expenses incurred thereto. But in appreciating the evidence of this witness it is pertinent to note that the submission

slide 367:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 367 of the learned Spl. P.P. is that PW.181 is examined only as an expert witness to speak about the cost of the arrangements. In order to prove that the various arrangements noted by PW.181 in his report Ex.P.1019 were in fact carried out at the venue the prosecution has examined large number of witnesses and therefore the evidence of PW.181 has to be analysed in the context of the evidence of the other witnesses who have given elaborate evidence regarding each and every item of the arrangements in connection with the marriage. 67.8 On going through the evidence of PW.181 I find that he has estimated the cost of pendals based on the information furnished to him by other prosecution witnesses. Hence before expressing any opinion on the relevancy and reliability of the testimony of PW.181 it is necessary to consider the other evidence let in by the prosecution in this regard. 67.9 PW.200 Sri.K.P.Muttuswami Chief Engineer P.W.D Tamil Nadu is examined by the prosecution to prove the involvement of A-1 and A-2 in the marriage arrangement of A-3 and the expenses incurred thereto. According to this witness when he was in service he used to supervise the work of putting up shamiyanas for Government functions. He knew Mr. Jawahar Babu the Asst. Secretary of Ex-Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha. In the first week of July 1995 Mr. Jawahar Babu contacted him over phone and asked him to come over

slide 368:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 368 to Chief-Minister’s house in connection with the marriage to be held in her house. On the next day he met Jawahar Babu in the Chief Minister’s house. He took PW.200 to the first floor and introduced him to Mrs. Sasikala. Mrs. Sasikala A-2 asked PW.200 to complete the pendal work as early as possible in a good way. 67.10 PW.200 has unequivocally stated on oath that in respect of the pendals erected in MRC Nagar Mr. Vijayshankar an Architect gave him the plan of the stage and the pendals contractors by name Rajappa Nadar Rajagopal Nadar and Kumaresan Nadar were also present there. He was introduced to PWD contractor Mr. Ethiraj. As per the plan he arranged to level the land and marked the place to install the pendal in MRC Nagar ground. Five main pendals measuring 70 feet x 750 feet were put up with coconut leaves for the performance of marriage ceremonies. These pendals were put up by Tuticorin Rajappa Nadar. 8 coconut leaves pendals measuring 60 feet x 450 feet each were put up to serve food for public and these were put up by Ramachandran Nadar from Chennai. Two pendals with measurement of 60 feet x 200 feet for serving food for VIPs were put up by Mannargudi Rajagopal. Eight kitchen sheds measuring 60 x 90 feet were also put up. One cooking shed for VIPs measuring 45 x 135 feet was put up with asbestos sheets by Kumaresan Nadar.

slide 369:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 369 Marriage platform bathroom rooms for the bride and bridegroom measuring 9392 sq.ft. were built with bricks and roofed with A.C. sheet. This work was done by Ethiraj. The rooms for the bride and bridegrooms were air-conditioned. The air conditioner expenses were met by Ex-Chief Minister’s house. The expenses of the above mentioned pendals were also met by the Ex-Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha’s house family. Marriage platform VIP sitting place VIP cooking place and decoration on the side of pendals were done by the Art Director Gopinath. For water facilities 5 borewells were dug by Paul Dasan. Water was also supplied through Lorries. The work of laying gravel road was done by K.V.Natarajan. The electrical connection was given by C.S.Chandrasekhar from Tanjore. He had brought 2-10 KW generators and 4 mobile generators. 67.11 PW.200 further deposed that the bride’s father Mr. Narayanswamy gave him a total of Rs.14 lakhs in 4 installments and asked him to submit the accounts to Ramkumar the uncle of the bride. Accordingly PW.200 gave Rs.3 lakhs to Gopinath Rs.175000/- to Paul Dasan and Rs.10000/- to K.V.Natarajan. PW.200 further deposed that the above works were started one and a half month before the wedding. When the work was in progress one week before the marriage A-1 and A-2 inspected the work. The wedding reception was held in Film City on

slide 370:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 370 10.09.1995. For that purpose pendal work was done by Kumaresan Nadar. PW.200 specifically deposed that he supervised the above mentioned works on the instructions of Mr. Jawahar Babu. The decoration work was done by a North-Indian by name Paul Babu and for this Rs. 1.50 lakhs was sent from Poes Garden. The carpenter’s wages cost of plywood nails and reapers were paid by him. For the function 6 temporary connections were taken in the name of Film City and PW.200 signed these applications as per Ex.P.1371 to P.1376. From Adyar Vinayagan Temple to MRC Nagar paths were decorated with decorative lights by R. Subramani and G.M.Sami using temporary electrical connection. He paid Rs.354000/- to Subramanyam and Rs.489000/- to G.M.Sami out of the above Rs.16 lakhs and after completing the work he submitted the accounts to Mr.Ramkumar and handed over the remaining amount of Rs.4422/- to him. The amount for getting the temporary connections were paid through cheques from C.M’s house. PW.200 further deposed that when he was supervising the work in MRC Nagar one person gave him the marriage invitation card with a silver plate a silk saree silk dhoti and angavastram and during investigation he handed over those articles to the Anti Corruption police. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the silver plate as MO.1594 Silk dhoti as MO.1595 silk angavastram as MO.1596 silk saree as MO.1597.

slide 371:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 371 In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW.200 did not appoint the contractors Rajappa Nadar Kumaresan Nadar Ethiraj Rajagopal and Ramachandran Nadar they had brought the required materials and were present at the venue A-2 did not issue any written orders asking PW.200 to supervise the pendal works Mr.Vijayshankar gave him only the plan and he did not come to see where the pendals were put up. PW.200 further answered in the cross-examination that he does not know whether the food arrangements were made for the delegates in the pendal itself he did not tell the police during his enquiry about the approximate expenses for putting up pendals and he does not know how much was spent. Further it is elicited that there were two kinds of pendals big and small the Architect prepared and gave him one plan for the stage and another one for the pendals he did not supervise the work done by Art Director Gopinath he did not supervise the borewell works also. It is further elicited that under Ex.P.1371 the temporary electrical connection was asked in the name of Vinod Video Vision Company now he does not remember whether he signed any documents other than Ex.P.1371 to P.1376. 67.12 He reiterated in the cross-examination that during enquiry he told before the Police that the expenses for purchasing the A/c. machines were met by Ex-Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha’s house and the

slide 372:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 372 pendal expenses were also met by Ex-Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha’s house. He further reiterated that on 31.01.1997 when he was enquired by the Police he produced MOs. 1594 to 1597. He further answered that MO.1597 silk saree was once worn by his daughter but he did not wear MOs. 1595 and 1596. In the cross- examination this witness answered that during the above mentioned works he stayed for two months in his son-in-law’s apartment in Chennai. He denied the suggestion that he has aversion towards A-1 as her party had defeated his son-in-law. PW.200 further answered that during the police investigation he did not state that one month before the marriage A-1 and A-2 had inspected the work because it was not asked by the Police. 67.13 Here itself if we look into the valuation report prepared by PW.181 it is pertinent to note that in this report Ex.P.1019 PW.181 has given the specification of the stage as 60 x 72 feet with height of 14 feet at front and 11 feet at rear side and 4½ feet height platform with rooms on either side for an area of 55 x 21 feet and waiting platform for area of 55 x 17 feet covered with A/c. Sheet over steel trusses. In the report it is stated that thermocol false ceilings over rooms on either side and plaster of paris ceiling over the stage were provided and alluminium shutters on

slide 373:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 373 windows and teak-wood shutters on doors etc. which is in conformity with the testimony of the above witnesses. 67.14 Thus from the evidence of PW.200 it could be gathered that he had first hand information about the arrangements made at the marriage venue and he affirmed in his evidence that he supervised all the above works on the instructions of A-2 and it is brought out from his evidence that A-1 not only inspected the arrangements but also made part of the payments in connection with the erection of the pendals. A reading of the cross-examination of PW.200 reveals that PW.200 has withstood the cross-examination successfully. The veracity of the testimony of this witness has not been shaken by the defence either with regard to the supervision of the work or in respect of the details of the works supervised by him. His testimony regarding the involvement of A-1 and A-2 in the marriage arrangements and making payments towards the pendals and allied works has remained unchallenged. The very fact that this witness has signed the applications for temporary electrical connections at Exs.1371 to P.1376 not only lend corroboration to the testimony of this witness but also gives credibility to his disinterested testimony. The circumstances deposed by this witness regarding the receipt of marriage invitation card along with the silver tray silk saree silk dhoti and the angavastram – MOs.1594 to MOs.1597

slide 374:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 374 inspire full confidence in the testimony of this witness that he was actively involved in supervising the arrangements as deposed by him. The specifications of the pendals and the other details spoken by this witness correspond to the nature of the arrangements and the measurements of the pendals as shown by PW.181 in his report Ex.P.1019 thereby lending sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW.181. Though the learned Counsel for A-1 has pointed out an improvement in the testimony of this witness the said improvement does not affect the over all credibility of the testimony of this witness for the reasons discussed above. 67.15 The other witnesses examined by the prosecution in connection with the marriage expenses viz. PW.183 Mr. Ramesh Managing Director in Moulis Advertising Services Company has deposed that he knows Tr. Jawahar Asst. Secretary to Former Chief Minister Jayalalitha. In the end of July or in the beginning of August 1995 the said Jawahar PW.237 contacted him over phone and requested him to come over to the house of A-1. He asked PW.183 to design and print wedding invitations for A-3’s wedding. He prepared the design and the typeset matter and the same were approved by PW.183 who gave an order to print 65000 wedding invitations. One of such wedding invitations printed by him was handed over by him to

slide 375:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 375 the enquiry officer and the same came to be marked as Ex.P.1283. PW.183 specifically deposed that it is printed in English and Tamil reading that A-3 is the adopted son of A-1. Apart from the invitation cards he got printed 5000 car passes and delivered them to Jawaharbabu at Poes Garden along with the bill for Rs.11 lakhs and received the cheque signed by A-1. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the said cheque dt. 15.09.1995 for Rs. 11 lakhs as Ex.P.1284. But surprisingly during the cross- examination this witness answered that he did not submit any proof either during the enquiry or during his evidence before the Court regarding the order received by him to print 65000 wedding invitations and 5000 car passes and for receiving Rs.11 lakhs. He further answered that in support of his contention that he received Rs. 11 lakhs he did not submit the counterfoil of the bill. Further this witness answered in the cross- examination that he had executed printing of invitations posters for AIADMK Party and received the cheque Ex.P.1284 for AIADMK Party work. 67.16 This witness was recalled by the learned Spl. P.P. and was subjected to re-examination on 15.10.2010 and he was specifically asked to clarify as to which of the two versions stated by him were true and correct. In reply PW.183 answered as under:

slide 376:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 376 “Among the said two statements the first statement which is stated by me during the course of my examination-in-chief dt. 22.06.2000 is correct.” 67.17 PW.184 Mr. Vincent has deposed that he is running a Travels Company by name Vincent Travels at Kilpauk Chennai. His Company rents out Cars. In the year 1995 from the guest house he received a request to send 10 cars viz. Contessa A/c. Ambassador and Non-A/c. Ambassador for the marriage of V.N.Sudhakaran and accordingly he sent 10 cars on hire. All these 10 Cars were with them from 05.09.1995 to 13.09.1995 and for that he charged 27502/- and received the money through cheque dt. 23.09.1995 signed by A-1. This witness identified the said cheque which came to be marked in evidence as Ex.P.1285. 67.18 In the course of the cross-examination however this witness resiled from his chief-examination stating that nobody asked him to send the vehicles for the marriage and the original invoice for the 10 cars from 5.9.95 to 13.9.1995 was given to AIADMK office and the cheque Ex.P.1285 was given by the General Secretary of the Party for having hired the Cars. This witness also was recalled by the Spl. P.P. and was subjected to reexamination asking him to clarify as to which of the two versions stated before the Court was correct and PW.184 unequivocally answered that the

slide 377:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 377 first statement viz. what he stated in his chief- examination is correct. 67.19 In appreciating the testimony of PW.183 and PW.184 it should be noted that though these witnesses resiled from their earlier statements during their re-examination they have stood by the statements made by them in their chief-examination and moreover the accused having not falsified the testimony of these witnesses regarding the payments received by them from A-1 through cheques their testimony not only receives suitable corroboration but also inspires confidence to hold that these witnesses had attended to the works as stated by them in connection with the marriage of A-3. 67.20 In addition to the above witnesses prosecution has examined PW.185 Prem Kumar to speak about the Cars supplied by him on hire during the wedding of A-3. According to this witness he was running a Tourist Car Rental Company by name ‘Ankar’ and he used to get requisitions from Tamil Nadu Government Guest House. In September 1995 as per the requisition from the Tamil Nadu guest house he sent 6 Cars on rent for 4 days. This witness specifically deposed in his chief-examination that those Cars were hired for the use of VIP guests during the wedding of A- 3 and invoice for Rs.19211/- was drawn and the amount was paid through cheque dt. 23.09.1995 as per

slide 378:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 378 Ex.P.1286 signed by A-1. In the cross-examination except eliciting that PW.185 is maintaining expenditure account ledger and receipt books nothing has been brought out to disbelieve the testimony of this witness regarding the Cars rented out during the wedding of A-3 and the receipt of the cheque Ex.P.1286. In the cross- examination this witness has reiterated that the sent a separate receipt for the amount received through cheque. 67.21 PW.186 Chalapathy Rao has stated that he has been running Dr. Giri’s Museum at No.24 Brandson Garden Street Chennai since 1975. He is the proprietor of that Company. He use to rent out chairs tables shamiyanas cooking vessels cots beds table clothes and decorative articles for function. One week prior to the marriage of A-3 the foster son of A-1 the P.R.O. of Ex-chief Minister Selvi J. Jayalalitha viz. Sri.Sachhidanandam directly came to their Company and asked for tables and chairs for the marriage of A-3 and handed over a cheque for Rs.130000/- as advance hire charges and asked him to deliver the chairs and tables to MRC Nagar and MGR Film City. The Dy. Manager of Adyar Park Sheraton Hotel Mr. Naveen asked him to supply decorative articles and clothes for the marriage of A-3 and he supplied all those articles. PW.186 further deposed that a cheque for Rs. 57250/- was given to him. The said cheque Ex.P.1287 was

slide 379:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 379 signed by A-1. PW.186 deposed that the balance amount of Rs.265000/- is still due to him towards the hire charges. In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW.186 did not issue any receipt for the advance amount of Rs.130000/-. It is also elicited that for any functions relating to AIADMK Party he used to rent out the articles like tables chairs shamiyanas and decorative articles and used to collect the rent from the Party General Secretary. In view of the ambivalent stand taken during his cross-examination this witness was recalled by the Spl. P.P. and was subjected to reexamination whereby PW.186 unequivocally stated that the earlier statement made by him in his examination-in-chief is correct. He denied the suggestion that under the pressure of the Police and the present ruling party he has deposed against the accused. Though it is argued by the learned Counsel that the testimony of this witness cannot be relied on for the reason that he has admitted in the cross- examination that he used to supply the articles to the AIADMK Party and used to receive payments from the General Secretary. The accused have not probablised this defence either by producing any direct evidence or by bringing out any circumstance in the evidence of the prosecution to suggest that at the relevant time AIADMK Party had conducted any function of that magnitude and that the General Secretary had issued a

slide 380:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 380 cheque to him as suggested to the witness. Mere suggestion cannot take the place of proof. In any count the witness himself having admitted during his re- examination that the statements made by him during his chief-examination are true and correct the above evidence does not weaken the credibility of the testimony of 186. 67.22 PW.188 Sundareshan is the another witness examined in support of the alleged marriage expenses. According to this witness he was working in “Dinatanti” a Tamil Daily Newspaper as Sr. Advertisement Manager. Through this witness the prosecution has got marked the inner page of the Dinatanti dt. 10.09.1995 containing the advertisement published on 10.09.1995 as M.O.1593. 67.23 This witness has stated that the said advertisement was published in all other editions on 11.09.1995 and he sent the bill for Rs.247660/- to Rock Arts Company which gave the advertisement. In the cross-examination it is elicited that M.O.1593 is not a Government advertisement. He has denied the suggestion that M.O.1593 advertisement was published to keep the ruling party in good humour. It is also elicited that during his enquiry he gave the duplicate bill relating to the advertisement to the Police. It is further elicited that below the words “Tamil Nadu Chief Minister” it is printed as “The General Secretary of

slide 381:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 381 AIADMK Party”. However this witness answered that if the Government issued any such advertisement the name of the “Party General Secretary” will not appear in the advertisement. 67.24 Here itself it may be relevant to reproduce the English translation of the said advertisement. It reads: “I extend my heart felt thanks to each and everyone who attended and wished the couple on the marriage of my foster son V.N.Sudhakaran and N. Satya Lakshmi on Thursday 7.9.1995 in Chennai and the Mapillai Alzhaippu the bridegroom’s arrival on 6.9.1995. My foster son’s wedding goes down the memory lane for me and my family and it turned out to be a grand festival for the countless AIADMK members EDAYA EDIVAM PURATCHI THALAIVAR MGR’s Blood of His Blood and my “udan periapugal” who are more precious to me than my life who with family affection participated in it and made it into a grand party function. I am enthralled by it. My family wedding turned out to be like your own family wedding and you took the trouble of coming from Tamil Nadu and other States to Chennai to attend the marriage feast in countless numbers with a loving heart have greeted the couple with your choicest blessings and for that my happiness has multiplied. I am moved by the number of greetings that have poured in by telegrams and letters sent by thousands of people.

slide 382:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 382 The people who attended my foster son’s wedding and the people who sent the greetings have made the function a grand success my thanks to each and every one of them. Please treat this as individual thanks with love and affection. My heart felt thanks to each and everyone. J. Jayalalitha Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu AIADMK General Secretary. ” 67.25 PW.199 A.G.Krishnamurthy has stated that he has been running a Company by name A.G.K. Travels in Gangureddy Road Egmore Chennai. He arranges four wheeler from other travel companies. He used to get orders from Corporations and Government Guest House. On 5.9.1995 Mr. Basheer contacted him over phone and wanted Cars for VIPs. Accordingly he sent two Ambassador A/C cars from 6.9.95 to 8.9.95. After the Cars were returned he prepared the Trip Sheet and the bill and sent them to State Guest House. The person from the Guest House asked him to send the bills to A-1. Hence he drew the bills in the name of A-1 and received the amount through cheques signed by A-1 for Rs.15814/- as per Ex.P.1370. In the cross- examination it is elicited that he does not know A-1 personally and A-1 did not ask him personally to send the Cars and he sent the Cars only on the instructions of Basheer.

slide 383:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 383 67.26 Another important witness examined by the prosecution in proof of the alleged expenditure is PW.228 Sri. Rajasekharan the Chartered Accountant practicing in Chennai. According to this witness he filed the income tax and property tax returns of A-1 from the year 84-85 to 96-97. One Mr. Shanmugam assisted him as auditor. The relevant portion of his evidence regarding the marriage expenses find place at page 9 of his chief-examination which reads as under: “Prevention of Corruption Department Police Officers searched my house and office. They had prepared a report mahazar for the seized document. I have received a copy of the report mahazar. I too had signed in that mahazar. Ex.P.2215 is dt. 17.10.1996. Search Jabeeda not enclosed In that it is mentioned that they had searched my office from 11.30 to 14.00 which is at No.1 3 rd Street Roya Pettai High Road. In that I had signed. Mr. Nallamma Naidu and other officers came to search. The document from 1 to 15 mentioned in the report mahazar were seized by the Police from out office. Ex.P.2215 the document mentioned as 14 th item is Ex.P.2216. The item mentioned as 15 th is Ex.P.2217. On the same date the Police have searched the house at No.57 subramanyam Street Abirampuram Chennai where I was staying and seized the document. They had prepared a report mahazar. The police seized 48 item documents as mentioned in that report. They gave me copy of that report and obtained my signature. The mahazar is Ex.P.2218. The 17 th item is Ex.P.2219. The 38 th item of Ex.P.2218 is the file containing 928 pages of Sudhakaran’s marriage expenditure bills receipts is at Ex.P.2230 the 39 th item file

slide 384:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 384 consisting 01-244 pages of bills and receipts is Ex.P.2221”. This witness is not cross-examined by the accused. However in the course of the argument the learned Counsel for the accused has put forth a plea that PW.228 was recalled at the instance of the accused but the said witness failed to appear before the Court in spite of issuance of the summons and the learned Public Prosecutor has also failed to take any coercive steps to secure the presence of this witness for purpose of cross-examination and therefore his entire testimony is liable to be eschewed from records. 67.27 On going through the records I do not find any justifiable reason to exclude from consideration the evidence of PW.228 on the purported plea that he has not been cross-examined by the accused. Records reveal that PW.228 was examined on 03.08.2000. The accused did not choose to cross-examine the witness on the date of his examination and their prayer for deferment of the cross-examination was rejected. The accused appear to have moved an application u/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to recall 145 witnesses for cross- examination en masse and the said application was allowed and the summons were issued to the witnesses as per the list filed by the Spl. P.P. If for any reasons the witness did not turn up for cross-examination it was open for the accused to seek the assistance of the

slide 385:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 385 Court to secure the presence of the witness resorting to coercive action. It was also open for the accused to examine the said witness on behalf of the defence having regard to the fact that he was the auditor of A-1 and A-2 ever since 1984. The accused have advisedly not taken any steps to secure the presence of the witness. The accused themselves having brought about the situation cannot take advantage of their own fault and seek to eschew the evidence on the purported plea that he was not subjected to cross-examination. Even otherwise the testimony of this witness is confined only to the documents seized from his office during the investigation and these documents are marked in evidence and some of them are relied on by the accused themselves in support of their defence. It is seen from the records that the documents marked through this witness are confronted to other witnesses. Under the said circumstance if the testimony of this witness is eschewed the other evidence adduced by the prosecution also would be affected. 67.28 It is important to note that Ex.P.2218 marked through this witness is the mahazar prepared on 17.10.1996 at 21.00 hours at Door No.57 Subramanyam Street Abirampuram Chennai by the Investigating Officer-PW.259 under which 46 files were seized. One of these files is marked as Ex.P.2220. It contains copies of the replies issued by A-1 and A-2 to

slide 386:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 386 the Income Tax Authorities and also the notice issued by the Asst. Director of Income Tax calling upon A-1 and A-2 to furnish the information regarding the expenditure incurred for the marriage of A-3. The said file contains the original receipts of various concerns and establishments viz. Govind Cabs Giris Museum Furniture Hires receipts issued by Kumaresan Nadar– Pendal Contractor Chandrasekaran of Tanjaore Balu’s Colour Lab Statement of Accounts towards the hire charges in connection with the wedding reception by the Tamil Nadu Film Development Corporation Ltd. receipts issued by Kumaran Silks M. Abbas Paddy and Rice General Merchant receipts issued by Ramesh for M/s. Moulis Advertising Service Pvt. Ltd. etc. 67.29 The file contains the receipts for Rs.11 lakhs towards the designing printing and supply of invitation cards and Car passes bills issued by Rock Ads for a sum of Rs.30050/- towards the printing and supplying of car passes receipt for Rs.247616/- for the advertisement released in Dina Tanti thanking the party men and public receipt by Purendu Pal for Rs.1 lakh for designing execution and erection of pendal and A/c. dining hall in connection of the reception held on 10.09.1995. It also contains receipt issued by Madras Foils for Rs.70000/- towards printing and supply of 20000 plastic bags printing the names of the couple in green colour for the wedding on 7.9.1995 receipts by

slide 387:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 387 AGK Travels for Rs.15814/- bills and receipt by Anchor Cabs for Rs.19211/- bills and receipt by Vincent Travels for Rs.27502/- Income Tax payment receipts receipts for Rs.175246.25 issued by Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. Madras towards the room rent and other connected expenses for the stay of the VIP Guests during 6.9.1995 and 7.9.1995. Receipt by AGK Travels for Rs.15814/- and also the telephone and STD bills. b EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS THE COST OF FOOD MINERAL WATER AND TAMBOOLAM:- 68. PW.237 Jawahar has deposed that from February 1992 to 1996 he was working as Asst. Secretary to the Chief Minister Selvi J. Jayalalitha. His office was functioning from Secretariat and also from camp office. Camp office was functioning from Chief Minister’s House at No.36 Poes Garden. He worked in Chief-Minister’s camp office from 1992 to 1996. During that period A-2 and A-3 were staying in Chief- Minister’s house. Mr. V.N.Sudhakaran’s marriage took place in the year 1995. The engagement took place in the house of Shivaji Ganeshan. From the bridegroom’s house betrothal gifts were carried in plates to the function. A-1 had gone to attend the engagement. 68.1 This witness further deposed that for the marriage and reception of V.N.Sudhakaran musical concerts of Mandolin Srinivas and A.R. Rehaman were

slide 388:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 388 conducted. As directed by A-1 he contacted A-R. Rehaman and Mandolin Srinivas and asked them to meet the Chief-Minister. PW.237 further deposed that Moulis Agencies Company had got printed the wedding invitations. 400 invitations were posted to VIPs viz. the Chief-Ministers of many States IAS officers Governors and higher officers of Police Department. In his chief- examination PW.237 unequivocally deposed that he knew the retired Engineer Mr.K.P.Muttuswamy who supervised the pendal works of Mr. Sudhakaran’s marriage. He further deposed that for the marriage and reception he went along with the Chief-Minister but he cannot tell how many persons attended the marriage. Many cooks had come from Tanjaore to cook the food. After the marriage he has seen Mr. Sudhakaran in Poes Garden. He has also seen A-4 in Poes Garden. Mr. Vijayanan and Mr.Jayaraman were the Managers in the special office at the Chief-Minister’s house. One Mr. Naresh Shroff had also contacted him when he was in the camp office. PW.237 was cross-examined on 3.11.2000 and he reiterated in his evidence that he contacted Mr.A.R.Rehaman and Mandolin Srinivasan through phone and asked them to speak to Ex.Chief-Minister as directed by her. He also reiterated that VIP address slips were pasted on 400 invitations at his office. However in the cross-examination he answered he does

slide 389:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 389 not know Mr. Sanjay Jain and he did not know under whose instruction Mr. K.P.Muttuswamy supervised the pendal works. But on material aspects of the prosecution case regarding the marriage expenses the testimony of this witness was not discredited but surprisingly even this witness was recalled at the instance of the accused and was subjected to further cross-examination on 27.01.2003 and as expected he substantially resiled from him earlier version and even went to the extent of stating that due to compulsion he stated in the chief-examination that A-3 and A-4 were staying in Door No.36 Poes Garden. He denied having spoken to Mandolin Srinivas and A.R.Rehaman through telephone and further stated that he did not know Mr.Rajagopalan of Registration Department and Muttaiah from Agricultural Department and further stated that the distribution work of wedding invitation of A-3’s marriage and reception programme took place in AIADMK party office. He also denied that the pendals were erected under the supervision of PW.200. 68.2 Pursuant to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court this witness was recalled by the Public prosecutor and was re-examined on 19.01.2011 by putting the question as under “Question: In your evidence recorded in 2000 you have stated several facts. But in the cross- examination after recalled in 2003 you have made contradictory statements. Which of the two versions is correct

slide 390:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 390 Ans : The first version i.e. what I have stated in examination-chief is true and correct. During the cross-examination by the counsel for A-2 PW.237 answered “it is true that I have taken oath when I was inducted into service and accordingly I have deposed before the court.” 68.3 Though the learned Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that this material witness having resiled from his earlier version and having given inconsistent evidence at two different stages his evidence has to be excluded from consideration yet for reasons already discussed above and having regard to the fact that in his re-examination he has affirmed the statements made in his chief-examination and further the answers elicited by the defence during his further cross-examination being contrary to the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution the testimony of this witness cannot be thrown out but requires to be analysed with caution and circumspection. 68.4 The law on the question of appreciation of the evidence of hostile witnesses seems to be well settled. In R.K. Dey v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 S.C. 170 the Honble Supreme Court of India has held that “it is also clearly well settled that the mere fact that a witness is declared hostile by the party calling him and

slide 391:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 391 allowed to be cross-examined does not make him an unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” 68.5 Similar proposition is laid down in Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 S.C. 985 wherein it is held that a hostile witness may not be rejected outright but the Court has at least to be aware that prima facie a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. The Court therefore be sole to act on the testimony of such a witness and normally do look for corroboration to his evidence. In AIR 1979 4 SCC 314 at page 4 it is observed as under “At the same time it must be remembered that corroboration must be in respect to material particulars and not with respect to each and every item however minor or insignificant it may be. Actually the requirement of corroboration is a rule or prudence which the courts have followed for satisfying the test of the reliability of an approver and has now been crystallized into a rule of law. It is equally well settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is frustrated.”

slide 392:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 392 In case of State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra the Apex Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence could be relied upon. 68.6 In the instant case the circumstances under which 76 prosecution witnesses were recalled by the accused after A-1 assumed the office of the Chief- Minister and the manner in which 64 of them casually without any rhyme or reason back tracked from their earlier version cannot be dismissed as a trivial act of dishonesty or hostility of the witnesses. It is pertinent to note that large number of the above witnesses are Government officials attached to either P.W.D. or the Police Department or the Vigilance Wing of the State Govt. which is directly under the control of the Chief- Minister. Most amazing and shocking part of the proceedings is that even the D.I.G. of the Police PW.241 who registered the F.I.R. in his official capacity as the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption 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 to maneuver the witnesses has even prompted the case to be transferred to this Court. That explains the reason as to why 23 of

slide 393:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 393 the above witnesses later affirmed before the Court that the statements made by them in their chief-examination are 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 resiled from their earlier version during their further cross-examination cannot by itself be a factor to disbelieve their testimony. As observed in the above decision the Court may have to be cautious in accepting their evidence without corroboration. Fortunately in the instant case there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the majority of the hostile witnesses either by way of contemporaneously prepared valuation reports or the mahazars and the testimony of the other witnesses acquainted with the case. c COST OF 34 TITAN WATCHES: 69. In order to prove the cost incurred by the accused for the purchase of Titan Watches for the marriage of A-3 the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.192 Mr. Sanjay Jain who has deposed that he is the proprietor of Titan Showroom situate at Cethedral Road Chennai. He knows Mr. Jawahar and I.A.S officer PW.237. In his chief-examination he has deposed that Mr. Jawahar placed an order for 34 Titan watches and he delivered the watches in the show room itself. The price of the above 34 watches amounting to

slide 394:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 394 Rs.134565/- and it was paid by way of cash and he issued a cash memo to the party. The duplicate copy of the cash memo is marked through this witness as per Ex.P.1292. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he gave Ex.P.1292 to the police during the enquiry. He admitted that Ex.P.1292 does not bear the name of the purchaser and the telephone number of the person who spoke to him. He also admitted that no one has acknowledged or countersigned Ex.P.1292. In the reexamination he answered that he does not remember whether he handed over Ex.P.1292 or a copy of it to the police. 69.1 The prosecution has not produced any other corroborating material in proof of the purchase of 34 Titan Watches by the accused or any proof regarding the payment made to PW.192. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused Ex.P.1292 does not bear the name of the purchaser nor does it indicate that the articles mentioned therein were delivered either to PW.192 or any of the purchasers. Ex.P.1292 on the face of it does not inspire confidence to hold that the said cash memo was issued by PW.192 against the delivery of the watches. Admittedly Ex.P.1292 was not produced along with the Charge Sheet and from the evidence of PW.192 it is difficult to believe that Mr. Jawahar the Secretary to the Chief-Minister would personally make cash purchases as stated by PW.192.

slide 395:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 395 That apart nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.237 that in connection with the marriage he purchased 34 watches from Titan Showroom. On the contrary in the chief-examination itself PW.237 has deposed that he does not know Mr. Sanjay Jain. All these circumstances therefore indicate that Ex.P.1292 is trumped up with a view to justify the claim made under this head. Hence the amount of Rs.134565/- included under this head is disallowed. d AMOUNT PAID TO TR. SYED BAWKER TOWARDS STITCHING CHARGES OF WEDDING DRESS : 70. PW.196 a tailor running his Tailoring Shop by name Mr. Syed Bawker and Company has deposed that he knows A-4 Mr. V.N.Sudhakaran. On 21.06.1994 Mr. Sudhakaran came to his shop he brought materials along with him to stitch suits shirts jubbas and sherwanis. He took the measurements and stitched 22 suits 22 shirts 3 sherwanis and 3 jubbas and received a cheque for Rs.141025/- towards the stitching charge. He was cross-examined by the counsel for A-3 and he reiterated that on 21.06.1995 Sudhakaran came to his shop to stitch the clothes mentioned in the chief- examination for his marriage. However it is elicited that one Ramkumar the maternal uncle of Satyalakshmi the bride of Sudhakaran paid the

slide 396:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 396 stitching charges of Rs.141025 on behalf of Mr.Sudhakaran. 70.1 In appreciating the evidence of this witness it is relevant to note that A-3 has not disputed the fact that PW.196 stitched 22 suits 22 shirts 3 sherwanis and 3 jubbas for his marriage. He has also not denied the fact that the stitching charges were paid by way of cheque. It cannot be believed that the uncle of the bride would pay the stitching charges of the bridegroom as sought to be contended by the counsel for the accused. e PURCHASE OF 100 SILVER PLATES:. 71. PW.191 and PW.214 are examined by the prosecution to speak to the fact that on the occasion of the marriage of A-3 along with the invitations a silver plate silk saree / dhoti or kumkum box were presented to the invitees / guests. In this regard PW.191 Mr.Srinivas has deposed as under “During 1995 for the marriage reception of Ex.- Chief-Minister Selvi J. Jayalalitha’s foster son V.N.Sudhakaran i.e. Sept 10 th 2 or 3 months before that the Asst. Secretary Jawahar contacted me over phone… He asked me over phone that the Ex.Chief Minister Selvi J. Jayalalitha’s foster son V.N. Sudhakaran’s marriage is there. So you should not accept any other appointment on that day.”

slide 397:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 397 71.1 PW.191 further deposed that he went to the marriage reception which was held in Film City Egmore Chennai and conducted the Mandolin Orchestra. He refused to take money as it was prestige for him to conduct a programme for Chief-Minister’s function. In the chief-Examination this witness unequivocally stated that 10 days before the marriage reception Mr. Bhaskaran along with his wife came to his house with the invitation. Along with the invitation they gave him a silver plate silk saree and small kumkum box. When he was inquired by the police he handed over those articles to the police. 71.2 The prosecution has not produced either the silver plate or the silk saree or the kumkum box alleged to have been produced by PW.191 to the Police. Yet in the cross-examination the defence has not denied the fact that these articles were given to PW.191 along with the invitation card instead it is suggested that “the silver plates silk saree and kumkum box given along with the marriage invitation are available in the open market”. It is also suggested that whenever PW.191 participated in the musical programme this kind of gifts were given to him thereby establishing the receipt of this article by PW.191 in connection with the marriage of A-3. 71.3 PW.214 Sri. A.R. Rehaman is another witness who has spoken about the receipt of silver plate

slide 398:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 398 along with the invitation card. According to this witness he is the music composer in cine field. He knows A-1 and also Jawahar Babu the Asst. Secretary to A-1. In the month of July 1995 Jawahar Babu called him over the phone and told him to meet A-1. Accordingly he and his mother Arema Begaum met A-1 at Party Secretariat. She requested PW.214 “to perform a musical programme for her son Mr. Sudhakaran’s marriage”. He further deposed that Mr. Bhaskaran along with his wife came to his house and gave the invitation with two silk sarees silver kumkum casket and a silver sandal bowl in a silver plate and during the investigation he handed over these articles to the officers of the Prevention of Corruption Department. During his evidence this witness identified these articles which came to be marked as MOs. 1598 to 1602. According to this witness he performed the musical programme on 6.9.1995 for one hour from 9.45 pm. with an orchestra consisting of 25 to 30 people and did not charge any amount for that programme. 71.4 In the cross-examination it is elicited that A-1 did not ask him to perform the music programme free of cost. A-1 did not personally give to him MOs. 1598 to 1602 and these material objects do not have any distinct markings. It is further elicited that till the police enquiry MOs. 1601 and 1602 silk sarees were

slide 399:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 399 not worn. It is also elicited that A-3 did not personally invite him for the marriage. 71.5 The evidence of PW.191 and PW.214 in my view deserves full acceptance. Both these witnesses are independent witnesses. Their evidence is not discredited in the cross-examination to any extent. They are men of repute and professionals whose presence at the venue and the rendition of the concerts during the marriage is corroborated by number of witnesses. The photographs taken during the occasion at MOs. 720a series also contain the photographs of the concert conducted by these witnesses. Therefore there is no reason to doubt or disbelieve the veracity of these witnesses. Thus there is reliable material to hold that during the occasion silver plates silk saree/ dhoti and kumkum box were presented to the VIPs. f POSTAL EXPENSES : 72. Regarding the expenses incurred for the distribution of the invitation cards the prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW.189 the office administrator working in AIADMK Head Office. This witness deposed on oath as under : “I was entrusted with the responsibility of sending the wedding invitations of V.N.Sudhakaran the foster son of Ex-Chief Minister Selvi J. Jayalalitha to the party members by post. I sent 56000

slide 400:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 400 invitations from Anna Salai Head Post Office to the party members. I paid the postal charges in advance embossed the seal on the invitations by franking machine and sent them. For each invitation I paid 4/- ruppes and total amount was Rs. 224000/-. I received that amount from the Asst. of Jawahar Babu the Joint Secretary of Ex- Chief Minister Selvi J. JayalalithA-” In the cross-examination it is elicited that the 56000 invitations were sent by his assistants by post. Personally he does not know whether those people went to the Post Office to post the invitation. He did not give the police the list of the names to whom the invitations were set. 72.1 As against the above evidence A-1 has examined large number of the party workers of AIADMK in an attempt to show that the expenses for the marriage of A-3 were met by the party workers of AIADMK. In this regard the defence has examined DW.1 DW.21 to DW.31 DW.40 to DW.43 DW.54 DW.64 DW.77 DW.80 DW.84 DW.85 and DW.97 has produced in evidence Ex.D.69 Ex.D.46 Ex.D.51 Ex.D.48 Ex.D.133 D.134 D.135 Ex.D.155 Ex.D.136 to 154 Ex.D.349 Ex.D.347 Ex.D.355 to Ex.358 Ex.D.161 Ex.D.162 Ex.D.63 Ex.D.65. Ex.D.326 Ex.D.354 Ex.D.350 Ex.D.325 Ex.D.329. 72.2 Amongst them DW.64 Sri. S. Shanmugam is a practicing Chartered Accountant. According to this

slide 401:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 401 witness he was the auditor for A-1 from 1996 to 2000 and he dealt with the accounts and assessments of A-1 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1997-98. Regarding the marriage expenses this witness deposed that the marriage of A-3 took place on 7.9.1995. During October 1995 the Income Tax Department sent notice to A-1 and questioned her as to whether she spent any amount for the marriage of A-3. A-1 sent a reply stating that she did not spend for the marriage of A-3 and clarified that the expenses were met by the bride’s family and some expenses were also incurred by the workers of AIADMK party. In this regard the proceedings were initiated and the Department wanted to charge A-1 for the expenditure of Rs.94 lakhs incurred for the above marriage which was alleged to have been spent by A-1. One V. Bhaskaran elder brother of A-3 produced a letter before the assessing authority as per Ex.D.69. After enquiry the first Appellate Authority held that the expenditure charged under this head cannot be held to be incurred by A-1. The further evidence of DW.64 reads as follows: “With regard to the expenditure under the head “decoration of the marriage site” one Kanchi Paneerselvam DW.26 and 11 others confirmed before the I.T. Authorities that the expenditure was incurred by them. They produced a joint letter as per Ex.D.46 and with regard to the “decoration of the procession route” one Sri. A.R.V. Ramani DW.77 confirmed before the assessing authority that he had collected money

slide 402:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 402 from various party men and produced documentary evidence in this regard. Likewise regarding the “food expenses” one O.S.Manian Adirajam DW.31 and Thangamuttu DW.25 confirmed before the assessing authority that they incurred expenses relating to food provided to the party members and considering all this evidence Appellate Authorities deleted the additions made by the Assessing Authorities regarding the first three items and with regard to the 4 th item viz. food expenses ordered to assess A-1 for an expenditure of Rs.3.00 lakhs. But A-1 as well as the Department preferred appeals against the said order and the Appellate Tribunal after hearing both the sides passed the order as per Ex.D.64 deleting the addition of Rs.3 lakhs ordered by the Appellate Authorities”. 72.3 In order to corroborate the evidence of DW.64 the accused have examined the persons named by DW.64. Amongst them DW.26 Kanchi Paneerselvam has deposed that during the performance of marriage of A-3 he was AIADMK District Secretary for Chengalpet District. He came to know that A-1 would attend the above wedding. Whenever A-1 was attending any social function he used to arrange for such function. They enquired whether they can put up marriage pendal but were told that the marriage pendal would be put up by the bride’s side and hence they decided to decorate the facade of the marriage pendal. In this connection he met DW.24 - Thotta Tharani along with 10 to 12 other party workers. DW.24 provided them with the drawing of the facade. DW.24 did not charge any money for the

slide 403:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 403 drawing. He deputed one Ramesh to oversee the work. The said Ramesh told DW.26 that about Rs.60 lakhs would be required for executing the above work. PW.26 and other party workers contributed Rs.5 lakhs each and paid that amount to the said Ramesh. This witness further deposed that in the year 1999 the income tax officials summoned him and he gave his statement in writing to the effect that 12 of the party men contributed the money to meet the cost of the facade. In the year 2002 he was summoned for the enquiry. He gave the list of persons who contributed the money and narrated the manner in which the work was given. The actual cost of the facade work was about Rs.5702050/-. After deducting the said amount Sri. Ramesh returned the remaining amount which was used for the party activities. During his further examination he identified Ex.D.46 the copy of the joint letter dt. 19.03.1999 submitted by him and 11 others to the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Department from the file which was produced before the Court on the date of his further examination on 20.03.2013. Through this witness the counsel for the A-1 got marked Ex.D.47 the copy of the sworn statement recorded by the Income Tax officials on 14.03.2002. In the cross-examination it is elicited that no communication was sent to Chengalpet AIADMK Party District Office that A-1 would be attending the marriage

slide 404:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 404 of A-3 on 7.9.1995 and nobody asked DW.26 to decorate the marriage pendal. It is also elicited that the collection of Rs.5 lakhs each from the party workers was made about 15 to 20 days before the date of marriage the amount of Rs.60 lakhs was paid to Ramesh in three installments and the personal contribution of DW.26 was about Rs.50000/- to Rs. 1 lakh. The police did not enquire DW.26 about the above contributions during the course of their investigation. It is further elicited that the list of contributors referred in Ex.D.47 is not produced before the Court by the I.T. Department. 72.4 DW.27 Ratnivel deposed before the Court that during the year 1995 he was the District Secretary of Trichy East District Unit of AIADMK Party. This witness deposed in line with the testimony of DW.26 stating that he along with 11 others arranged to decorate the facade of the marriage pendal and received the drawing from DW.24 and collected Rs.60 lakhs from the party workers and decorated the facade. This witness also deposed about the enquiry conducted by the Income Tax officials and stated that in the year 1999 he gave his written statement to the Income Tax officials mentioning the names and addresses of the party workers who contributed the money and also gave his sworn statement before the Court. This witness has identified his signature on Ex.D.46 and his sworn statement is marked as Ex.D.48. In the cross-

slide 405:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 405 examination it is elicited that he was not knowing DW.24 earlier to the marriage of A-3. He has not retained the list of the persons who contributed Rs.5 lakhs each and Ramesh did not issue any receipt for having received Rs.60 lakhs. This witness also answered that the said amount was paid in three installments and stated that the said Ramesh refunded about Rs.2.5 lakhs out of Rs.60 lakhs. 72.5 DW.28 Pandurangan deposed that in the year 1995 he was the District Secretary of Vellore District Unit of AIADMK Party. His chief-examination is identical to the evidence of DW.26 and during his further examination he identified the signature on Ex.D.26 and the petition submitted by him to the Income Tax Authorities came to be marked as Ex.D.50. Through this witness the A-1 got marked the copy of the details of expenditure said to have been given by Ramesh as per Ex.D.49. In the cross-examination it is elicited from the mouth of DW.28 that the Income Tax officials had summoned the aforesaid Ramesh in connection with Ex.D.49. DW.28 further answered that the 12 persons referred in Ex.D.46 have not signed in Ex.D.49. The Income Tax Department Seal is not seen on the Ex.D.49. He does not know that the file produced from the Income Tax Department does not contain the list of contributors their names and addresses. There was no

slide 406:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 406 official instructions from the Party High Command to the District Units for attending the marriage of A-3. DW.24 did not give written estimate of the cost of the facade decoration. His personal contribution of the decoration work was Rs.10000/-. 72.6 DW.29 Sri. Muttumani is also examined as one of the contributors for the facade decoration. But interestingly this witness has deposed that at the relevant point of time he was the general secretary of the labour union called Anna Tolichanda Peravi. He along with 11 others who were the secretaries of the District Unit held a meeting and decided to put up the facade of the marriage pendal. In this regard they contacted Thotta Tharani DW.24. He agreed to furnish the drawing and suggested the name of his personal assistant by name Ramesh Kumar. The further evidence of this witness reads as follows: “We said 12 persons decided to contribute Rs. 5 lakhs each. Of the various Labour Unions the Union of the Transport Corporation is the strongest union and it has affiliation with AIADMK party. I selected about 10 unions and intimated them about our decision to put up the facade of the above marriage pendal. I requested each of the above 10 unions to contribute Rs. 50000/- each for the above purpose. Thereby Rs. 5 lakhs was collected from the above unions and the said amount was handed over to Kanchi Paneerselvam who in turn gave it to said Ramesh for the execution of the above work.”

slide 407:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 407 Through this witness A-1 has got marked the signature of DW.29 on Ex.D.46 and his sworn statement as Ex.D.51. In the cross-examination this witness consistently denied that A-3 is the foster son of A-1. When it was suggested to him that in Ex.D.46 A-3 is described as foster son of A-1 Jayalalitha the witness answered that it is correct. Further a specific question was posed to DW.29 as under “Question: I suggest to you that even in the joint letter Ex.D.46 D you and 11 others have mentioned that A-1 requested DW.24 Thotta Tharani to help you and 11 others in doing the facade work of the marriage pendal. What do you say Ans : It is true.” In the further cross-examination this witness affirmed that in the presence of each of the Union Secretaries of AIADMK Party gave Rs.50000/- to the aforesaid Mr.Ramesh. 72.7 DW.30 K. P. Raju has deposed that in 1995 he was the District Secretary of AIADMK Party in Coimbatore Rural Area. He collected Rs.5 lakhs by way of contributions and gave that money to Kanchi Paneerselvam and in this connection he submitted a record containing the list of contributors to the Income Tax Department and also gave his sworn statement. This witness identified his signature on Ex.D.46. In the

slide 408:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 408 cross-examination he answered that as per the customs prevailing in Tamil Nadu the expenditure of marriage pendal would be borne by bride’s side. He further replied that after seeing the drawings given by Thotta Tharani the aforesaid Ramesh gave a separate drawing of the facade. When this witness was specifically suggested that the documents produced by the Income Tax Department does not contain the list of contributors referred by him DW.30 answered that the Income Tax Department has to be asked about it. 72.8 DW.31 Adi Rajam has deposed that he is a member of AIADMK Party from its inception. In the year 1995 he was secretary of AIADMK Party Madras South District Unit. Initially they wanted to put up the marriage pendal. Later on verification they learnt that the marriage pendal would be put up by bride’s side. Therefore he O.S. Manian Thangamuttu DW.25 decided to arrange food for the party workers who attended the said marriage. One R.C.Armugam Ramakrishnan Purushottam and Saravanan and other party workers assisted him in making the food arrangements. About Rs.140000/- was spent towards the food arrangement for party workers and the said amount was collected by DW.31 from the party workers. Apart from the food he also arranged for the chairs in the pendal. He does not remember whether he paid hire charges to the person from whom the said chairs were hired. He also arranged for the supply of milk vessels

slide 409:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 409 and provisions. DW.25 and O.S.Manian arranged for the cook. In this connection he was inquired by the Income Tax Officials and has given his sworn statement as per Ex.D.134 on 23.03.1999. A-1 has got marked the joint letter given to the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Department as per Ex.D.133. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he is a practicing advocate and an income tax assessee. He has no personal acquaintance with A-3. He denied the suggestion that A-3 is the foster son of A-1. But admitted that in Ex.D.133 it is stated that “we also wanted to be involved in the marriage of Mr. V.N.Sudhakaran the foster son of our respected leader the General Secretary of AIADMK Party.” DW.31 answered in the cross-examination that he did not maintain any account in respect of Rs. 140000/- which was spent towards food arrangements and no receipt was issued to persons who gave contributions. He denied the suggestion that after the registration of the present case Ex.D.133 was prepared on the instructions of A-1. When a specific question was posed to DW.1 as to whether he has any bills for having purchased the provisions for making the food arrangements DW.31 answered as under : “The collected amount of Rs.141000/- was handed over by me to Mr. Saravanan. The said Saravanan one Purushottam R.C.Armugam and

slide 410:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 410 Ramakrishnan made the food arrangements. They did not hand over any receipts to me.” 72.9 In order to prove the other expenses incurred for the marriage A-1 has examined DW.21 Sri.S.Selvam a member of the AIADMK Party who has deposed that in 1995 he was Wing Secretary of an organization called “Jayalalitha Peravai” in Milapur. In the year 1995 they received an information that A-1 would visit Milapur in connection with the marriage of A-3. For that occasion they collected Rs. 50000/- and spent the said amount on the banners decorations flags and arch for the procession. The amounts collected was given to one K.R.V. Ramani Secretary of AIADMK Party Milapur Constituency. In this connection he has given a written explanation before the Income Tax Officials. In the cross-examination this witness answered that instructions were not issued by the High Command of AIADMK Party for raising collections. He has not maintained any list of members of his organization. He did not obtain the receipt from A.R.V.Ramani for having paid Rs.50000/- to him. He did not open any bank account to deposit the said collection. 72.10 DW.22 R. Ramalingam has deposed that in 1995 he was Branch Secretary of Peramboor Branch of AIADMK Party. During 1995 the marriage of A-3 was performed and the Party Secretary attended the said

slide 411:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 411 wedding. In that connection they made arrangements for the decoration of the procession routes in their area for that purpose he made collection to the tune of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and handed over the same to KRV Ramani. He noted the names of contributors in 40 page notebook. The said notebook was destroyed in a fire accident which occurred in their area. The Income Tax Officials had inquired him regarding the above collections. In the cross-examination it is elicited that DW.21 attended the marriage of A-3. He does not remember the amounts contributed by each of the contributors. There were no instructions by the State level AIADMK Party with regard to the collections to be made. He paid the amount of Rs.150000/- to KRV Ramani by cash. KRV Ramani did not issue any receipt. With regard to the fire accident he did not report to the Police but the Tahsildar has issued a certificate regarding the fire accident. During his sworn statement he told before the Income Tax Officials about the fire accident. 72.11 DW.23 Sri. C.N. Sami has deposed that he is a member of AIADMK Party for the last 20 years. In 1995 he was the Dy. Secretary South Chennai District. They were informed that A-1 would attend the wedding of A-3 in MRC Nagar. On that occasion they decided to burst crackers and brought an elephant and music band party from Kerala. They collected Rs.15000/-

slide 412:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 412 from each area for the said purpose. DW.23 contributed Rs.10000/- and the remaining Rs.15000/- was collected in his area. They spent in all Rs.70000/- for the crackers and music band. Cine Actor Sivaji Ganesan’s son Ram Kumar had sent his representation on bride’s side and asked him to meet the said Ram Kumar. When he met the said Ram Kumar he appreciated the arrangement and told that he would reimburse the amount of Rs.70000/-. After couple of days he met Ram Kumar and collected a cheque for Rs.70000/- and credited the proceeds to his account with Indian Overseas Bank C.I.T Nagar Branch. After realization of the cheque he drew the amount from his account and paid back the amount to the persons who had made the contributions. In the cross-examination this witness answered that during the marriage about Rs.24000/- worth crackers were burst and Rs. 29000/- was spent for bringing the elephant from Kerala and about Rs. 10000/- was spent on the music band. He did not obtain receipts in respect of the purchase of crackers and hiring of the elephant and the payments made to the music bands. He does not know the name of the representative sent by Ram Kumar. During his cross- examination this witness produced his bank pass book which was impounded and marked as Ex.D.35 and the relevant entry as D.35A. He denied the suggestion

slide 413:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 413 that the cheque referred in Ex.D.35A was not issued towards the reimbursement of marriage expenses. 72.12 The aforesaid Thotta Tharani is examined as DW.24. According to this witness he is basically a painter and also Art Director for films. This witness deposed that he knows about the marriage of A-3. In connection with his marriage AIADMK party people approached him for designing the facade of the entrance of the marriage hall. Amongst them he remembers the name of Kanchi Paneerselvam. He prepared a sketch and gave it to the persons who approached him. He was not involved in the execution of the facade. He had entrusted the work of execution to one of his assistant by name Ramesh. DW.24 deposed that he did not take any remuneration for the said Art designing. In connection with his work he was questioned by the Income Tax Officials and he has submitted his written statement before the Income Tax Department. In the cross-examination this witness answered that Kanchi Paneerselvam and others who approached him for the design were from AIADMK Party and not from Sivaji Ganesan’s family. 72.13 DW.25 K. Thanga Muttu has deposed that in 1995 he was the District Secretary of Tanjaore District. The marriage of A-3 was performed on 7.9.1995. On the day of wedding he along with O.S.Manian and Adi Raja Ram had arranged for the

slide 414:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 414 lunch. He along with three others arranged for procuring rice and vegetables. He also arranged for two cooks. Rice and plantain leaves grown in his land were supplied for the occasion. Subramaniam Parama Shivam and Dandayudha Pani were the other three persons involved in procuring rice and vegetables. Jayaraman and Shankar are the two cooks who prepared the food items and he paid Rs. 17000/- to each of them. DW.25 further deposed that he only arranged for the lunch for the party workers on the marriage day voluntarily as A-1 was participating in the wedding. The breakfast etc. was arranged by the bride’s side. During his further examination the statement given by this witness before the Income Tax Authorities came to be marked as Ex.D.135 and the joint letter submitted by him and two others came to be marked as Ex.D.133. In the cross-examination it is elicited that DW.25 was MLA for one term i.e. from 1991-96. He received invitation for the marriage of A-3 from the party high command. He denied the suggestion that A-3 is the foster son of A-1. It is elicited that thousands of people attended the marriage of A-3 and those who attended the marriage took food at the marriage venue. For the said marriage about 1 to 2 lorry loads of rice was procured by S.V.T. Rajan. DW.25 procured rice to feed about 30000 people. This was his contribution to the marriage. Subramanian Paramashivan and

slide 415:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 415 Dandayudha Pani supplied vegetables and plantain leaves. Jayaraman and Shankar cooked food. No receipts were obtained from them regarding payment of Rs.17000/- each. About 20 days after the marriage said Jayaraman and Shankar appeared before Income Tax Authorities and gave statements. It is elicited that O.S. Manian and Adirajaram had given a joint letter as per Ex.D.133. When it was suggested to DW.25 that he and his friends attended the marriage of A-3 for the reason that he was foster son of A-1 DW.25 answered that since their party leader viz. A-1 attended the marriage of A-3 they too attended that marriage. DW.25 further answered that he had collected Rs.40000/- from the party workers but he did not issue receipts to them. 72.14 DW.40 A.P.R. Rama Murthy has deposed that he was the Divisional Secretary of AIADMK in 1995. They got information that A-1 would be visiting their area on the occasion of the marriage of A-3 and they decided to give her grand welcome and for that purpose collected Rs.50000/- and handed over the collections to K.R.V. Mani the Area Secretary of AIADMK. The said amount was used for decorating the procession way. In this connection he has given the written statement before the Income Tax Authorities. In the cross-examination this witness answered that they did not pass any resolution to collect the contribution

slide 416:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 416 and he did not maintain the account of the amounts paid by the party workers. He did not obtain any receipt from K.R.V. Ramani and he does not know the number of cut outs that were placed along the procession way. 72.15 DW.41 K. Seetaraman a member of AIADMK Party has deposed in line with DW.40 stating that on the occasion of the marriage of A-3 he along with the office bearers collected Rs. 50000 and handed it over to K.R.V. Ramani for decoration of the procession way. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that A-3 is the foster son of A-1 and this witness also answered that the said Ramani did not issue any receipt for having received the amount. 72.16 DW.42 P.S. Anna Malai another member of AIADMK Party deposed on oath that in connection with the marriage arrangement of A-3 Sri. K.R.V. Ramani asked him as to how much he can contribute and he agreed to collect Rs.2 lakhs towards the arrangements to be made to receive A-1 on the occasion of the above marriage. This witness also answered in the cross- examination that he did not prepare the list of contributors and did not collect any receipt from KRV Ramani for having paid Rs. 2 lakhs. 72.17 DW.43 V. Kodandaraman the AIADMK Party Secretary for Anna Nagar Assembly Constituency

slide 417:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 417 deposed that on the occasion of the marriage the procession way was decorated from Poes Garden residence of A-1 up to AVM Rajeswari Kalyana Mantapam and he took up the responsibility of overseeing the decoration work. They collected Rs.1 lakh from the party workers members and officer bearers and handed over the same to A.R.V. Ramani for the above purpose and in this connection he submitted his written statement before the income tax officials in March 1999 along with the list containing the name of the contributors. In the cross-examination this witness admitted that A-3 is not personally known to him and no circular instructions were issued by the high command to carry out the decoration work. The distance between AVM Rajeswari Kalyana Mantapa and residence of A-1 is about 1 km. About one week earlier to the marriage he paid Rs. 1 lakh to KRV Ramani but he did not issue any receipt to him. 72.18 DW.54 Gopikanth has deposed that for the last 28 years he has been working as Cine Art Director. In the month of August 1995 Shivaji Ganesan’s son Prabhu informed him that there is a wedding in his family. He requested him to carry out certain work in connection with the marriage. He asked DW.54 to meet his brother Ram Kumar DW.1. The said Ram Kumar introduced him to one Muttu Swami PW.200 and

slide 418:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 418 asked him to carry out the work as per his instructions. PW.200 asked him to prepare a pendal at the place of reception of the bride and bridegroom and to erect two arches at Adyar Signal and in front of Ganesh Temple and sets at four locations viz. 1 Avin Booth in Adyar 2 in front of Adyar Malar Hospital 3 Opposite Satya Studio 4 At Green Ways Road Signal. After two days he met PW.200 with drawings and estimates. The total cost of the work was fixed at 1298000/-. He commenced the work on the next day. On the next day PW.200 gave him a separate drawing relating to partition wall and paid Rs. 3 lakhs in cash. He got the above work executed through carpenters moulders painters decorators and flower decorators. His manager R.N.Rajendran supervised the work. The amount of Rs.1298000/- was paid through cheque in the name of M/s. G.K. Arts. The said cheque was issued by DW.1 Ram Kumar. Another cheque for Rs. 4 lakh was issued towards the partition wall work by DW.1. The said Rajendran disbursed the amount to the respective workers. The above cheque of Rs. 4 lakhs is shown by him in his tax returns. He further deposed that he and Rajendran have given their statement before the police and before the Income Tax Department. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he became Income Tax Assessee during the year 1995-96. He was introduced to PW.200 Muttu Swami in Shivaji Film’s office by Shivaji’s son Prabhu. DW.54 further

slide 419:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 419 answered that he gave the estimate and the drawings to DW.1 but has not retained the copies thereof. The amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash was received by him from PW.200 for executing the work of partition wall and he did not issue any receipt in respect of that amount. Out of the said 3 lakhs he made advance payment to carpenters painters and suppliers. It is further elicited that he is the proprietor of M/s. G.K. Arts and he encashed the cheque of Rs.1298000/- through Indian Overseas Bank Veerugambakam Branch. And has shown this payment in his Income Tax returns for the year 1995-96. He denied the suggestion that the above amounts were actually paid by A-1 and not by DW.1 or PW.200. 72.19 DW.77 A.R.V. Ramani has deposed that during the year 1995 he was Constituency Secretary for AIADMK Party for Mylapore Legislative Constituency. The marriage of A-3 took place in Mylapore area. During the said marriage he did arrangements for the public procession by arranging serial lights banners flags planting of banana trees sound system etc. Totally 1510000/- was collected by way of contributions from 12 people from various constituencies and around Rs.15 lakh was spent for procession way arrangement. Subsequently on 28.9.95 he received a notice from the Income Tax Department as per Ex.D.136 and submitted the details of the expenditure incurred as per his letter dt. 19.10.1995 as

slide 420:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 420 per Ex.D.137. He enclosed the list of the contributors to the said letter and the details of the amount spent. The contributors referred in Ex.D.137 were also summoned by the Income Tax Authorities and were enquired. Through this witness counsel for A-1 got marked his sworn statement as per Ex.D.138 and the confirmation letters of the contributors as Ex.D.139 to D.150. The expenditure bill as Ex.D.151. On the date of his examination he produced 27 bills which came to be marked as Ex.D.152 1 to Ex.D.152 27. This witness further deposed that he made application to the Corporation Authority seeking permission for fixing the light arches tube lights cut out on the procession way and Ex.D.153 dt. 06.09.1995 is the copy of the permission granted by the Corporation. Ex.D.153 a is the annexure to the said permission. The Electricity Board raised demand notices as per Ex.D.154 1 to Ex.D.154 11. He disclosed all these facts before the Income Tax Authorities during enquiry and after enquiring him and other contributors the Income Tax Authorities accepted the explanation. In the cross-examination he denied that A-3 is the foster son of J. Jayalalitha but admitted that in Ex.D.137 there is a mention that A-3 is the foster son of A-1 Jayalalitha. He also admitted that in Ex.D.137 in the column meant for mentioning the name of the person on whose behalf the payment had been made he has mentioned the name of AIADMK Madras. He denied

slide 421:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 421 the suggestion that A-1 spent for the marriage of A-3. It is brought out in the cross-examination that Ex.D.137a does not mention the name of 10 persons who made the contributions and he has not issued any receipts to them. He also admitted that his name does not appear in the bills marked as Ex.D.152 9 to Ex.D.152 3 and also in Ex.D.154. He admitted in the cross-examination that he did not make any personal contribution but only collected the contribution and spent the amount. He denied that Ex.D.137a is a concocted document submitted to the Income Tax Authorities. 72.20 DW.80 B. Vasudevan deposed that during the year 1995 he was working as Junior Engineer PWD in Madras. He knows about the marriage of A-3 Sudhakaran. There was oral instructions by the investigating officer on 17.4.1997 for valuing the marriage pendal stage and other works. This witness identifies his signature in Ex.P.1019 and stated that he did not inquire the persons whose names appeared in Ex.P.1019. He further stated that the drawings pertaining to the marriage pendal and stage were not given by Vijayashankar Architect and he does not know where the said marriage pendal was put up and the measurement mentioned in Ex.P.1019 are based on the instructions of the investigating officer. He further asserted that in the report the bifurcation of VIP portion

slide 422:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 422 and non-VIP portion was not done by him and it was done at the instance of the investigating officer. All the details in Ex.P.1019 were given by the investigating officer and they were required to prepare the report without carrying any inspection in their office itself and he further stated that he was asked to prepare Ex.P.1019 by the investigating officer in the year 1997 and the measurement mentioned therein are not actual measurements. In the cross-examination he admitted that he and Thangarajan PW.181 were in the valuation team but denied the suggestion that the valuation team inquired the persons mentioned in the report. He identified his signature in the plan appended to Ex.P.1019 and stated that the said plan also bears the signature of the architect Vijayshankar. 72.21 DW.84 O.S. Manian the District Secretary AIADMK party for Nagapattanam District deposed that for the marriage of A-3 he spent for food arrangements and made food arrangements of party workers who attended the said wedding. Himself DW.25 and DW.31 collectively made the food arrangements and they were assisted by N. Puraswami Jeevanandam Bharathi Raju and Perumal. The said persons brought four cooks from Kumbhakonam. They were paid Rs. 17000/- each. For meeting the said expenditure they collected money from the party workers. Dw.84 further

slide 423:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 423 deposed that he personally gave 2000 coconuts from the coconut grown from his father-in-law. In this regard he was inquired by the Income Tax Officials and he gave a joint letter as per Ex.D.133 and his sworn statement was recorded as per Ex.D.155. In the cross-examination this witness answered that he received marriage invitation from both sides but he cannot say how many persons attended the marriage. According to him 6 pendals were erected for serving the food and about 300 to 400 chairs were arranged in each pendal and to his knowledge there was no separate pendal for serving food to VIPs and non VIPs. According to him same kind of food was served in all the six pendals and only vegetarian food was served during the marriage. He cannot say how many party workers and guests attended the marriage. He had collected about Rs. 85000/- for the arrangement and had noted the contribution in a separate note book but did not produce the said book before the Income Tax Authorities. It is elicited that Ex.D.133 does not bear the stamp of Income Tax Authorities indicating the date of its receipt. He denied the suggestion that on account of A-3 being the foster son of A-1 A-1 met the marriage expenditure of A-3. 72.22 DW.85 - R. Murali has deposed that during the year 1995-96 he was working as Manager Administration and Accounts in M/s. Super Duper

slide 424:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 424 T.V. Pvt. Ltd. It was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. On 3.11.1994 as per Ex.P.618 619 and 620. M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. made T.V. Coverage of the marriage of A-3 Sudhakaran. For that a sum of Rs. 2 lakh was paid by one Ram Kumar uncle of the wife of A-3 Sudhakaran. The copy of the bill is enclosed to the document Ex.D.161 as per Ex.D.161 A. The original bill is Ex.D.162. In the cross-examination it is elicited that A-3 Sudhakaran and A-2 Sasikala are the Directors of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. and A-3 is the Managing Director. 72.23 Regarding the T.V. coverage of marriage function in the cross-examination it is elicited from DW.85 as under “Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. does not telecast any channel. I am not sure whether the video coverage of the marriage of A-3 Sudhakaran was done by Super Duper T.V. or Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. The bill Ex.D.162 was prepared on 11.09.1995 but the said date is not clearly visible in its zerox copy which is marked as Ex.D.161 A” 72.24 DW.97 A. Vijay Kumar working as Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II 2 Chennai was examined on 11.07.2013. Pursuant to the summons this witness produced documents comprised in 10 volumes. Through this witness the counsel for

slide 425:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 425 A-1 has got marked Ex.D.325 to D.364 which are already spoken to by the witnesses examined by the defence. In the cross-examination it is brought out that with regard to the assessment for the year 1993-94 pertaining to the accused the matter is still pending before the Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu in Appeal Proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The assessment orders pertaining to the accused have not reached finality and they are still pending before various authorities. 72.25 The learned Counsel for the accused has built up an argument that from the above receipts it cannot be inferred that the amount shown therein was spent towards the marriage expenses of A-3 or that the said expenses were met by A-1 for the said purpose. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the prosecution has not proved that A-1 had paid any of the bills in settlement of the marriage expenses the authors of the receipts are not examined to show that the amount mentioned therein was in fact paid by A-1 hence no reliable evidence is available on record in proof of the alleged expenditure attributed to A-1. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that even the testimony of PW.181 and the report filed by him do not substantiate the claim of the prosecution as PW.181 has not furnished any basis for arriving at the figure of Rs.52123532/-- towards the cost of the pendals

slide 426:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 426 alleged to have been erected during the marriage. Further placing reliance on the decision reported in 1997 1 SCC 816 para 19 the learned Counsel would submit that as per the custom and tradition prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu the marriage expenses are generally borne by the bride’s family and therefore the prosecution is not justified in proceeding on the purported ground that the entire expenses of the marriage were met by the bridegroom and his family. 72.26 Before answering the question as to whether it is customary for the father of the bride to bear the expenses of the marriage as contended by the learned Counsel for the accused it is necessary to decide as to whether the expenses for the marriage of A-3 were borne by A-1 as contended by the prosecution. 72.27 Though the learned Counsel for A-1 has vehemently contended that A-1 is no way involved in the marriage and that she did not meet any expenses in connection with the marriage of A-3 yet the oral and documentary evidence discussed above clinchingly establishes that right from the erection of pendals till the performance of marriage and reception of guests and accommodation of the guests all the expenses for the marriage were met by A.1 except to the extent of Rs.14 lakhs which is stated to have been contributed by the father of the bride as stated by PW.181.

slide 427:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 427 72.28 In this context it is pertinent to refer to the stand taken by A-1 during her 313 examination. It is pertinent to note that the answers given by A-1 u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. are more of argumentative nature than denial. The relevant answer given by A-1 to question number 746 regarding the marriage expenses and Ex.P.1019 reads as under: “I had not spent money for the marriage. I have denied the expenditure even in my reply to the questionnaire dt. 19.09.95 and in my reply dt. 18.3.99 to the questionnaire dt. 05.3.1999 before the Income Tax Authorities. The entire marriage expenditure was borne by the bride’s family. The marriage took place on 7.9.1995. The evaluation report prepared by Mr. Thangaraju was prepared only on 18.04.1997 i.e. 2 years after the marriage. Hence it is not a genuine report. Mr. G. Ramkumar maternal uncle of the bride cited as a witness in the Charge Sheet by the prosecution was not examined by the prosecution. Mr. K. Narayanswamy father of the bride cited in the Charge Sheet was also not examined by the prosecution. They were deliberately omitted by the prosecution even though they are the only competent persons to speak about the marriage expenses. Moreover the figures of value given by the prosecution itself are highly discrepant. PW.181 is incompetent to evaluate or submit a report. Paragraphs 24 to 27 of the P.W.D. code empowers only the Exec. Engineer as competent to evaluate. Para 81 a of the D.V. A.C. manual also mentions the same. Hence the report is invalid. Some of the work was done and a portion of the food was provided by my partymen voluntarily of their own accord. In the Income Tax assessment proceeding after due deliberation my stand that I have not spent any money towards the marriage has been accepted.”

slide 428:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 428 72.29 The contention urged by the accused stands falsified by the returns submitted by her for the assessment year 1996-97 as per Ex.P.2176 wherein in the liabilities column she herself has declared the marriage expenses as under. Marriage expenses met through C.A. No.2018 –Rs.2598521/- Marriage expenses met by cash – Rs.394240/- A.1 herself having declared the said amount is estopped from contending that she is no way involved in the marriage of A-3 and that the entire marriage expenses were met by the bride’s family. 72.30 Ex.P.2220 is another clinching piece of evidence which goes to show that A-1 is not only involved in the performance of the marriage but has incurred substantial expenses for the marriage. PW.228 has unequivocally stated before the Court that in response to the notice issued by the Income Tax Authorities the reply as per Ex.P.2220 was submitted on behalf of A-1. The relevant portion of the said reply reads as follows “5. A sum of Rs.1200050/- was spent by me on the printing of invitations identity cards car passes and printed polythene bags as per details below:-

slide 429:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 429 Sl.No. Address of the payee Chq. No. Amount. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/s. Mouli Advertising 597103/ Rs.1100000 Services P. Ltd. Madras. 16.9.95 Canara Bank Mylapore. 2. M/s. Rock Aads Madras. 597105/ Rs. 30050 15.9.95 Canara Bank Mylapore. 3. M/s. Madras Foils Ltd. 597107/ Rs. 70000 Madras. 15.9.95 ----------------- Rs.1200050 A sum of Rs.245000/- was incurred on distribution expenses. No gifts were given to the invitees along with the invitations. 6. Expenditure on provision of food refreshments on the evening of 6 th September and the morning of 7 th September was incurred by the bride’s family. A sum of Rs.23800/- was incurred by me in respect of provisions for reception paid to Mr. M. Abbas Vikkiravandi vide Cheque No.597112/16.9.95 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore Madras. Other expenditure on provision of food and refreshments was incurred by Mrs. N. Sasikala for the reception on the evening of 10 th September ’95. 7. Electrical and lighting charges at the marriage site were met by the bride’s family Mrs. N. Sasikala. 8. Expenditure on purchase of flowers and on floral decorations was incurred by the bride’s family and Mrs. N. Sasikala 9. Expenditure on vegetables milk etc. for marriage were met by the bride’s family and for the reception by Mrs. N. Sasikala. 10. The following is the sum incurred by me on accommodation for the invitees:

slide 430:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 430 Park Sheraton … Rs. 175246.2 By cheque No.597108 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore. 11. Expenditure incurred by me on the car hire charges paid through my Canara Bank account amounted to Rs.78430/- as per details below:- i Anchor Cabs Madras-35 Rs.19211/- Ch.No.597115 ii A.G.K. Travels Madras-8 Rs.15814/- Ch.No.597116 iii Govind Cabs Madras-34 Rs.15903/- Ch.No.597117 iv Vincent Travels Madras-10 Rs.27502/- Ch.No.597118 ------------------ Total : Rs.78430/- 12. Jewellery for marriage 13. Expenditure on the dresses clothes and other textile items for the marriage amounted to Rs.484712/- paid to Kumaran Silks Madras -17 by my Canara Bank Cheque No.090993. 14. Expenses on Video Coverage etc. were incurred by the bride’s family and Mrs. N. Sasikala. The photograph expenses from my side amounted to Rs.54660/- and paid to Balu’s colour Labs Madras-4 by Cheque No.597114 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore. 15. Expenses relating to the horse-drawn carriage used at the time of Mappillai Azahaippu were incurred by the bride’s family. 16. Expenses on fireworks crackers were met by the bride’s family and my AIADMK Party men. 17. 18. There was no purchase of any furniture for the marriage. The furniture hire charges for the marriage were borne by the bride’s family. The furniture hire charges for the reception on the 10 th

slide 431:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 431 September amounted to Rs.57250/- and were paid by me to Giri’s Museum Madras by cheque No.597109 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore. 19. 20. 21. I have not received any gifts on the occasion of the marriage of my foster son. 22. Other items of expenditure incurred by me through my account with Canara Bank Mylapore in connection with the marriage are: i Pandal for Reception Rs.75000/- paid to Mr. Kumaresa Nadar by cheque No.597110 on Canara Bank Mylapore. ii Interior Decorations on the 10 th September 1995. a Serial lighting Rs.25000/- paid to Mr. Candrasekaran by cheque No.597111 on Canara Bank Mylapore. b Labour paid to Mr. Punindra Pal of Ahmedabad Rs.100000/- vide Cheque No.597106 on Canara Bank Mylapore. iii for the pandal at the entrance of my residence a sum of Rs.27256/- was paid to Mr. Kumaresa Nadar by cheque No.597113 on Canara Bank Mylapore iv Thanks advertisement in Daily Thanthi through Rock Aads Madras -14 Rs.247616/- paid by cheque No.597104 on Canara Bank Mylapore. v Towards rent and amenities for film city the reception venue a sum of Rs.49500/- was paid to Tamil Nadu Film Corporation Ltd. Madras – 600 113 by cheque No.597101 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore.

slide 432:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 432 vi Towards rice in respect of food for reception a sum of Rs.23800/- was paid to M. Abbas Vikravandi-605652 vide cheque No.597112 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore. The other expenses relating to te reception were met by Mrs. N. SasikalA- 23 Expenses in connection with the simple betrothal function held in June ’95 at the residence of Dr. Sivaji Ganesan were met by the Bride’s family. The following gifts to the bride were made by me. i. Jewellery details Rs. ii. Silk Sarees Details Rs.” 72.31 The file Ex.P.2220 also contains supporting receipts and documents. The supporting original receipts in respect of the amounts shown in the said letter are found in the file Ex.P.2220. Except stating that the expenses towards the fireworks and crackers were met by AIADMK party-men she has nowhere contended in the above reply that the pendals were put up by the party-men and the food was arranged by them as now contended before the Court. 72.32 Further it is stated in Ex.P.2220 that a sum of Rs.245000/- was incurred on distribution expenses. Though in the said reply it is stated that no gifts were given to the invitees along with the invitation I would presently discuss that positive evidence is produced before the Court in proof of the said expenditure. In view of the above documents the contention urged by A-1 that all the expenses for the

slide 433:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 433 marriage were borne by bride’s family and she is no way involved in the marriage of A-3 stands falsified. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for A-1 also does not advance the plea set up by the accused. On going through the said decision it is seen that in the fact situation in the said case wherein the prosecution had claimed that the public servant had incurred the expenditure in connection with the marriage of his sister the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the expenses in connection with the marriage of a girl in a Hindu Family would be incurred by the father and not by the brother. In the instant case it is pertinent to note that the father of the bride has not come before the Court to state that he had shouldered the responsibility of conducting the marriage of his daughter and incurred the entire expenses of the marriage. As already stated above PW.181 has unequivocally stated before the Court that the father of the bride K. Narayanswamy gave him Rs.14 lakhs towards the expenses and asked him to submit the accounts to Ramkumar DW.1. If the entire expenses were borne by the father of the bride there is no reason for him to hand over the money to PW.181. It is not the contention of the accused that the marriage arrangements were done by the father of the accused on the other hand the specific defence of the accused is that the marriage arrangements done by DW.1 the

slide 434:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 434 uncle of the bride and the accounts were also opened in his name. This position is contrary to the circumstances discussed in the above case. When the father of the bride was alive it is not known why the uncle had to open an account in his name and lookafter the marriage expenses. It is also not explained as to why the father of the bride could not give money directly to DW.1 if DW.1 was looking after the marriage expenses as contended by the accused. All these circumstances therefore go to show that the defence set up by the accused that the expenses of marriage were borne by bride’s family is contrary to the positive evidence produced before the Court. If the expenses were met only by the bride’s family there was no reason for A-1 to make the payments by issuing her cheques in connection with the marriage expenses. The very fact all the original documents receipts and cheque leaves seized from the office of PW.228 the auditor of A-1 itself is sufficient to show that the entire expenses were met only by A-1. More importantly there was no reason for A-1 to admit in her reply to the Income Tax Authorities about the expenses incurred by her to the tune of Rs.98 lakhs if she was no way involved in the marriage of A-3. All these circumstances therefore falsify the claim of the accused. 72.33 Viewed from another angle if in fact the marriage expenses were met by the bride’s family as

slide 435:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 435 contended by the accused there was no reason for A-1 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 A-1 were seized from the office of PW.228 the auditor of A-1 itself is sufficient to hold that the entire expenses were met only by A-1. That apart if A-1 had not incurred the expenses in connection with the marriage of A-3 there was no reason for A-1 to admit in her reply to the Income Tax Authorities about the expenses incurred by her to the tune of Rs.98 lakhs. These circumstances are consistent with the case of the prosecution that A-1 alone met the marriage expenses of A-3. 72.34 At this juncture it may be relevant to refer to the testimony of DW.1 the star witness of the defence regarding the marriage expenses. This witness has give a cryptic evidence which reads as under: “My father name is Mr. Shivaji Ganeshan. In this case the third accused is my elder sister Shanti’s son-in-law. On 7.9.1995 my elder sister’s daughter Satya Lakshmi got married to the third accused in MRC Nagar Chennai. At that time my father was alive. We met the entire expenses of that marriage as we are the bride’s people. For that marriage we opened an account in SB A/c. 95071 in Gopalpuram Branch State Bank of India and remitted upto Rs.92 lakhs which were spent on wedding and expenses. Ex.D.15 is the photocopy of that S.B. A/c. passbook. The Public Prosecutor has verified it with the original

slide 436:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 436 document. The amount remitted in the SB A/c. was arranged through our family companies and family.” In the cross-examination it is elicited that the S.B. A/c. was opened on 14.08.1995. The account details do not show that the amounts were spent for the marriage. He has not brought the counterfoils of the cheques given from that S.B. A/c. as an evidence. Regarding this case the police enquired him two or three times. His elder sister’s husband’s name is Narayan Swamy. During the marriage of A-3 Narayan Swamy was working as Professor in I.I.T. Chennai. During his examination in the Prevention of Corruption Office he did not submit the copy of Ex.D.15. He denied the suggestion that he knew K.P.Muttu Swamy at the time of enquiry he asserted that he does not know who he is and further stated that during the Police investigation he gave all the details of the marriage expenses. According to him the total expenses amounted to Rs.92 lakhs only. 72.35 Before proceeding to analyse the evidence of DW.1 and the other witnesses examined by the accused it is important to note that Ex.D.15 produced by this witness is the zerox copy of the bank passbook. Though in the evidence it is recorded that the Public Prosecutor verified the zerox copy with the original it is not known why the original itself is not produced before

slide 437:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 437 the Court when it is the evidence of DW.1 that the said account was opened only for the purpose of wedding expenses of A.3. Undisputedly a zerox copy of the document is not admissible in evidence. That apart the passbook produced before the Court Ex.D.15 does not contain the name of the branch which issued the said passbook and it also does not bear the name and seal of the branch office which creates serious doubt about the genuineness and authenticity of this document. The said suspicion gets fortified for the added reason that by the time DW.1 was examined efforts were on to subvert the course of justice by influencing the prosecution witnesses. Ex.D.15 appears to be one of such efforts made by the accused or else there is no reason as to why the certified copy of the account extract could not have been produced when the accused relies on the entries made in the said passbook. Admittedly DW.1 is not the author of this document. Therefore even if this document is marked in evidence the contents thereof do not get proved. Therefore viewed from any angle this document cannot be considered in support of the claim put forward by the defence. 72.36 Another strong reason which leads to believe that Ex.D.15 is the handiwork of the accused is that DW.1 has unequivocally admitted in his evidence that he did not produce the copy of the said passbook before the Investigating Officer even though he was

slide 438:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 438 examined two or three times by the I.O. If in fact Ex.D.15 passbook was in existence DW.1 would have been the first person to produce the said document before the Investigating officer since his involvement in the marriage of A.3 if any is related to the alleged bank account. The very fact Ex.D.15 has not seen the light of the day any time before the examination of DW.1 in the Court on 27.02.2003 the genuineness and authenticity of this document becomes doubtful and suspicious. 72.37 The circumstances surrounding the opening of the account for the alleged purpose of maintaining the marriage expenses by DW.1 who is not the immediate member of the family of the bride is another factor leading to doubt the defence set up by the accused. The opening of a bank account to meet the marriage expenses is a strange and unnatural. Commonly parents save for the marriage of their wards either in the form of deposits or bank savings or raise loans. In the instant case accused have come up with a novel story that a fresh account was opened and thereafter money was remitted to that account from the family companies and family of the bride. But neither DW.1 nor the accused have named the persons who remitted the money to this account. The entries contained in Ex.D.15 show that the account was opened on 14.08.1995 by remitting cash of Rs.1001/- and on 22.08.1995 a sum of Rs.34000/- Rs.7 lakhs

slide 439:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 439 Rs.2235500/- Rs.5880000/- Rs.1780521/- is remitted to this account and on 23.08.95 Rs.28 lakhs has been remitted. 72.38 Even with regard to the source of the money remitted to this account the version of DW.1 is that it is remitted by the family members. There is no evidence as to which of the family members remitted this money. Curiously during the argument it is submitted that enquiry was conducted by the Income Tax Authorities and the department has accepted the case of DW.1 that it is foreign remittance. This theory is not spoken to by DW.1 in his evidence making it evident that the theory of foreign remittance is an afterthought which cannot be given any credence. 72.39 Another circumstance which leads to disbelieve the contention of the accused is that none of the witnesses or relatives of the bride have come forward to say that DW.1 looked after the marriage expenses. There is absolutely no corroboration whatsoever to the testimony of DW.1. On the other hand it has come in evidence that the father of the bride gave Rs.14 lakhs into the hands of PW.200 towards the expenses. If bank account was opened to meet the marriage expenses and all the arrangements were looked after by DW.1 as contended by the accused there is no explanation as to why the father of the bride had to pay Rs.14 lakhs to PW.200.

slide 440:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 440 72.40 The evidence of DW.1 is silent as to the arrangement made by him in connection with the marriage. There is not even a stray sentence in his entire evidence that he made the payment through cheques from the above account towards the marriage expenses. This is yet another circumstance to show that the opening of Ex.D.15 and the story of issuance of cheque is only a make believe story which has taken shape only after the closure of the evidence of the prosecution. 72.41 Even though the defence has examined large number of witnesses not even a single witness has stated before the Court that the arrangements were made by DW.1 or that the payments were made to them by DW.1 either in cash or cheque except PW.196 Syed Bawkar. But even with regard to this witness it is pertinent to note that in the chief-examination he merely stated that towards the stiching charges he received a cheque for Rs.141025/-. In the further examination it was elicited that one Ramkumar paid the stitching charges of Rs.141025/- on behalf of Mr. Sudhakaran. Though in the next sentence the learned counsel appears to correct himself by further eliciting that the said Ramkumar was the maternal uncle of Satyalakshmi yet in an unguarded moment the learned counsel appears to have suggested the true state of facts that the said Ramkumar was only acting

slide 441:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 441 on behalf of Mr. Sudhakaran and not on behalf of bride’s family. There is nothing on record to show that Ramkumar had engaged the services of PW.196. On the other hand PW.196 has categorically stated that A-3 came to his shop and got the clothes stitched. Therefore even this evidence does not support the case of the accused. 72.42 The evidence of DW.1 and the other witnesses examined by the accused in support of their contention that the marriage expenses were met by the bride’s family is completely falsified by the declaration made by A.1 in her returns filed before the Income Tax Authorities as per Ex.P.2176 wherein she has declared Rs.2992761/- as the amount spent by her towards the marriage. Further if the marriage expenses were looked after by DW.1 and he was maintaining the account there is no explanation by the accused as to how the original receipts and all other connected documents in relation to the marriage expenses were seized from the office of PW.228 under Ex.P.2218. Undisputedly not a single document has been seized from the possession of DW.1 nor has DW.1 produced any documents before the investigating officer even though he was examined on two or three occasions. All these circumstance undoubtedly suggest that either the opening of bank account itself is false or clandestine dealings have been taken place in the name of DW.1.

slide 442:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 442 72.43 The oral and documentary evidence produced by the accused in support of their defence is replete with the inconsistencies and irreconcilable contradictions. The evidence of DW.1 is inconsistent with the testimony of the large number of party loyalists who have come before the Court to state on oath that out of respect and regard for A.1 they themselves met the marriage expenses put up the façade decorated the pathways arranged cooks and served food for more than 30000 party workers. None of these witnesses have stated on oath that either they approached DW.1 at any point of time or that DW.1 instructed them to attend to those works. On the other hand the several witnesses examined by the accused have consistently deposed that on hearing the marriage of A-3 they approached A-1 expressing their intention to contribute their mite. This evidence once again indicates that the arrangements were sponsored by A-1 and at her instance all the arrangements were made and even the payments were made by A-1 as established by the evidence discussed above. 72.44 PW.237 who was in the know how of the arrangements made for the marriage has asserted in his evidence that PW.200 oversaw the arrangement of putting up the pendals. There is not even a stray sentence in his entire evidence indicating that DW.1 was instrumental in making the arrangements for the

slide 443:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 443 marriage and making payment towards the expenses as now sought to be contended. 72.45 Another circumstance which falsifies the contention of the accused is the invitation extended to the witnesses. It has come in evidence that the invitation for marriage of A-3 was extended by A-1. PW.189 has spoken about the number of invitations posted to the invitees and has even specified about the amount spent towards the postal expenses and documentary proof is produced in this regard. That apart the witnesses have clearly stated that VIPs were invited and had attended the marriage and accommodation was arranged for them in the Star Hotel the payment of which were made by A-1. It is not the case of DW.1 that he invited either the VIPs or the party workers of A-1 and arranged for their food. All these circumstances falsify the contention of the accused that the marriage expenses were met by the family of the bride. 72.46 It is nobody’s case that A-3 has met the expenses of his marriage or that he extended invitation to any one. A-3 has gone to the extent of stating that even the stitching charges of his suits were borne by the bride’s family. He has also taken up a plea that Super Duper T.V. of which he is one of the Directors collected the video charges of the marriage coverage from DW.1. The witnesses examined by the accused have

slide 444:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 444 consistently stated that they do not have any acquaintance with A-3. If so there was no occasion for the party workers either to put up the façade or to decorate the pathways or to make arrangements for the food without the tacit permission of A-3. There is no such evidence on record. There is also no evidence to show that A-3 is a member of AIADMK Party. Therefore it is quite unlikely that the party workers would get themselves involved in the marriage affairs of A-3 but for their party leader A-1. These witnesses have denied that A-3 is the foster son of A-1. If so there is no reason for the party workers to get themselves involved in the marriage celebration of A-3 even if their party leader visited the said marriage as a guest. All these circumstances clearly rule out the possibility of the party workers expending their funds for the marriage of A-3. Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances I am of the firm opinion that the entire marriage expenses were borne only by A-1. 72.47 Now coming to the expenses incurred by A-1 for the marriage arrangement is concerned it is pertinent to note that DW.1 has asserted that he spent Rs. 97 lakhs for the marriage expenses. Before the Income Tax Authorities at one point of time it was decided that A-1 had incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs. 94 lakhs. The party workers of AIADMK have come before the Court to say that they spent Rs. 60

slide 445:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 445 lakhs for the façade and lakhs of rupees for the decoration and lorry loads of rice was procured to serve lunch for more than 30000 party workers. The prosecution has come up with the case that a sum of Rs.64504222/- was spent for the marriage out of which Rs.52123532/- were spent for putting up pendals. Though the said amount looks exorbitant but having regard to the accommodation provided to more than 40000 to 50000 people at two places and special arrangements made for the stage and decoration the said amount does not appear to be unreasonable. If the claim of the party workers that they spent rupees sixty lakhs only for the façade is believed then having regard to the magnitude of the event at least three times of the said amount could be estimated for putting up the pendals. Further a minimum of Rs. 40 lakhs to Rs. 50 lakhs might have been spent on food on the date of marriage as well as for the reception and for breakfast. It has come in evidence that number of cooks were employed and were paid wages elaborate sitting arrangements were made at the venue posh accommodation was arranged for the VIPs elephants were procured from Kerala crackers were burst and the entire venue was illuminated with lights which would certainly entail huge expenses. That apart it is established in evidence that huge amount was spent towards the printing of invitation publication of thanks in the dailies tamboolam and valuable presents given to

slide 446:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 446 the guests all of which would certainly entail an expenses of more than 3 crores of rupees even by modest and conservative estimation. Therefore taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances a sum of Rs. 3 crores is taken as the expenses incurred by A-1 towards the arrangement for the marriage of A-3. 72.48 Thus in the light of the above discussion my finding on the total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period is as under: Expenditure as per Annx. IV – Rs.115656833.41 Less: Item No.148 - Rs. 750000.00 Item No.226 - Rs.34504222.00 ------------------------ Total - Rs.84906833.00 73. RE: ASSETS: The nature and extent of the assets and pecuniary resources found in possession of the accused during the check period are detailed in Annexure-II. It is marked as Ex.P.2338. It contains a list of 306 items.

slide 447:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 447 Learned Spl. P.P. has sought to delete item Nos.1 to 17 of Annexure-II on the ground that these were acquired by the accused prior to the check period. For convenient discussion of the issues involved in the case these assets are categorized under the following heads. Nature of assets Item Nos. Value in Rs. I Immovable properties consideration cost of registration 1 to 173 175 292 297 301 302i 305 Excluding item Nos.24 31 33 64 66 127 145 150 159 228399174.70 II Cash paid over above sale consideration 24 31 33 64 66 127 145 150 159 25380619.00 III New or additional construction of buildings 174 176-192 301 302ii 281740430.00 IV Gold and Diamond Jewellery 284-290 295 55302334.75 V Silver wares 291 4880800 VI F.Ds and shares 258-277 298 303 306 34262728.00 VII Cash balance in bank accounts 193-229 296 300 304 9747751.32 VIII Vehicles 230-257 299 12994033.05 IX Machinery 293 294 22411000.00 X Footwear 278 200902.45 XI Sarees 279-281 9244290.00 XII Wrist watches 282-283 1590350.00

slide 448:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 448 73.1 IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING THE CHECK PERIOD BETWEEN 1.7.1991 AND 30.04.1996. ANNEXURE-II Ex.P.2338 Item No. Description of property extent Purcha ser Date of Execution/ reg. of the deed /agree of Sale Exs. Total cost Rs. Witness es Ex.ed in proof of the transacti on 18 One Ground and 1407 Sq. ft. of land with building in R.S.No.1567/1 of Mylapore village. J. Jayalalit ha Doc.No.424/91 Dt.24.7.91 Ex. P-1 Original Ex.P-2 copy Ex.P.79 1020371 PW.1 PW.2 Sub- Reg PW126 19 Land and building to the extent of 25035 Sq. Ft. in S.No.93 94 and 95 of Mannargudi Village haridranadhi West Street. Tmt. N. Sasikala 14.08.1991 Doc.No.1410/9 1 dt.22.8.91 Ex.P.646 678000 PW138 PW 99 20 Plot No. S S-7 Tiru Vika. Industrial Estate 4664.60 Sq. ft. with building M/s Jaya Publicati ons rep. by J. Jayalalit ha N. Sasikala 22.9.1991 Doc.No. 3285/91 Dt. 6.9.91 Ex.P-4 Original Ex.P-5 copy 1505428 PW.3 Sub- Reg 21 Land bldig at New Door No.14 Kadhar Nawaz Khan Rd Nungambakkam Block 12 87/12000 undivided share of land in 11 ground 1736 Sq. Ft. 523 Sq Ft. bldg in RS.No.58 new RS.No.58/5. Sasi Enterpri ses Doc.no.92/1992 dt.19.2.92 Ex.P.769 770 935 15131514 298144 PW.137 163 166

slide 449:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 449 22 Land and building at Door No.16 Ippababi Radhika Nagar Anjaiah Garden Boosareddy guda road Secunderabad Contonment S.No.49 and 50 land extent 222.92 Sq. mt. Built up area 2200 Sq. Ft. N. Sasikala Doc.No.722/92 dt. 25.3.92 Ex.P.935 1513 1514 557761 PW.163 126 23 TANSI Foundry – Sy. Nos. 86 87 88 Part 89 Part 91 Part 92 Part 93 Part in Block No. 5 of Alandur Adayar Sydapet 12462.172 Sq. Mtrs 55 Grounds and 2143 Sq.ft. with building M/s Jaya Publicati ons rep. by N. Sasikala 2.6.1992 Doc. No. 2237/92 Dt. 29.5.92 Ex.P-6 original P-7 copy 21368152 PW.3 Sub- Reg PW.126 25 TANSI Enamelled wires Land and building at M/s Tiru Ka. Industrial Estate Guindy 0.63 acres of land and 495 sq. ft. in RCC Roof 1155 Sq. Ft. in ACC Sheet Roof in S.No.89 of Alandur Village Hamlet of Adyar Block No.12 TANSI Enamalled Wires M/s Sasi Enterpri ses rep. by N. Sasikala 30.9.1992 Doc.No. 3780/92 Dt. 7.10.92 Ex. P-8 9017089 PW.3 Sub- Reg 26 Land and building to the extent of 1 Ground 1475 Sq.ft in R.S.No.3581 part in Mylapore village Door No.18 East Abirama-puram III Street. M/s Sasi Enterpri sesrep. by N. Sasikala 22.1.1993 Doc.No. 72/1993 Dt. 27.1.’93 Ex.P-23 Original 4902105 PW.4 PW159 Sub- Reg

slide 450:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 450 5529.31 Sq. ft. Bldg. consisting of basement Ground Mezzanine and 1 st Floor 27 Sy. No. 366/4 366/1 situate in Cheyyur village measuring 4.90 acres M/s Signora Busines s Enterpri ses Pvt. Ltd. 24.5.1993 Doc.No. 450/93 Ex. P-36 139562 PW.9 Sub- Reg 28 Agrl. land at Sy. No. 365/3 situate in Cheyyur village measuring 3.30 acres M/s Signora Busines s Enterpri ses Pvt. Ltd. 26.6.1993 Doc.No. 593/93 Ex. P-37 100830 PW.13 PW.9 Sub- Reg 29 Agrl. land at Sy. No. 365/1 situate in Cheyyur village measuring 1.65 acres M/s Signora Busines s Enterpri ses Pvt. Ltd. 24.6.1993 Doc. No. 594/93 Ex. P-38 50495 PW.11 PW.9 30 Agrl. land at Sy. No. 365/2 situate in Cheyyur village measuring 2.22 acres M/s Signora Busines s Enterpri ses Pvt. Ltd. 25.6.1993 Doc.No. 595/93 Ex. P-39 66485 PW.12 PW.9 32 72/12000 share of 11 grounds 1736 Sq. Ft. in R.S.No.58/5 14 Gems Court Kather Navaz Khan Road Nungambakkam Sasi Enterpri ses Ex.P.768 Doc.No.641/93 dt.28.7.93 160572 PW.136 137

slide 451:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 451 34 Dry land situate in Velagapuram village measuring 4 acres 41 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1573/93 Ex. P-83 37410 PW.32 PW.39 Sub- Reg 35 Dry land situate in Velagapuram village measuring 1 acre 42 cents in S.No.198/180 F3 198/159 B. N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1574/93 Ex. P-91 12060 PW.39 Sub- Reg PW.37 36 Dry land situate in Velakkapuram village measuring 1.42 acres in S.No.198/180 F12 198/161 A 198/160 A 198/159 D2 198/158 B2 198/157 B1 of Velakkapuram N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1574/93 Ex. P-84 12060 PW.39 Sub- Reg PW.33 37 Dry land situate in S.No.198/180 F11 179A 163A 162A 161B 157B2 156B 155 B1 of Velagapuram village measuring 1 acre 42 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1576/93 Ex. P-92 12060 PW.39 Sub- Reg PW.31 38 Agrl. land measuring 4 acres 41 cents in Sy. No. 198/180 of Velanapuram Smt. N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1577/93 Ex. P-81 37385 PW.31 PW.39 Sub- Reg 39 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 1 acre 42 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1578/93 Ex. P-85 12060 PW.31 PW.34 PW.39 Sub- Reg

slide 452:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 452 40 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 1 acre 42 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1579/93 Ex. P-93 12060 PW.31 PW.35 PW.39 Sub- Reg 41 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 4 acres 41 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1580/93 Ex. P-86 37380.70 PW.31 PW.34 PW.39 Sub- Reg 42 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 4 acre 41 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1581/93 Ex. P-90 37385 PW.31 38 PW.39 Sub- Reg 43 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 4 acre 41 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1582/93 Ex. P-87 37385 PW.31 PW.35 PW.39 Sub- Reg 44 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 1 acre 42 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1583/93 Ex. P-94 12060 PW.31 PW.42 PW.39 Sub- Reg 45 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 4 acre 41 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1584/93 Ex. P-88 37410 PW.31 PW.36 PW.39 Sub- Reg 46 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 4 acre 41 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1585/93 Ex. P-89 37410 PW.37 PW.39 Sub- Reg 47 Dry land situate in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village measuring 1 acre 42 cents N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1586/93 Ex. P-95 12060 PW.31 PW.39 Sub- Reg

slide 453:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 453 48 41 cents cents of dry land in Sy. No. 198 of Velagapuram village Smt. N. Sasikala 28.10.93 Doc. No. 1587/93 Ex. P-82 3498 PW.31 49 Agrl. Land at No.63 in Cheyyur B’ Block village at Sy. No.364/12 measuring 0.63 acres M/s. Signora Busines s Enterpri ses Pvt. Ltd. 6.12.1993 Doc. No.1591/93 8.12.93 Ex.P.34 31340 PW.9 Sub- Reg PW.11 50 Land and building to the extent of 4802 Sq. Ft. together with a building with ground and first floor in S.No.94 plot No.7 of Neelankarai Village J. Elavaras i. Doc.No.4806/9 3 dt.31.12.93 Ex.P.134 960520 PW.50 51 1/5 th un-divided share in landed Bldg. at No. 21 Padma-nabha Chetty Street T. Ngr. 1 Ground 1086 Sq.ft. Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd.rep by its Chairma n V.N.Sud hagaran 13.1.1994 Doc. No. 51/1994 Dt. 17.1.94 Ex. P-24 319230 PW.5 PW159 52 1/5 th un-divided share in landed bldg. 1 groud 1086 Sq.ft. ft. with bldg. at Door No. 21 Padmanabha Cheetty Street T. Nagar Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. rep. by V.N. Sudhak aran 13.1.1994 Doc.No. 52/1994 Dt. 17.1.94 Ex. P-25 319230 PW.5 PW159 53 1/5 th un-divided share in landed bldg. 1 ground 1086 Sq.ft. ft. with bldg. at Door No. 21 Padmanabha Cheetty Street T. Nagar Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. rep. by V.N. Sudhak aran 13.1.1994 Doc. No. 52/1994 Dt. 17.1.94 Ex.P.26 319230 PW.5 PW159

slide 454:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 454 54 1/5 th un-divided share in landed bldg. 1 groud 1086 Sq.ft. ft. with bldg. at Door No. 21 Padmanabha Cheetty Street T. Nagar Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. rep. by V.N. Sudhak aran 13.1.1994 Doc. No. 52/1994 Dt. 17.1.94 Ex.P.27 319230 PW.5 PW159 55 1/5 th un-divided share in landed bldg. 1 ground 1086 Sq.ft. ft. with bldg. at Door No. 21 Padmanabha Cheetty Street T. Nagar Anjineya Printers Pvt. Ltd. rep. by V.N. Sudhak aran 13.1.1994 Doc. No. 52/1994 Dt. 17.1.94 Ex. P-26 319230 PW.5 PW159 56 1.50 acres in S.No.392/1 2 in Siruthavur Village. J. Vivek. Doc.No.494/94 Dt. 21.9.94 Ex.771 44210.00 PW139 PW159 57 10 acres and 41 cents in RS No.346/1B 346/1C 348/2A2A 348/2A2B/ 348/2A2C 346/2 344/1A 347/2C 342/1BC 342/1B4 342/1B5 345/1 346/1K 349/2B 351/1B3 348/3A 348/3C 380 345/1 345/1A 346/11 349/2A 349/4C3 350/2A1 351/1B2 344/1 346/1D 346/1E 346/2 379/2 346/2A 350/2A2 344/1B 348/3B 348/2B J.Elavar asi. Doc.No. 33/94 dt.31.1.94 Ex.P.137 233770 PW.51 PW159 58 Agrl. Land at Sy.No.364/8 364/9 of Cheyyur village measuring 2.02 acres Tmt. J. Elavaras i. 3111994 Doc. No. 111/94 1.2.94 Ex.P.35 103360 PW.14 PW.9 Sub- Reg

slide 455:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 455 59 54 cents of dry land in S.No.364 of Cheyyur Village J.Elavar asi. Doc.No.112/94 dt.1.2.94 Ex.P.33 20550 PW.8 PW.9 60 11 acres 83 cents in S.No.345/3B 3A 2 5B 5F 5D 5F 5E 5C 344/1 2 402/4 401/1. 335/1 in Siruthavoor village. Tr. VN Sudhak aran 19.1.1994 Doc. No. 39/94 Dt.8.2.94 Ex. P-122 233770 PW.46 PW.51 PW159 61 11 acres and 28 cents S.No.42/2 in Karungulipallam and S.No.383 to 386 and 393 in Siruthavur village J.Elavar asi. Doc.no.40/94 Dt.8.2.94 Ex.P.138 227026 PW.51 PW159 62 10 acres 86 cents in S.No.392/1 391 392 380 381/3 393 405/3 398 406 399 400 406 in Siruthavoor village. VN Sudhak aran Doc.no.41/94 dt.8.2.94 Ex.P.123 211325 PW.46 PW159 63 10.78 acres in S.no.379 381 382 342 in Sirudhavur Village. Tmt. J. Elavaras i. Doc.no.42/94 dt.8.2.94 Ex.P.139 202251 PW.51 PW159 65 7 acres 44 cents in S.No.339/1A 341/1 342/3A 2A 2B1 2B2 338/1A 3 342/3B 4A 235/3 4 2 234/1 2 in Siruthavur Village Tr. VN Sudhak aran Doc.no.43/94 Dt.5.2.94 Ex.P.124 145891 PW.46 PW159 67 2 ground and 1237 sq. ft. with a built up area of 2150 sq. ft. at Door No.149 TTK Road in the ground floor and 2150 Sq. ft. in the M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc.No.125/94 dt.24.2.94 Ex.P.3 5700040 PW.2

slide 456:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 456 first floor in S.No.3705 part of Sriram Nagar TTK Road Chennai-18 68 1.29 acres in S.No.18/4A1 of Enjambakkam Village M/s. J. Farm House Doc. No.1017/94 Dt.25.2.94 Ex.P.23 649770.00 PW.25 PW.50 69 16.75 cents in S.No.1/1F and old RS No.1/1C4 of Sholinganallore village Tr. VN Sudhak aran Doc. No.189/Book IV/1994 dt.9.3.94 Ex.P.30 Ex.P.43 Ex.C.1 Ex.C.2 125.00 PW.16 70 Actual consideration paid to Rs.235200/- and by cash Rs.335000/- on 8.3.94 for purchase of 6.75 cents Ex.P.43 570200.00 PW.16 71 Actual consideration of Rs.235200/- and by cash Rs.335000/- on 8.3.94 for purchase of 16.50 cents Doc.No.190/Bo ok IV/1994 dt. 9.3.94 Ex.P.31 Ex.P.34 125.00 PW.7 PW.16 PW.51 72 Actual consideration by DD Rs.530400 and by cash of Rs.335000. Ex.P.44 865400.00 PW.16 PW.51 73 16.75 cents in R.S.No.1/1F old R.S.No.1/1C4 at Sholinganallore village Ex.P.32 45 125.00 PW.7 PW.16 PW.51 74 Actual consideration by DD 235200 and cash of Rs.335000 Ex.P.74 570200.00 PW.45

slide 457:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 457 75 6 grounds 1087 sq. ft. in 581 sq. ft. undivided share of land in S.No.61/1 62 66/2 in plot No.17 17-A and 18 Wallace Garden in Nungambakkam village M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc. No.370/94 Dt. 28.4.94 Ex.P.647 284008.00 PW.136 76 6 grounds 1087 sq. ft. in 581 sq. ft. undivided share of land in S.No.61/1 62 66/2 in plot No.17 17-A and 18 Wallace Garden in Nungambakkam village M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc. No.371/94 Dt.28.4.94 Ex.P.648 284008.00 PW100 PW136 77 6 grounds 1087 sq. ft. in 581 sq. ft. undivided share of land in S.No.61/1 62 66/2 in plot No.17 17-A and 18 Wallace Garden in Nungambakkam village M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc. No.372/94 Dt.3.5.94 Ex.P.649 284008.00 PW100 PW136 78 6 grounds 1087 sq. ft. in 581 sq. ft. undivided share of land in S.No.61/1 62 66/2 in plot No.17 17-A and 18 Wallace Garden in Nungambakkam village M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc.No.373/94 Dt.4.5.94 Ex.P.650 284008.00 PW100 PW136 79 3.30 acres in S.No.403/3 401/2 in Siruthavur Village. Tr. VN Sudhak aran Doc.No.222/94 dt.24.05.94 Ex.P.905 1578 94475.00 PW141 PW159 PW201

slide 458:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 458 80 34 cents together with 26 coconut trees in S.No.165/8B in Vettuvankeni village M/s. Green Farm Houses Doc. No. 260/94 Dt. 16.6.94 Ex.P-1196 1197 1198 121040.00 PW159 81 0.34 acres together with 26 coconut trees in S.No.165/7B in Vettuvankeni Village M/s. Green Farm Houses Doc. No.261/94 Dt.16.6.94 Ex.P.907 121040.00 PW159 82 0.34 acres together with 26 coconut trees in S.No.165/9A in Vettuvankeni Village M/s. Green Farm Houses Doc. No.262/94 Dt.16.6.94 Ex.P.1198 121040.00 PW159 83 Undivided share of land to the extent of 880/72000 in 10 grounds and 640 sq. ft at Door No.98/99 old No.38 of Northern Row of Luz Church Road Mylapore in R.S.No.1639/5 Jaya Publicati ons Doc. No. 282/94 Dt.27.6.94 Ex. P-79 80 226130.00 PW.30 PW159 84 Land and building to the extent of 4800 sq. ft. with a building both in the ground and first floor in s.No.5202 of T. Nagar village which is now known as Murugesa Mudali Street. M/s. Jay Real Estate Doc. No.1325/94 dt.19.07.94 Ex.P.29 3344040 PW.6 PW.7 85 Land and building in Plot No.40 and 41 with a built up area of 900 sq. ft. both in the J.S.Hou sing Develop ment Doc. No.3348/94 Dt. 10.8.94 995670.00 PW.26 PW.50

slide 459:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 459 ground and first floors land extent 5 grounds of solinganallur village in S.No.1/1C5 which is now known as No.1 Murphy Street Akkarai Village. Ex.P.74 86 53 acres 66 cents in S.No.436/6 467/3 468/2 472/5 401/8 462/8 472/5 401/8 462/8 467/2 484/1A 484/1C 489/1 462/3 466/4 462/7 468/2 490/1 467/1 464/7 in Cherakulam Village S.Nos.188/3 221/1 in Vallakulam Village. Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc.No.429/94 dt.22.8.94 Ex.P.324 121389.00 PW.76 PW.159 87 3 acres 51 cents in S.No.43/2 in Karunkuzhipallam Village J. Vivek Doc.No.478/94 Dt.15.9.94 Ex.P.75 158310.00 PW.27 PW159 88 4 acres 52 cents in S.No.46 in Karunkuzhipallam Village J. Vivek Doc. No.479/94 Dt. 15.09.94 Ex.P.76 203510 PW.27 PW.159 89 4 acres 15 cents in S.No.45 in Karunkuzhipallam village J. Vivek Doc. No.480/94 Dt. 15.9.94 Ex.P.77 186356 PW.28 PW159 90 4 acres 15 cents in Karunkuzhipallam village J. Vivek Doc. No.481/94 Dt. 15.9.94 Ex.P.78 186226 PW.28 PW159 91 4380 Sq. Ft. land with 520 Sq. Ft. house in S.No.588/2A 2B in Thiruvenkada Nagar Colony M/s. Susikala Enterpri ses Doc. No.509/94 Dt. 26.9.94 Ex.P.46 265000 PW.17 PW159 PW161

slide 460:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 460 93 37 cents in S.No.165/9B in Vettuvankeni Enjambakkam Village Green Farm House Doc. No.521/94 Dt. 27.9.94 Ex.P.125 1200 124540.00 PW.48 PW159 PW182 94 2 grounds 733 Sq. Ft. land and building in Door No.150 TTK Road R.S.No.3705 plot 1-A. M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc. No.794/94 Dt. 29.9.94 Ex.P.47 1324 5928050 PW.81 95 5.80 acres in S.No.392/6 380/4 5 392/3 5 1 2 4 381/9 380/1 2 in Payyanoor village. Smt. N. sasikala Doc. No.595/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.96 1528 1899 195800 PW.40 PW159 96 3.52 acres in Sl.No.391/1 2 3 5 6 7 392/8 9 10 11 in Payyanoor village Smt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.596/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.97 286520 PW.40 PW159 97 5.28 acres in S.No.384/1 3 404/1 381/3 4 5 6 7 10 11 in Payyanoor Village Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.597/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.98 254670 PW.40 PW159 98 0.40 acres in S.No.383 in Payyanoor Village. Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.598/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.99 194012.00 PW.40 PW159 99 0.40 acres in S.No.383 in Payyanoor Village Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.599/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.100 204012.00 PW.40 PW159 100 2.76 acres in S.No.403 in Payyanoor Village Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.600/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.101 176910.00 PW.40 PW159 101 4.23 acres in S.No.379/2 and 379/3 of Payyanoor Village Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.601/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.102 214810.00 PW.40 PW159

slide 461:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 461 102 0.51 acres in S.No.381/9 392/1 and 392/2 in Payyanoor Village Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc. No.602/94 Dt. 11.10.94 Ex.P.103 214810.00 PW.40 PW159 103 3197 Sq. Ft. T.S.No.115/P 117/P 127/7 in Arumbakkam village Mahasubha Lakshmi Kalyana Mandabam Doc No. P 262/94 Dt. 31.10.94 Ex.P.68 855150 PW.22 PW159 104 4564.sq. ft. of site and building in T.S.No.2 and T.S.No.18 Block No.22 which is called No.1 Parameswari Nagar Urur Village. Jaya Publicati ons Doc. No.703/94 Dt. 15.11.94 Ex.P.70 71 1926 1927 1020 3420160 PW.23 PW159 PW201 105 73 acres 90 cents in S.No.471 494/1B 495/2 405/1G 464 462/9 2 831/4A 4C 262/2 494/1B 495/2 405/237 405/23C 401/202 601/2C1C 468/8 469/8 489/1C 405/19 405/20A 409/20 462/62 402/12 405/10 497 501 457 498/2 1 491/11 492/2 389/1 467/3 466/6 469/2 495 466/6 497 501 598/2 498 601/1 602/1A 601/2A6 476/5 4 484/3 4 465/11A 11 11CA 12C 13 60 14 16 406/3 Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No. 649/94 Dt. 17.11.94 Ex.P.330 167126.00 PW.76 PW159

slide 462:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 462 in Cherrakulam Village. 106 69.78 acres in 406/2 485/2 460/8 598/1 460/6 467/3 487/1 455/9 485/9 487/1 467/3 367/3 466/6 466/6 469/2 469/2 463/1 406/16 463/1 406/16 463/5B 469/2 464/4 405/16 460/4 274/1B 462/9 462/9 464/5 467/2 598/1 398/7 467/3 474/5 487/3C 464/3 469/9 262/2 468/2 490/1 in Cherakulam Village. Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc No.695/94 Dt. 17.11.94 Ex.P.339 137204.00 PW.76 PW.159 107 Extent 60 acres 65-1/2 cents in 486 495/4 453/2 422/2 459/2 602/2C 602/2A3A 603/1 602/2C 604/2B 495/2 462/4 912 259/2 472/9 471 496/1 491/1 496/3 491/2 4 5 10 495/2 491 492/2 in Cherkulam Village. Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc No.696/94 Dt. 17.11.94 Ex.P.345 137204 PW.76 PW.159 108 42 acres 31 cents in S.No.823/9 817/10 822/5 823/3 817/2C 35 36 159 37/3 2 149/2 149/3 37/2 130/2 3 110/2 817/5 9 373/4 382/3 Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.697/94 Dt. 17.11.94 Ex.P.350 95740 PW.76 PW159

slide 463:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 463 374/1 378/4 1072/10 11 817/2 2 1073/1 1075/7 822/2 543/11 543 in Meerkulam Village 109 34 acres and 81- 1/2 cents in Vallakulam Village in 221/4 218/9A 90 225/2 204/2 204/7 220/2 681/6 210/5 223/2 224/5A 224/5 6 197/4 4B 4 198/1 217/2 618/7 220/4 220/1 221/5 225/1 219/4 213/5 225/1 224/2A 222/2B Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.698/94 Dt. 17.11.94 Ex.P.357 78801 PW.76 PW.159 110 50 cents in S.No.2/1B 3A in Solinganallur Village M/s. J Farm Houses Doc. No.759/94 Dt. 12.12.94 Ex.P.72 909 78801 PW.24 PW.50 PW159 111 12.70 acres in S.No.701/2 654/8 605/4 685/5 9 583/8 601/7 198/6 199/2 4 594/2 688/2 in Uthukkadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.808/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.161 150660 112 14.42 acres in S.No.685 693/4 698/1 685/8 687/4B 689/6 1 692 698/3 in Uthukadu village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.898/94 Dt.22.12.94 Ex.P.291 168280 PW.70 113 8.60 acres in S.No.136/1 2 3 137 138/3 139 172/3A 4A 173/2A 2C in Uthukkadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.810/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.148 106343.00 PW.54 PW159

slide 464:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 464 114 6.98 acres in S.No.386/2 402/1 293/4A 294/2A 224/2B in Kalavai Village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.811/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.363 15888.00 PW.76 PW159 115 55.00 ½ acres in S.No.682/6 203/6 in Vallakulam village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.812/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.366` 124433.00 PW.76 PW159 116 57.01 acres in S.No.224/4B 204/2 in Vallakulam Village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.813/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.377 128963.00 PW.76 PW159 117 89.62 acres in S.No.496 221/3 217/8 and other Nos. in Vallakulam village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.814/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.388 202658.00 PW.76 PW159 118 80.95 ½ acres in S.No.470/3 504/2B and other Nos. in Cherakulam village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.815/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.96 183076.00 PW.76 PW159 119 71.57 acres in S.no.262/1C 103/2C 260/2A and other Nos. in Cherakulam Village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.816/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.408 171183.00 PW.76 PW159 120 68.09 ½ acres in S.No.374/1/3 378/4 333 and other Nos. in Meerankulam village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.817/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.409 154009.00 PW.76 PW159 121 78.09 ½ in S.No.832/1 527/5 536/2A and other Nos. in Meerankulam village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.818/94 Dt. 22.12.94 Ex.P.431 176609.00 PW.76 PW159 122 4293 Sq. Ft. together with a building 2000 Sq. Ft. Ground Floor 2600 Sq. Ft. First Floor in M/s. Anjaney a Printers P Ltd. Doc. No.874/94 Dt. 30.12.94 Ex.P.513 4356142 PW.86 PW159

slide 465:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 465 S.No.6794 which is called No.68 Habibullah Road T.Nagar Madras- 17 123 3472 Sq. Ft. together with building 3000 sq. ft. ground floor 3700 sq. ft. first floor in Survey No.6794 which is called 69 Habibullah Road T. Nagar. M/s. Anjaney a Printers P Ltd. Doc. No.875/94 Dt. 30.12.94 Ex.P.515 5996346 PW.86 PW159 124 48.95 acres in S.No.252 264/24 250 255/1 494/3 495/3 499/3 504/2 505/1 50/1 543/2 599/3 1/3 602 603/3 605/3 251/ 297/1 250/1 401 468 258/1 468/3 461/1 54 25 254 255 in Cherakulam Village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.9/95 Dt. 6.1.95 Ex.P.443 110738 PW.76 PW159 125 54.98 acres in S.No.62 68/2 59/2 69/3 78/2 75/1 78/7 212/3 484/1 484 492 67/3 206/6 85/2 59 491 in Vallakulam Village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.10/95 Dt. 6.1.95 Ex.P.450 124370 PW.76 PW159 126 62.65 acres in S.No.130 823/9 in Cherakulam village and S.No.830/5 6 729/24 168/1 169/3 5 452/3 815/12 15 822/3 4 817/4 321/7 137/6 Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.11/95 Dt. 6.1.95 Ex.P.456 114301 PW.76 PW159

slide 466:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 466 138/3 9 326/7 420/1 425 393/3 133 136/1 2 669 392/5 6 393/6 816/2 814/5 97/3 99/11 1 490/3 68/2 84/6 62 130/1 149/4 813/8 374/7 374/9 384/7 94/1 96/4 804 420/9 539/1 804/1 816/2 117/5 417/4 347/1 542/4 of Meerankulam village 128 3.11 acres in S.No.79 in Vandampalai village M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. Doc. No.25/95 Dt. 11.1.95 Ex.P.143 74471.00 PW.52 PW159 129 4.44 acres in S.No.80 88/1 in Vandampalai village M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. Doc. No.26/95 Dt. 11.1.95 Ex.P.144 106269 PW.52 PW159 130 1.31 acres in S.No.81/1 2 in Keelagavathukudi village and 5.19 acres in S.No.84/1 1C in Vandampalai village M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. Doc. No.27/95 Dt. 11.1.95 Ex.P.145 153201 PW.52 PW159 131 8.91 acres in S.No.77/1B 1A 1C 81/1A 82/1B petition. In Vandampalai Village and Keelagavathukudi village M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. Doc. No.28/95 Dt. 11.1.95 Ex.P.146 213061 PW.52 PW159 132 3.84 acres in S.No.81/4 in Vandampalai village M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. Doc. No.29/95 Dt. 11.1.95 Ex.P.772 98293 PW149 PW159

slide 467:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 467 133 6 acres in S.No.597/1 370/1 375/6 377/2 671/5 671/7 610/2 in Uthukkadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.32/95 Dt. 12.1.95 Ex.P.165 73796 PW.56 PW.159 134 11.66 acres in S.No.650/2 646/4 4h 316/3 9 148/1 337/7 5 368/1 371/2 375/4 6 11 9 369/6 384/9 330/1e 1f 1i 2 365/1c 1d 1a 1h 2 3 4 646/4b 4j Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.33/95 Dt. 12.1.95 Ex.P.172 141507 PW.56 PW159 135 8.10 acres in S.No.78.1 2 75 76/5 2A 77/1D in Vandampalai Village M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. Doc. No.74/95 Dt. 31.1.95 Ex.P.147 193820 PW.53 PW159 136 9.65 acres in Uthukkadu Village in S.No.596/6 7 8 658/2 150/1A 1B 1C 1D 187 200/3B in Uthukkadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.148/95 Dt. 13.2.95 Ex.P.174 113803 PW.56 PW159 137 10.29 acres in S.No.336/12 336/12 368/10 16 145/12 146/4 609/1 609/2 610/1 595/1 596/2 3 5 638/2 6 in Uthukkadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.149/95 Dt. 13.2.95 Ex.P.180 125386 PW.56 PW159 138 16.51 acres in S.No.260/5 462/10 464/3 465/5 462/8 401/9 464/2 262 257 401/4 407/2 9/3A of Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. doc. No.175/95 Dt. 21.2.95 Ex.P.467 37693 PW.76 PW159

slide 468:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 468 Cherakulam village 139 30.75 acres in S.No.199/4 218/1B 221/8 36/1 182/1 205/2A 220/1 204/5 6 215/1 13 224/17 210/3 194/7 198/3 199/5 97/10 in Vallakulam village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.176/95 Dt. 21.2.95 Ex.P.472 76745.00 PW.76 PW159 140 51.40 acres in S.NO.385/3 288/4 543/8B 536/4A 416/8B 832/3 825/1 827/7A 313/3B 817/8 831/6 543/8 849/2 848 830/4B 829/3A 825/8 827/11 418/6 310/11 822/3 536/1 530/5 149/5 543/13B 543/10 543/11 413/2 817/5 813/2B 535/4 17 5/2 823/8 538/3 in Meerankulam Village Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No. 117/95 Dt. 21.2.95 Ex.P.477 117016 PW.76 PW159 141 59.82 acres in S.No.535/20 13 14 10 828/6 829/7 814/4 816/5B 4C 414/2B 413/4 416/3 418/3 367/3 8 388/1 1072 1072/5 6 1072/12 367/4 1072/8 171/10 820/2 370/6 335/4A 158 61/1 137/8 346/2 358/3 7/8 374/12 132/1A 132/1C 112/4C Riverwa y Agro Product s Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.178/95 Dt. 21.2.95 Ex.P.488 136491 PW.76 PW159

slide 469:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 469 4B 132/1B 112/4A 111/6B 341/1 350/7 341/3 345/3 346/1 1066/12 543/15 347/3 154/2A2 416 142 8.32 acres in S.No.351/7 189/2 195/2 199/7 649/4 574/10 of Uthukkadu Village. Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.213/95 Dt. 8.3.95 Ex.P.184 99353 PW.56 PW159 143 8.65 acres in S.No.334/1 338/10 359/3 653/1 654/1 590/3 5 213/10 369/7 369/7 9 330/1A 1F 357/6 365/1 369/8 605/1 2 3 371/1 of Uthukkadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.214/95 Dt. 8.3.95 Ex.P.190 103242 PW.56 PW159 144 1.08 acres in S.No.612/2A2 of Uthukadu village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.238/95 Dt. 17.3.95 Ex.P.153 16004 PW.55 PW159 146 Cost of construction of labour quarters five in ground floor and Five in first floor 10 numbers in ground floor and 10 numbers in first floor construction of first floor for Guest House over the existing ground floor and construction of platform in M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. campus Ex.P.822 5719800 PW153

slide 470:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 470 at Vandampalai during 1994-95 147 Cost of construction of compound wall twin house staff quarters for eight numbers and MD bunglow in ramraj at Vandampalai in 1994-94 Ex.P.822 8341000 PW153 148 1.08 acres in S.No.612/2A1 of Uthukadu village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.239/95 Dt. 17.3.95 Ex.P.154 12764.00 PW.55 PW159 149 1.80 acres in S.No.612/1 in Uthukadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.240/95 Dt. 16.3.95 Ex.P.155 21173 PW.55 PW159 151 11.25 acres in S.No.611/2 of Uthukadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.241/95 Dt. 17/3.95 Ex.P.156 131649 PW.55 PW159 152 6.40 ½ acres in S.No.577/4 2 322/1 360/13 332/5 2 366/5 577/6 7 370/3 of Uthukadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.242/95 Dt. 17.3.95 Ex.P.197 77203 PW.56 PW159 153 1/6 th undivided share of land in 5 ground and 1133 sq. ft. in S.No.3334/1A of Luz Avenue. Tr. VN Sudhak aran Doc. No.249/95 Dt. 21.3.95 Ex.P.107 1087196 PW.43 PW159 154 1/6 th undivided share of land in five grounds and 1133 sq. ft. in S.No.3334/1A in Mylapore Luz Avenue Chennai-4 Tmt. J. Elavaras i. Doc. No.248/95 Dt. 21.3.95 Ex.P.106 1087196 PW.43 PW159 155 1/6 th undivided share of land in 5 grounds and 1133 sq. ft. in Tmt. N. Sasikala Doc No.247/95 Dt. 21.3.95 Ex.P.105 1087196 PW.43 PW159

slide 471:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 471 S.No.3334/1A in Mylapore Luz Avenue. 156 1/6 th undivided share of land in five grounds and 1133 sq. ft. in S.No.3334/1A of Luz Avenue J.S. Housing Develop ment Doc. No.250/95 Dt. 21.3.95 Ex.P.108 1087196 PW.43 PW159 157 1/6 th undivided share of land in 5 grounds and 1133 Sq. Ft. in S.No.3334/1A of Luz Avenue M/s. Anjaney a Printers P Ltd. Doc. No.251/95 Dt.21.3.95 Ex.P.109 1087196 PW.43 PW159 158 1/6 th undivided share of land in 5 grounds and 1133 Sq. Ft. in S.No.3334/1A of Luz Avenue Jaya Contract ors and Builders Doc.No. 252/95 Dt 21.3.95 Ex.P.110 1087196 PW.43 PW159 160 11 cents land and building in S.No.74/1 in Neelankarai Village M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc. No.293/95 Dt 4.4.95 Ex.P.135 798945 PW.51 PW159 161 11 cents land and building in S.No.74/1 in Neelankarai Village M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Doc. No.294/95 Dt. 4.4.95 Ex.P.136 949995 PW.51 PW159 162 3197 sq. ft. in T.S.No.115/pt 117/pt 127/7 pt in Arumbakkam village Mahasu bha Lakshmi Kalyana Mandab am Doc.No. 295/95 Dt 4.4.95 Ex.P.69 855150 PW.22 PW159 163 Land and building to the extent of 26540 sq. ft. with a super structure in T.No. No.3077 to 3079 which is known as No.30 VOC Nagar Tanjore Town M/s. Lex Property Develop ment P Ltd. Dt. 19.4.95 Doc.No. 327/95 Ex.P.717 1903888 PW.78 PW127 PW159 164 7.11 ½ acres and in S.No.239/9 10 11 244/6 293/4B 358/1 Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Dt. 4.5.95 Doc.No. 360/95 84784 PW.56 PW159

slide 472:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 472 384/1 596/2 596/9 605/4 632/1A 680/1 of Uthukadu Village Ltd. Ex.P.207 165 15.71 acres in S.No.591/2 322/7 8 5 226/10 649/4 150/8 349/1 3 333/5 6 7 3 370/5 6 576/1 585/2 331/5 595/4 5 597/1 596/12 595/7 589/5 6 7 578/2 3 4 583/8 4 6 360/3 5 215/5 216/2 in Uthukadu Village. Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc.No. 361/95 Dt. 4.5.95 Ex.P.214 188572 PW.56 PW159 166 Kodanad Tea Estate and Tea Factory Extent 900 acres at Kothagiri Nilgiris District acquired on an unregd reconstitution of partnership deed dt. 5.6.95 at total cost of Rs.760000.00 payment through six cheques dt. 5.5.95 Tmt. N. Sasikala Tmt. J. Elavaras i. And Tr. VN Sudhak aran Ex.P.1510 1515 1516 1517 1576 1630 1618 1101 76000000 PW201 167 9.50 acres in S.No.324 681/6 360/9 184/3 632/2 239/5 309/5 in Uthukadu Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc. No.446/95 Dt. 13.6.95 Ex.P.221 112213 PW.56 PW159 168 20.33 acres in S.No.198/180f in Velakapuram Village Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. Doc.No. 467/95 Dt. 3.7.95 Ex.P.910 40197 PW159 169 20.89 acres in S.No.198/180F8 and othe rNos. In Meadow Agro Farms Doc.No. 468/95 Dt. 3.7.95 401975 PW159

slide 473:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 473 Velagapuram Village Pvt Ltd. Ex.P.911 170 2.03 acres in S.No.385/12 385/13 385/14 in Payyanoor Village N. Sasikala Doc. No.191/95 Dt. 19.7.95 Ex.P.104 1510 1518 1631 344195 PW.41 PW159 171 2.34 acres in S.No.385/7 8 9 386/1A 1B 1C 1D 386/2 in Payanoor Village N. Sasikala Doc. No. 492/95 Dt 19.7.95 Ex.P.912 391655 PW159 172 0.90 acres in S.No.386/15 385/1 2 3 4 5 6 in Payyanur Village N. Sasikala Doc. No. 493/95 Dt. 19.7.95 Ex.P.913 321030 PW159 173 Expenditure towards acquisition of Indo-Doha Chemicals 1.Tr. Ayyadurai Promoter of Indo Doha PharmaceuticalR s.3545000/- 2.To interface capital market shares – Rs.2405000/- 3. To Ind Bank – Rs.2741000/- Doc. No. Dt Ex.P. 8691000 PW.84 PW.85 PW.92 PW201 74. OBJECTIONS OF THE ACCUSED: In her written statement filed under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. A-1 has taken up a definite stand in para 10 of the written statement which reads as under

slide 474:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 474 “When I was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu between1991 and 1996 I acquired only one immovable property a vacant site bearing Door No. 31-A Poes Garden Chennai. I renovated my old house at Door No. 36 Poes Garden Chennai made a new construction at 31-A Poes Garden Chennai and also a Farm house in Hyderabad. The expenditures have been duly accounted for disclosed to the Income- tax Department and accepted by them after in-depth scrutiny and verification of facts.” i The other accused have taken up a plea that they were having independent source of income and assets. They were individually assessed under the Income-tax Act and the various properties standing in their names were acquired out of their earnings or the business income of the firms floated by them and therefore the prosecution is not justified in clubbing their assets with the properties of A-1. ii In para 20 of the written statement submitted by A-2 under Sec. 243 1 Cr.P.C. she has stated as under “At all times I had independent income and Selvi Jayalalitha had her own independent income and assets in her name. All the four of us were having independent source of income and assets and were individually assessed under the Income Tax Act. Hence clubbing the assets of myself with A-1 is unjustified and illegal both in law and in fact.” iii A-2 has taken up a further plea that she is a partner in Jaya Publications. From 1990 onwards the

slide 475:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 475 firm had floated a scheme whereunder any person could invest by making deposit of Rs.12000/- to Rs.18000/- with Jaya Publications. The depositors were entitled to get a particular number of copies of the daily news paper “Namadhu MGR” free of cost. The said news paper carried the news items and the messages of the General Secretary of AIADMK party. A- 1 was and is the General Secretary of the party. She has specifically stated in the written statement that during the check period an amount of Rs. 143035000/- was collected and the said scheme was disclosed to the Income Tax Department and has been duly accepted by the Income-Tax Authorities up to the level of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. iv Regarding the various items of immovable properties listed by the prosecution in various Annexures A-2 has contended that she is not related to the immovable properties at Sl. Nos. 18 to 306 viz. 18 24 27 to 31 49 50 56 to 67 75 to 79 86 to 90 94 103 105 to 109 111 to 121 124 to 154 160 to 165 167 to 169 173 174 176 177 179 to 182 186 192 to 194 196 to 200 206 to 208 210 211 216 225 to 228 230 to 233 235 237 240 242 248 249 251 252 258 262 to 284 286 288 to 292 295 296 298 302 303 305 and 306 of Annexure II. v Regarding the other properties she has narrated in detail the mode of payment made to the

slide 476:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 476 respective vendors for purchase of these properties and has mentioned the source from which these items of immovable properties were purchased and has contended that all the expenses incurred for the purchase of the above properties have been declared by her and other accused individually and the Income-tax authorities have accepted the returns filed by them after thorough scrutiny and therefore the allegations made against them are liable to be rejected. vi A-3 has also taken up a similar defence contending that during the check period he was carrying on a business under the name and style “Super Duper TV” involved in production coverage of programmes including entertainment programmes software equipment hire and erection of dish antenna and cable TV net work. He was also carrying on the business in consultation investment programming trading and vehicle hiring and was also selling mushrooms purchased from M/s Fresh Mushrooms and had earned Rs.56 lakh from the coverage of film clippings which were telecasted in DD and other TV channels during the World Tamil Conference. vii A-3 has taken up a further defence that he along with A-2 became a share holder of the company i.e. Anjeneya Printers and this Anjeneya Printers acquired the following properties viz: –

slide 477:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 477 1. Padmanabha Street Rs. 1596150.00 2. Habibullah Road Rs. 10352488.00 3. Luz Avenue 1/6 th share Rs. 1087196.00 According to A-3 the premises where the machinery was found was not exclusively in the occupation of M/s Anjeneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. but it was also in the occupation of M/s Jaya Publications. Regarding the valuation of machinery A-3 in his written statement has put forth a plea that large items of machinery were purchased from Mr. Shroff which were under his use. The said machinery was valued at Rs. 2016000/-. Besides the above certain other machinery were taken from M/s Jaya Publications on lease. The expenditure incurred by M/s Anjeneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. were submitted to the Income-tax department and were accepted by them. The total cost of machinery which was shown in the books of M/s Anjeneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 7414935/- has been accepted by the Income-tax department after scrutiny. The total cost of machinery which is inventoried under Ex. P-664 would be Rs.9430935/- including the cost of machinery purchased from Mr. Shroff amounting to Rs. 2016000/-. Therefore Rs.12211065/- is liable to be excluded from item No. 194 of the Annexure-II.

slide 478:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 478 viii A.3 has further contended that an amount of Rs. 50.98 lakhs shown towards the conveyance charges is totally unjustified and opposed to law. With regard to the cost of construction at Ekkatu Thangal A-3 has contended that the entire cost of construction shown by the prosecution at Rs.213 63450/- is liable to be excluded for the reason that the site on which the building is situate belongs to a different company by name Shastry Nuts and Bolts. It is specifically stated in para 20 of the written statement that Anjeneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. is a tenant of the building and has been paying rent to M/s Shastry Nuts and Bolts. Therefore the above said amount of Rs.21363450/- is liable to be excluded totally. ix Regarding Green Farm House and the construction at Sholinganallur it is stated in the written statement that A-2 and A-4 are the partners along with A-3 in this firm. The firm acquired the property at Sholinganallur for Rs.1000375/- and another property at Vettuvankeni for Rs.487660/-. The prosecution has estimated the value of the construction at Rs. 15259076/-. But at the time of estimation of the value of construction the building was incomplete and he would lead rebuttal evidence to show the actual expenditure incurred towards this construction. x Regarding J. Farm House A-3 has taken up a plea that the said firm acquired 2 properties viz.

slide 479:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 479 property at Injambakkam for Rs.649750/- and property at Sholinganallur for Rs.286441/-. In Sholinganallur in an area known as Sea Shell Avenue the prosecution has estimated the value of construction at Rs.8036868/- and in Injambakkam at Rs.5311000/-. It is contended that as regards the property at 1/240 New Mahabalipuram Road Injambakkam the value ought not to be included in the computation of expenditure since the construction was made only after the said period. It is further contended that the property at Sea Shell Avenue Sholinganallur was constructed after the check period. Therefore the entire amount of the expenditure in respect of both these constructions amounting to Rs.13347868/- is liable to be excluded. xi Regarding Jay Real Estate it is stated that the firm acquired the property at Murugesa Mudali street and construction was made on the property spending Rs. 645400/- but the prosecution has inflated the cost of construction unreasonably at Rs. 1092828/- and therefore the inflated construction cost of Rs. 447428/- is liable to be excluded. xii Regarding JS Housing Development A-3 would state that he A-2 and A-4 were the partners of this firm and the firm purchased a property at Akkarai for Rs. 995670/- and 1/6 th share in the property at Luz Avenue costing Rs. 1087196/- including the

slide 480:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 480 registration charges. On the property at Akkarai the construction was made spending only Rs. 1631130/- as against the inflated cost of Rs. 2038959/- shown by the prosecution. Hence in this regard a sum of Rs. 407829/- is liable to be excluded in the computation of total expenditure. xiii Regarding Jaya Contractors and Builders A-3 has admitted that he is one of the partners of this firm along with A-2 and A-4 and the partners purchased 1/6 th share in the property at Luz Avenue at the cost of Rs. 1087196/- including registration charges. xiv Regarding Kodanadu Estate the defence of A-3 is that Kodanadu Estate consisted of Tea gardens and certain construction which were originally owned by Greig Jones and family. This partnership was later reconstituted with inclusion of Mrs. Radha Venkatachalam and her family members. A-3 along with A-2 and A-4 paid a consideration of Rs. 7.6 crores to Mrs. Radha Venkatachalm and became the partners of the said firm. A portion of the consideration in a sum of Rs. 3.76 Crore was borrowed from Indian Bank by offering the properties of Kodanadu Estate as collateral and the remaining amount was paid by him A-2 and A-4 through cheques. xv Regarding purchase of vehicles and deposits standing in the name of the firm A-3 has contended

slide 481:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 481 that M/s Anjeneya Printers had the wherewithal to purchase the vehicles and the F.D.s were made out of the income of the firm in which he was a partner and the firms had cash balance in various banks. Further A-3 has specifically pleaded in the written statement that he formed a company viz. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. in January 1994 along with A-2. The company had a deposit scheme wherein the cable operators deposited Rs.5000/- or multiples and in this process the company received scheme deposit money of Rs. 10610000/-. The receipts were duly disclosed to the Income-tax authorities and the Commissioner of Appeals has accepted the same as valid and proper. The company had also received periodical lease rent of Rs. 1500/- per month for other equipments which were given on hire from time to time. Thus an amount of Rs.1118500/- was collected during the check period which was also disclosed to the Income-tax authorities and accepted by them after scrutiny. It is the further submission of A-3 that the company Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. has deposited a sum of Rs.1575800/- with SIDCO for allotment of a shed however no shed or plot was allotted by SIDCO. xvi A-3 has further stated in his written statement that he has resigned from all the companies which were registered under the Indian Companies Act and hence the companies alone have to explain the

slide 482:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 482 source for their wherewithal with which the properties were acquired. xvii With regard to the alleged acquisition of properties and shares of various companies A-3 has taken up a plea that since he has resigned from all the companies registered under the Indian Companies Act he is not liable to explain the source from which the properties were acquired by the said companies. However he is specific in his defence that 224313 shares of Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd were acquired by several persons including him and A-4 during 1994 and they sold the shares and ceased to be the Directors with effect from 22.2.1996 and 8.5.1996 respectively. xviii A-3 has sought to exclude the following sums from the computation of assets detailed in Annexure-II viz: Item 127 Cost of acquisition of shares on 24.11.1994 Rs. 1842000 Item 128 Cost of land 74471 Item 129 Cost of land 106269 Item 130 Cost of land 153201 Item 131 Cost of land 213061 Item 132 Cost of land 98293 Item 145 Cost of land 1480806 Item 146 Cost of construction 5719800 Item 147 Cost of construction 8341000 Total 18028901

slide 483:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 483 xix. Regarding Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. it is the contention of A-3 that he along with A-4 became the Directors of said company only on 17.8.1994 and they resigned on 12.3.1996 and 5.3.1996 respectively. The five properties mentioned under items 27 28 29 30 and 49 in Annexure-II were acquired by the company before A-3 and A-4 became the Directors thereof. Hence the value of the said 5 items amounting to Rs. 388712/- is liable to be excluded from the assets listed in Annexure-II. xx In respect of Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd. it is contended that A-3 and A-4 became the Directors of the said company on 17.8.1994 therefore the items of properties mentioned at Sl. Nos. 67 75 to 78 94 150 162 163 182 196 and 303 in Annexure-II and item Nos.8 and 11 in Annexure-IV totaling to Rs.25718531/- are liable to be excluded. According to A-3 he and A-4 resigned from this company on 14.3.1996 and 4.3.1996 respectively vide Ex.P-572. xxi It is pointed out in the written statement that the value of acquisition of item No. 302 is covered under items 75 to 78 totaling to Rs. 1136032/- and hence this amount is also liable to be deleted. xxii Regarding M/s. Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that the company was registered on 22.10.1990 even prior to the check period and A3 and

slide 484:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 484 A-4 were appointed as Addl. Directors on 15.7.1994 vide Ex. P-579 and they resigned from the post of Directorship with effect from 5.3.1996 and 13.3.1996 vide Ex. P-585. Hence A3 is not liable to answer the acquisition standing in the name of the said company amounting to Rs.3415159.61 as the company is not a party to the proceedings. xxiii Likewise it is contended in the written statement that M/s Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. was registered on 11.10.1990 vide Ex. P-594 prior to the check period and A3 and A-4 were appointed as Addl. Directors with effect from 3.8.1994 vide Ex. P-599 and resigned from the posts with effect from 6.3.1996 and 11.3.1996 vide Ex.P-601 and therefore A3 and A-4 cannot be made to explain the acquisition made on behalf of the company and hence the entire value of the assets totaling to Rs. 1807843.40 has to be excluded. xxiv It is further contended that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs allegedly paid in cash to one Ayyadurai out of the assets of Indo-Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals and a sum of Rs.2851000/- by the outgoing partners of Maha Subbalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam are wrongly shown and therefore both these sums are required to be deleted from the assets column shown under Annexure-II.

slide 485:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 485 V. COST OF RENOVATION OR CONSTRUCTION: It is the contention of the A.1 that DV AC have deliberately and wantonly over estimated the expenditure and the basis on which it is over estimated is ad-hoc and unscientific. According to A-1 the amount of expenditure incurred by her towards the renovation or construction of the buildings during the check period are as follows Renovation of 36 Poes Garden Rs. 7674900 Construction – 31-A Poes Garden Rs.13510500 Addition to Hyderabad Farm House Rs.13962300 Compound wall for Hyderabad Farm House Rs.1100000 Total expenditure Rs.36247700 Further in her written statement submitted under Section 243 1 Cr.P.C. A-1 has contended that towards the purchase of land at 31-A Poes Garden she has incurred a cost of Rs.1020331/- and for the additional construction at the Farm House in the Grape Garden including compound wall at Jeedi Metla Hyderabad Rs.15062300/- It is the specific defence of A.1 that in the income-tax returns filed by her she has declared the expenses incurred towards the above constructions and the same has been accepted by the Appellate Tribunal under the Income Tax Act as true and correct.

slide 486:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 486 As regards the valuation of sarees and footwear the contention of A.1 is that the prosecution has not attempted to establish that she acquired all the costly sarees/ footwear during the check period. There were other women including servants residing in the house and the items belonging to the inmates of the house have not been segregated person-wise. A large number of visitors and party-men used to come to her house daily and no efforts are made to segregate the footwear person wise. The Income-Tax Department after analyzing all the facts in the light of the DV ACs seizure mahazar has concluded that no addition could be made on account of sarees and footwear. Regarding the inclusion of watches as the assets of the accused A.1 has contended that the watches produced in evidence belonged to her even before the check period and there is no evidence to show that she purchased these watches during the check period. The further defence of A.1 is that she is only a silent or dormant partner in Jaya Publications. The said Firm has been duly assessed under the Income Tax Act and has been maintaining regular books of account. She had drawn from the said Partnership Firm various amounts as and when required to the extent of Rs.25668000 and has repaid Rs.5535000 leaving a balance of Rs.20133000. The expenditure towards renovation of Door No.36 Poes Garden was incurred by

slide 487:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 487 Jaya Publications totaling Rs.76.75 lakhs which has been duly accounted in the Balance Sheet. She has also received from Mrs. Sasikala who is a partner in Jaya Publication and Sasi Enterprises an advance of Rs.16700000/- during the check period and paid back Rs.3500000/- leaving a balance of Rs.13200000/-. It is the further defence of A.1 that the accounts of Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises are regularly maintained and they are assessed to Income Tax. Besides the above under an MOU the right to use a portion of her Hyderabad Farm House was given to Mrs.Sasikala and in consideration of the same an amount of Rs.3178000/- was received by her towards a portion of the cost of construction of the Farm House and under a separate MOU M/s. J.Jay T.V. Pvt. Ltd. has entered into an agreement with A1 to use a portion of new construction at 31-A Poes Garden and have expended a sum of Rs.36.71 lakhs towards construction cost and also reimbursed Rs.150000/- towards the construction cost incurred by A-1. It is the stand of A-1 that all these figures are duly declared and accepted by the Income Tax Authorities after in-depth scrutiny. A-1 has further contended that she is not aware of the execution of sale deeds Ex.P.6 to P.8 in favour of Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises as she is not involved in the day to day affairs of the said Firms.

slide 488:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 488 Further she has put forth a plea that the properties purchased from TANSI and covered by Ex.P.6 to P.8 have not been in the possession and enjoyment of M/s.Jaya Publications and M/s. Sasi Enterprises and therefore there is no question of commission of any misconduct by her. It is the case of A-1 that in respect of the above property a criminal case was filed against her and four others alleging misconduct under the P.C.Act along with the charge of conspiracy and the order of conviction passed by the trial court is set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Crl. A. Nos. 972 974 977 981 987 and 1168 of 2000 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in compliance of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to maintain the spirit of the Code of Conduct of public servant the properties purchased under Ex.P.6 to P.8 were reconveyed to TANSI and possession also has been handed over to TANSI. Finally it is contended that as per the accounts A.1 has a surplus of Rs.47.33 lakhs. The details of the accounts are duly reflected in the bank statements and in the orders of the I.T. She has not committed any misconduct as alleged by the prosecution and the charges leveled against are without substance and case has been foisted on her by her political opponents viz. DMK Party.

slide 489:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 489 75. EVIDENCE: In order to prove the transactions relating to the above immovable properties consideration paid to the vendors and the cost incurred towards the registration and stamp duty the prosecution has examined relevant witnesses whose evidence is summarized here below 75.1 Item No.18: PW.1 P.V. Rajaram has stated that in the year 1971 he bought a vacant site measuring 3 ½ grounds in Poes Garden Chennai out of which he gave 2 grounds site to his brother-in-law’s wife. The remaining 3800 sq. ft. was with him. At that time Sasikala’s husband Natarajan approached him and he agreed to sell the said land for Rs.8 lakhs and received the sale amount by way of 3 cheques for Rs. 4 lakhs 1 lakh and 3 lakhs respectively. The cheques were signed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha. The cost of registration was also borne by the purchasers. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the original sale deed Ex.P.1Doc. No.424/91. The accused have not disputed the execution and registration of the sale deed and the payment of consideration as evidenced in Ex.P.1. PW.2 E.V.Chakravarthi Sub-Registrar is examined to prove the registration of this document. According to this witness Ex.P.1 was presented for registration on 22.7.1991 but as per the guidelines the

slide 490:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 490 value of the property was Rs.1573814/-. Hence he did not register the property on that day. On 24.07.1991 the deficit stamp paper and the stamp fees were paid and accordingly he registered the document as per Ex.P.1. Through this witness the attested zerox copy has been marked as Ex.P.2. This witness is not cross-examined. 75.2 Item No.19: PW.138 Raja Gopalan is examined to prove item No.19. According to this witness he and his son R. Srinivasan executed the sale deed Ex.P.646 Doc. No.1410/91 on 14.08.1991 for a consideration of Rs.6 lakhs. The property was purchased by Mrs. N. Sasikala Poes Garden Chennai. The consideration was given through two DDs. of Rs 3 lakhs each to him and his son drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore Branch Chennai dated 13.08.1991. At the time of registration Jararaman had come to the registration office and he gave the D.Ds to PW138. This witness is also not cross- examined. Nonetheless the prosecution has examined Sri. Ragavelu Sub-Registrar who registered the document ExP.646 as PW99. According to this witness the consideration was in accordance with the sale value guidelines and hence he registered the document as per Ex.P.646. This witness is also not cross-examined. Ex.P.646 is the certified copy of the sale deed whereunder the properties at item No.19 are

slide 491:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 491 seen to have been purchased by A-2 for a consideration of Rs.6 lakhs as stated by the witnesses. The details of the pay orders are also mentioned in the said sale deed. 75.3 Item No.20: PW.3 Thangavelu the Sub-Registrar is examined to prove Ex.P.4 Doc. No.3285/91 the sale deed dated 22.09.1991 in respect of item No.20. In his evidence PW.3 deposed that out of the sale consideration of Rs.1260000/- an amount of Rs.260000/- was paid through account payee cheque drawn on Mylapore Canara Bank and the rest of the amount was paid through D.D. of Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. According to the valuation guidelines the land value was Rs.1752703/- as on the date of the registration. Hence on collecting the deficit stamp duty and the charges he registered the document. Through this witness the registered sale deed standing in the name of Jaya Publications is marked as Ex.P.4. There is no cross-examination of this witness regarding the registration of Ex.P.4 and the copy thereof is marked as Ex.P.5. 75.4 Item No.21: PW.137 Tajuddin has deposed that he was the Director of M.M.Nyanmar Exports Pvt. Ltd. During 1976 he started a Real Estate Company by name

slide 492:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 492 Holiday Sports Pvt. Ltd. In 1982 he bought an old building with land at Door No.14 Kadhar Nawaz Khan Road for Rs. 8 lakhs. He built a basement with three floors totaling 60000 sq. ft. During 1985 he advertised for the sale of the basement. Mr. Mahadevan from Sasi Enterprises approached him and he agreed to sell Door No.14 at Rs.450/- per sq. ft. totaling Rs.185000/- and accordingly executed the sale deed on 20.09.1989 in favour of Sasi Enterprises. Through this witness prosecution has marked the certified copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P.769. A reading of this document discloses that the sale deed taken place on 20.09.1989 much earlier to the check period. In item No.21 of Annexure – II the document number is erroneously mentioned as document No.92/1992. Ex.P.769 is registered as document No.526/1989 before the check period. Hence the amount of Rs.298144/- shown against item No.21 is liable to be deducted. 75.5 Item No.22: PW.163 Sri. Srinivas Rao has deposed that in the year 1992 he was working as Sub-Registrar in Maripalli Hyderabad District. Document No.722/92 was registered by him on 25.03.1992. It was presented for registration on 20.03.1992. The sale consideration was Rs. 5 lakhs out of which Rs.50000/- was paid

slide 493:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 493 through pay order drawn on Syndicate Bank and Rs. 4 lakhs through D.D. No.828957 dated 19.03.1992 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore Branch and Rs.50000/- through D.D. 828958 dated 19.03.1992 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore Branch. The certified copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.935. This witness is not cross-examined. 75.6 Item No.23 : PW.3 Sri. Thangavelu the Sub-Registrar deposed that document No.2237/92 dated 29.05.1992 executed by Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Corporation TANSI in favour of Jaya Publications was registered by him as the original sale deed marked as Ex.P.6. A perusal of this document reveals that the properties at item No.23 was purchased for a total consideration of Rs.18743932/- paid as under i DD No.209686 dated 9.12.1991 drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore Madras-600004 - Rs. 910658/- ii Bankers Pay Order No.117526 dt.28.5.92 issued by Indian Bank Abirampuram Madras – 600 018 - Rs.15000000/- iii Bankers Pay order No.117527 dt.28.5.92 issued by Indian Bank Abirampuram Madras-600 018. -Rs. 2833274/- --------------------- Rs.18743932/-

slide 494:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 494 75.7 Item No.25: PW.3 has also spoken about the registration of Ex.P.8 sale deed executed by TANSI in favour of Sasi Enterprises in respect of item No.25 comprising of land buildings and machineriies. Ex.P.8 is the certified copy. It is dated 30.09.1992. document No.3780/92. The total sale consideration is Rs.7954650/- It is recited in the sale deed that the consideration was paid by means of DDs as mentioned in the sale deed. The accused have neither disputed the execution of the sale deed nor the payment of the consideration as shown in Ex.P.8. 75.8 Item No.26: PW.4 Tr. Ramachandran has deposed that in the month of May 1990 he had bought old house and site measuring 1400 sq. ft. for Rs.16 lakhs. During the month of September 1992 an auditor by name Rajesekaran PW.228 approached him to purchase the house for Sasi Enterprises. He agreed to sell it for Rs.43 lakhs and received advance of Rs.23 lakhs under a sale agreement through DDs. After obtaining the income tax clearance certificate he received the balance consideration and executed the sale deed as per Ex.P.23. Ex.P.23 is the original sale deed executed by PW.4 in favour of Sasi Enterprises. It is recited therein that the consideration of Rs.23 lakhs was paid by

slide 495:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 495 means of pay order Nos.610533 510534 410535 for Rs.900000/- Rs.900000/- and 500000/- respectively on 25.9.92. This witness also is not cross- examined by the accused. 75.9 Item Nos.27 to 30 49: PW.9 Sada Gopalan Sub-Registrar has spoken about the registration of Ex.P.33 Doc.No.112/94 Ex.P.34 Doc.No.1591/93 Ex.P.35 Doc.No.111/94 Ex.P.36 Doc.No.450/93 Ex.P.37 Doc.No.593/93 38 Doc.No.594/93 and 39 Doc.No.595/93 executed in favour of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. According to this witness Ex.P.33 is executed by one Sukumaran for Rs.16800/- but the market value of this property is Rs.28760/-. Ex.P.34 item No.49 is executed by K. Appaswami Mudaliyar and others for a consideration of Rs.27720/-. Ex.P.35 is executed by Gopal Gounder and others for Rs.84400/- but the market value of this property is Rs.145800/-. Ex.P.36 is executed by Sri. Viswanathan and others for Rs.120000/- the market value of this property was Rs.150440/- Ex.P.37 was executed by Illappa Nayakan for Rs.82500/- but the market value was Rs.141000/- Ex.P.38 is executed by K. Appasami and others for Rs.41250/- the market value of this property was Rs.71050/- and Ex.P.39 is executed by Radhakrishnan for Rs.55500/- market value

slide 496:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 496 Rs.82140. Through this witness the certified copies of sale deeds are marked. It is important to note that in all these sale deeds the purchaser is described as M/s. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. Chennai. The name of the person representing the Company and the registered address of the Company is not forthcoming in any of these sale deeds. The consideration is shown to have been paid in cash in the presence of the witnesses. PW.9 has deposed that he collected the deficit stamp duty as per the market value and registered properties. The vendors of these properties are examined as PW.11 PW.12 PW.13 and PW.14. PW.11 Arunachalam has deposed that on receipt of Rs.48000/- he and the other owners executed sale deed Ex.P.38 in favour of M/s. Signora Enterprises and received the sale amount on the date of the sale. PW.12 Radhakrishna has likewise deposed that he executed Ex.P.39 and the expenses of stamp paper registration fees were paid by the person who had come on behalf of Signora Enterprises. PW.13 Ellagappa has stated that he owned 3.3 acres of wet land at Cheyyur during June 1993. One Subbaiah and Devarasu approached him and offered him to buy his land. He sold the land for Rs.270000/-

slide 497:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 497 as per Ex.P.37. In the chief-examination this witness has stated that as per the sale deeds he received Rs.82000/- but in the cross-examination it is elicited that Subbaiah and Doreswami gave Rs.270000/-. PW.14 Egavalli has deposed that he owned 2.08 acres of wet land at Cheyyur Village and one Subbaiah and Doreswami approached him to buy the said land for constructing a building for M/s. Signora Company and accordingly he executed the sale deed as per Ex.P.35 and received Rs.150000/- but in the sale deed only Rs.84000/- is shown as the consideration. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he has not received Rs.150000/- in respect of the above transaction as stated in his chief-examination Ex.P.35 is executed by Egavalli Ammal and others in favour of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. in respect of wet land measuring 2.02 acres of Cheyyur B. Village. 75.10 Item No.32: PW.136 Krishnamurthy the Sub-Registrar of Thousand Lights has deposed that he registered the sale deed in respect of Door No.14 Kadhar Nawaz Khan Road Chennai item No.32 as per Ex.P.768. There is no cross-examination of this witness. A perusal of Ex.P.768 reveals that the sale deed executed by M/s.

slide 498:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 498 Holiday Sports Pvt. Ltd. represented by the Managing Director J.A. Tajuddin in favour of Sasi Enterprises. The sale transaction pertains to undivided share in item No.32 of the property for a total consideration of Rs.140792/- paid to the vendor through cheque No.513735 for Rs.50000/- and cheque No.590673 for the balance amount drawn on Canara Bank Mylapore. The witness is not cross-examined by the accused. 75.11 Item Nos.34 to 48: These items of properties are registered in the name of A-2 N. Sasikala in respect of the properties situate at Velagapuram Village registered in the office of S.R.O. Utukottai as per Document Nos.1573/93 to 1587/93. In proof of these transactions the prosecution has examined PWs.31 to 39. PW.31 Ratnavelu has stated that he along with 13 other persons purchased 41.22 acres of land at Velagapuram village and they dug two wells for common use. PW.47 Muttaiah an Agricultural Officer approached them to purchase these lands in August 1993. Two or three days thereafter he offered to pay the advance. He refused to divulge the name of the purchaser. Finally they consented for the sale. PW.31 went to the Sub-Registrar’s office with Muttaiah in a Car and the others came by Van on 28.10.1993. They signed the documents in the house of the Document

slide 499:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 499 Writer near the Sub-Registrar’s office and the sale deeds were prepared separately. PW.31 received 31.075 towards his portion of 4.41 acres. He identified the copy of the sale deed Ex.P.81 Document No.1577/93 and further deposed that later he came to know that the property was registered in the name of Smt. Sasikala’s sister. He identified the copy of the document as Ex.P.82. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that since there was no well he got his share of Rs.15000/- from Rs.2 lakhs received jointly. PW.32 Baby has stated that on 28.10.2013 she sold 4.41 acres of land as per Ex.P.83 Document No.1573/93 and only when she went to registration office to sign the documents she came to know that the purchaser was Smt. Sasikala friend of A-1. This witness has further stated that they were paid Rs.2 lakhs for digging the well and for maintenance of the land and for common path out of which she received Rs.15000/- as her share. However Ex.P.83 discloses the receipt of Rs.33075/- towards the full consideration for 4.41 acres of land sold under this deed. In the cross-examination this witness denied the suggestion that since there was no well in the property she did not receive any amount in the form of cash. PW.33 Madhivanan has deposed in line with PW.31 stating that 41.22 acres of land was purchased by him and his friends in 1992 out of which he sold

slide 500:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 500 4.41 acres of land under Ex.P.84 Document No.1575/93 at the rate of Rs.75/- per cent. In the cross-examination it is elicited that Ex.P.84 does not mention the existence of the well. This witness also denied the suggestion that he did not receive any amount in the form of cash at the time of execution of the sale deed. In Ex.P.84 it is recited that the vendor has received the sale amount of Rs.10652/- at the time of execution of the deed. PW.34 Suresh has identified the sale deed executed by him as per Ex.P.85 Document No.1578/93 and the receipt of Rs.10650/- towards the consideration. He has also identified Ex.P.86 and has stated that at the time of the preparation of the sale deed he did not know the name of the purchaser but when he went to the registration office he came to know that it was registered in the name of Smt. Sasikala from Poes Garden. This witness has also stated that a sum of Rs.15000/- was paid to him towards the expenditure of the well and other works connected with the land. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that there was no well in the property and apart from the amount mentioned in the sale deed Rs. 2 lakhs was not paid to them. Ex.P.86 Document No.1580/93 is executed by Smt. Shivagami Sri. K. Suresh and another in respect of 4.41 acres of land for Rs.33075/- and it is

slide 501:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 501 stated therein that the entire amount was received on the date of the registration. PW.35 Swaminathan has deposed regarding the sale of 4.41 acres of land at the rate of Rs.75/- per cent as per Ex.P.87 Document.1582/93 and has further deposed that a total amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given for leveling and digging the well and he received his share of Rs. 15000/-. He denied the suggestion that the said statement is a lie thereby reiterating that in addition to the sale consideration of Rs.33075/- evidenced in the document Rs. 15000/- was received by him towards the cost of digging the well and leveling the land. PW.36 Balasubramaniam has identified the sale deed Ex.P.88 Document No.1584/93 and has stated that under the said sale deed he sold 4.41 acres of land for Rs.33075/- and later came to know the name of the purchaser as Smt. Sasikala. This witness also has affirmed in his evidence that he received his share of Rs.15000/- towards the money spent for maintenance and digging the well and denied the contra suggestion put to him in the cross-examination. PW.37 Azmal Khan has testified in line with the above witnesses and through this witness the certified copy of the sale deed executed by him is marked as Ex.P.89 Document No.1585/93. The consideration of Rs.33075/- is shown to have been received on the date

slide 502:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 502 of the execution of the sale deed. This witness has also asserted that he received Rs.15000/- in addition to the sale consideration and denied the suggestion that nothing was paid to him over and above the sale consideration. PW.38 Salim Khan is examined to prove the sale deeds Ex.P.90 Document No.1581/93 and Ex.P.95 Document No.1586/93 registered in favour of A-2. This witness has further deposed that he received Rs.33075/- in connection with the said sale and his wife received Rs.10650/- He further deposed that deducting expenses for improvement and development he received Rs.15000/-. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that it is incorrect to aver that he has not received Rs.15000/- in cash. PW.39 Venu is the Sub-Registrar at Utukottai. According to this witness he registered Ex.P.81 to P.95. Through this witness Doc. Nos. 1574/93 1576/93 1579/93 1583/93 registered in the name of A-2 are also marked as Exs.P.91 P.92 P.93 and P.94 respectively. PW.42 A. Janarthanam is also examined in proof of the execution of Ex.P.94. According to this witness when he executed the sale deed the purchaser’s name was left blank and later he came to know the name of the purchaser as Smt. Sasikala. In the cross-

slide 503:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 503 examination it is elicited that in Ex.P.94 the name of the purchaser is mentioned. 75.12 Item No 49: PW.9 Sadagopan Sub-Registrar at Cheyyur has spoken about the registration of the sale deed in respect of this item and through this witness the prosecution has marked the sale deed in respect of 63 cents of land for Rs.27720/- as Ex.P.34 Document No.1591/93 executed by K. Appasami Mudaliyar and others in favour of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. 75.13 Item No.50: PW.50 Shivasankaran Sub-Registrar Adyar has spoken about the registration of Ex.P.134 Document No4806/93. Ex.P.134 is the certified copy of the sale deed whereunder 4802 sq. ft. of land is purchased by J. Elavarasi from R. Rangaraj for a consideration of Rs.850000. The consideration is shown to have been paid in cash on the date of the registration in the presence of the Registering Officer. 75.14 Item No.51 to 55: PW.5 Ranganathan is examined to prove the execution and registration of 1/5 th undivided share in item Nos.51 to 55 in favour of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. as per Ex.P.24 Doc. No.51/94 Ex.P.26

slide 504:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 504 Doc.No.52/94 Ex.P.25 Doc. No.53/94 Ex.P.27 Doc. No.54/94 Ex.P.28 Doc.No.55/94 respectively. According to this witness after the death of his father and grand-father PW.5 his mother Janaki Srinivasan younger sister Heman Malini Haripriya and brother Sriram inherited the above property. They advertised for the sale of that land. Mr. Sudhakaran offered to purchase the property for Rs.14 lakhs. The payment was made in the name of five persons through DDs for Rs.280000/- each. The sale deed were registered by the Sub-Registrar at their residence. His sister Hema Malini residing in USA gave her power of attorney to her mother to execute the sale deed. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the certified copies of the sale deed at Ex.P.24 to P.28. This witness further deposed that Mr. Sudhakaran came to their place and he purchased the property in the name of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd.. In the cross-examination except eliciting the address of A-3 the testimony of this witness is not challenged with regard to the payment of consideration and registration of the sale deeds. 75.15 Item No.56: PW.139 Venkat Rao is examined to prove the transaction relating to item No.56 and through this witness the certified copy of the sale deed executed by

slide 505:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 505 him in favour of Master. J. Vivek represented by his natural guardian and mother Elavarasi is marked as Ex.P.771 Doc. No.494/94. According to this witness the sub-registrar Rajagopal negotiated him for the sale of the above lands and two days thereafter he came to his office with the already drafted sale deed and gave him a demand draft for Rs.39000/- and asked him to sign the deed and accordingly he signed the sale deed and later he came to know that the property was registered in the name of Master. Vivek S/o. Mrs. Elavarasi. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he submitted the sale deed for registration at the Sub-Registrar’s office. He also denied that he had gone through the document at the time of subscribing his signature. 75.16 Item No.57: PW.51 Amanullah Marikayar has spoken about the execution and registration of Ex.P.137 Doc. No.33/94. This document is executed by him and as power of attorney of 22 others in favour of A-4 for a consideration of Rs.190000/- paid by the purchaser at the time of the registration of the sale deed but in his chief- examination this witness deposed that in respect of 32 acres of land sold by him he was given Rs.8.75 lakhs. In the cross-examination it is elicited that in respect of

slide 506:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 506 Ex.P.137 he received the payment in cash but reiterated as under “The negotiated price was Rs.8.25 lakhs. As per that I received Rs.8.25 lakhs. It is incorrect to say that I have not received Rs.8.25 lakhs and received only Rs.1.90 lakhs.” 75.17 Item No.58 59: Item No.58 relates to 2.02 acres of dry land comprised in Survey No.364/3 8 9 of Cheyyur Village covered under the sale deed dated 31.01.1994 Doc. No.111/94 Ex.P.35 executed by Egavalli Ammal and others in favour of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. for Rs.84400/- but in Annexure-II item No.58 the name of J. Elavarasi is erroneously shown as the purchaser of the said property. PW.9 has spoken about the execution and registration of this property as per Ex.P.35 which is not disputed in the cross- examination. 75.18 Item No.59 : Item No.59 relates to 54 cents of dry land comprised in Survey No.364/7 of Cheyyur Village covered under the sale deed dated 31.01.1994 Doc. No.112 Ex.P.33 executed by S.Sukumaran in favour of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises P Ltd. for Rs.16800/- but in Annexure-II item No.59 the name of J. Elavarasi is erroneously shown as the purchaser of

slide 507:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 507 the said property. PW.8 Sukumaran is examined to prove the execution and registration of this document. According to this witness he received the consideration in cash in the presence of the witnesses which fact is not disputed in the cross-examination. 75.19 Item No.60: PW.46 Gopinadan has stated in his evidence that he had purchased agricultural lands in Chiruthavur Alathur Karunguzhi villages. In the end of 1993 Amanullah asked him whether he was willing to sell his land and accordingly he agreed to sell about 30 acres of land at the rate of Rs.45000/- per acre. Amanullah agreed to pay Rs.33.000/- per acre. He paid Rs.9.65 lakhs for the entire land. Rs.5.60 lakhs was paid in cash and the remaining Rs.4.05 lakhs he gave DDs. PW.46 deposed that he signed the sale deed in the house of Amanullah in the presence of the Registrar Mr. Rajagopal. He specifically deposed in his evidence that he received 6 DDs for 4.05 lakhs and deposited Rs.3.04 lakhs in his Royal Wines A/c. in Punjab Sindh Bank. The remaining 1.01 lakhs he deposited in the A/c. of Associated Trade Links in Vijaya Bank Adyar Branch. He further deposed that he distributed the cash given to him to the power agents and others and further stated that he came to know that the purchaser of these properties is Sudhakaran. Through this

slide 508:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 508 witness Ex.P.122 Doc No.39/94 the certified copy of sale deed is marked and Ex.P.122. In the cross-examination it is elicited that Documents No.122 123 and 124 were registered in Amanullah’s house. The sale amount shown in the sale deed is correct. It is also elicited that regarding his business PW.46 is maintaining the income and expenditure account and he is an Income Tax payee. He denied the suggestion that he did not produce his Income Tax statement and other documents because it will not be seen that he has not taken the extra cash as stated in his evidence. 75.20 Item No.61: PW.51 Amanullah Marikayar is examined regarding the execution of the sale deed Ex.P.138 Doc.No.40/1994 in favour of J. Elavarasi. The consideration is shown therein is Rs.190000/- paid to the vendor at the time of execution of the sale deed. PW.51 has clearly stated that he has not received anything more than Rs.1.90 lakhs shown in the sale deed. 75.21 Item No.62 : PW.46 Gopinadan has spoken about the execution of Ex.P.123 Doc. No.41/94 sale deed executed by him as the power of attorney of T.G.Gopinathan in favour of

slide 509:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 509 V.N.Sudhakaran. In Ex.P.123 the consideration of Rs.180000/- is shown to have been paid at the time of execution. In the cross-examination it is elicited that except the amount mentioned in the sale deed PW.46 has not received any other amount from Amanullah. 75.22 Item No.63: Through PW.51 the sale deed executed by him and others in favour of J. Elavarasi is marked as Ex.P.139 Doc No.42/94. The consideration shown in the deed is Rs.1.70 lakhs stated to have been paid to the vendor at the time of execution of the sale deed. In the cross-examination nothing has been elicited in respect of the execution and registration of Ex.P.139 and the consideration paid thereunder. 75.23 Item No.65: PW.46 has been examined by the prosecution to prove the execution and registration of the sale deed Ex.P.124 Doc.No.43/94 executed by him in favour of V.N.Sudhakaran for consideration of Rs.110000/-. 75.24 Item No.67 : Item No.67 pertains to 2 grounds and 1237 sq. ft. with built up area of 2150 sq. ft. at Door No.149 TTK

slide 510:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 510 Road. According to PW.2 the Sub-Registrar of Periamedu Registration Office registered the Doc.No.125/94 as per Ex.P.3. It is seen that this document is executed by Sri. M.K.N. Manickam as power agent of S.K. Natarajan in favour of M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. represented by Sri. Ravikumar the Director. In the sale deed it is recited that the purchaser had entered into an agreement of sale on 13.10.1993 and at that time a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was paid by means of a cheque bearing No.257826 dated 13.10.93 drawn on Indian Bank Peters Road Madras as sale advance and the remaining consideration of Rs.44 lakhs was paid by way of pay order No.596764 dated 21.02.1994 drawn on Indian Bank Peters Road Branch Madras in favour of New Link Overseas Finance Ltd. as stipulated by the vendor. This witness is not cross-examined by the accused. 75.25 Item No.68 : PW.25 Bhandari has stated that he owned 1.29 acres at Enjambakkam village. He had put up a compound wall and dug a well in that property. A broker by name Joseph approached him regarding the sale of the land and a sale agreement was entered into in February 1994 for a consideration of Rs. 575000/-. This witness deposed that the sale deed was executed by his son in favour of V.N.Sudhakaran representing J. Farm House and he signed the document as a witness.

slide 511:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 511 Sale amount of Rs.5.75 lakhs was given in the form of Demand Draft. Through this witness the certified copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.73 Doc.No.1017/94 in the cross-examination it is elicited that his son is residing in Madras. The schedule property was purchased out of the earnings of his son. 75.26 Item No. 69 to 74: PW.16 Jagadeesh Raja has deposed that he and his brother-in-law Mr. K.T.Chandravadanam and his wife Mrs. Gayathri had bought a plot measuring 9 grounds at Akkari village within the limits of Sholinganallur panchayath. They constructed a house measuring 600 sq. ft. built a water tank and swimming pool. During January 1994 they gave an advertisement for selling the plot. Mr. Amanullah proprietor of Fatima Jewellery Shop approached him and one week thereafter he came with an agreement and power of attorney and asked PW.16 to register them immediately. He took PW.16 to the Sub-Registrar’s office and gave a demand draft for Rs.10 lakhs. When he read the agreement it was written in the name of V.N.Sudhakaran of Green Farm House. PW.16 further deposed that he asked Amanullah to get the signature of Sudhakaran on the agreement. Amanullah assured to get the signature but so far he has not returned the agreement to him. During his examination this witness identified the copy of the power of attorney executed by him which came to

slide 512:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 512 be marked as Ex.P.30. Through this witness the power of attorney executed by Mrs.Gayathri is marked as Ex.P.31 and the copy of the power of attorney executed by K.T.Chandravadanam as Ex.P.32. According to this witness the payment was made to them through D.Ds i.e. Rs.235200/- to Mrs. Gayathri Rs.53000/- to Chandravadanam and Rs.235200/- to PW.16. Through this witness the copies of the agreements executed by them are marked as Ex.P.43 to 45 respectively. PW.7 Y.M. Ganeshan the then Sub-Registrar at T.Nagar has deposed that Jagadeesh A. Raja appointed Sri. V.N.Sudhakaran partner of Green Farm House as his power agent as per Ex.P.30 P.31 and P.32 in respect of 16.75 cents of land in Survey No.1/1F of Sholinganallur Village and it was registered by PW.7. 75.27 Item No.75 to 78: The properties described in items Nos.75 to 78 are covered under Doc. No.370 371 372 373/94 are registered in the name of M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. PW.100 Sri. Prabhas Kumar Reddy examined by the prosecution in proof of these transactions has deposed that he is working as a Manager in Raghavendra Builders and Constructors in Numgampakkam. Their Company constructed a building in No.1 Wallace Garden Ist Street Chennai.

slide 513:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 513 The owner of the land Krishnakumari executed a power of attorney in favour of PW.100 to construct the building. Accordingly they constructed four floors 1+4 but the Corporation gave the permission to construct only 1+3 floors. The construction was completed before January 1992. In the fourth floor two flats were sold to M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. under 4 sale deeds. Each sale deed was made for Rs.171395/-. Through this witness prosecution marked the certified copies of the sale deeds as per Ex.P.647 to P.650. PW.100 further deposed that the consideration was received through cheques in the name of “Raghavendra Builders and Constructions”. The sale deeds are dated 29.04.1994 and in all these documents the purchaser is described as M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. represented by its Director P.V.Ravi Kumar having its registered office at Flat A-8 Syndicate Residency No.3 Dr.Thomas Road T.Nagar Madras-17. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the cheques were given in the name of the Company for Rs.3000580/- for two apartments. Further it is elicited that the Company rented out one apartment for Rs.15000/- per month. However the prosecution having not claimed any additional amount over and above the consideration shown in the documents the said evidence may not be of any consequence.

slide 514:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 514 75.28 Item No.79: PW.141 Saminathan has deposed that his father owned 3.3 acres of wet land in Siruthavur village. Regarding this land Subbaiah from Chennai approached his father. The sale amount was fixed at Rs.165000/-. Rs.88500/- was paid in cash and Rs.82500/- through D.D. The land was sold to Sudhakaran. 20 days after the execution of the sale deed his father died. The certified copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.905 Doc. No.222/94. 75.29 Item No.80 81: In order to prove the execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of these two items prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.159 the District Registrar who registered these properties as per Ex.P.906 Doc. No.260/94 P.907 Doc. No. 261/94 respectively. Ex.P.906 and Ex.P.907 are dated 12.06.1994 and are executed by Mrs.Shanti Subramanian and others in favour of M/s. Green Farm House represented by its partner V.N.Sudhakaran for a consideration of Rs.107000/- each paid by means of a demand drafts bearing Nos.079520 and 079521 dated 11.06.1994 issued by Indian Bank Madras in respect of the above items. 75.30 Item No.82 : PW.159 is examined to prove the registration of the sale deed in respect of this item of property and through

slide 515:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 515 this witness the certified copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.908 Doc.NO.262/94 dated 12.06.1994 executed by A.V. Sudeep Subramaniam in favour of Green Farm Houses represented by V.N.Sudhakaran for a consideration of Rs.107000/- paid by means of demand draft bearing No.079519 dated 11.06.1994 issued by Indian Bank Madras. 75.31 Item No.83 : PW.30 Uma Shankar Modi has spoken about the execution of the sale deed in favour of Jaya Publications in respect of the undivided share of the land described in item No.83. According to this witness he is the Managing Director of Fiesta Properties Ltd. They built a multi storyed building for residential and commercial purposes at No.99 Luz Church Road Mylapore. In March 1994 one person from Metal King Company wanted to purchase their shop measuring 880 sq. ft. In that connection he received a Demand Draft for Rs.2.5 lakhs in March 1994. Another Demand Draft for Rs. 2 lakhs in May 1994 and another D.D. for Rs. 2 lakhs in August 1994 and accordingly the sale deed was executed as per Ex.P.79 Doc. No.282/94. The certified zerox thereof is marked as Ex.P.80. In the cross-examination it is elicited that in Ex.P.79 the sale consideration is shown as Rs.1.87 lakhs. The prosecution has included in the annexure

slide 516:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 516 only the sale consideration and the cost of registration. Therefore the testimony of this witness regarding the payment of cash consideration turns out to be inconsequential. 75.32 Item No.84 : PW.6 Gopal Gopal Sami has spoken about this transaction and through this witness the prosecution has marked the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.07.1994 executed by him in favour of M/s. J. Real Estate for a consideration of Rs. 29 lakhs which is stated to have been paid in the following manner. i Rs. 2 lakhs on 30.03.1994 by cash at the time of agreement of sale. ii Rs. 27 lakhs paid by cheque / pay order No.120487 dated 15.07.1994 drawn on Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. The document is marked as Ex.P.29 Doc. No.1325/94. 75.33 Item No.85: PW.26 Kamal Pasha has deposed that he along with his aunt Periyamma purchased a plot of 12000 sq. ft. including a house with an area of 9000 sq. ft. located at Solinganallur village. They decided to dispose of the property and gave an advertisement in Hindu Newspaper. The Manager of J.S. Housing approached

slide 517:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 517 him and the deal was struck at Rs.8.25 lakhs. 5 drafts of Rs.1.65 lakhs each were given towards the sale amount and they executed the sale deed as per Ex.P.74 Doc. No. Ex.P.74 is dated 9.8.1994 executed by Shahjahan Begaum and 4 others in favour of J.S. Housing Development. The consideration at the rate of Rs.165000/- is stated to have been paid to each of the vendors by means of D.D.No.517608 517606 120615 517605 dt. 9.8.94 respectively drawn on Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. In the sale deed the market value is shown as Rs.1305000/- 75.34 Item No.86 : PW.76 Siva has spoken about the execution and registration of the sale deed relating to this property measuring 53 acre 66 cents and through this witness the prosecution has marked the certified copy of the sale deed as Ex.P.324 Doc. No.429/94. This document is executed by Rajaiah Nadar and others represented by their power of attorney S. Siva PW.76 in favour of Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.107320/-. The mode of payment is not specified in the document. The power of attorneys executed in favour of PW.76 by the vendors are marked as Ex.P.325 to P.329. 75.35 Item No.87 88: PW.27 Selvarangam has stated that his mother- in-law Narasamma and his wife Chandrabai had

slide 518:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 518 inherited ancestral properties in Karungulipallam village. That property was sold at the rate of 400 per cent and his wife received Rs.320000/- for 8 acres of land. Since his mother-in-law was old the officials of the registration Department came to his house and registered the document. He identified the sale deeds Ex.P.75 Doc.No. 478/94 and Ex.P.76 Doc. No.479/94. Both these documents are registered in the name of minor J. Vivek aged 6 years represented by his mother J. Elavarasi. The consideration of Rs.140000/- in Ex.P.75 is shown to have been paid through D.D. No.120700 and 120778 dated 14.09.1994 for Rs.70000/- each and the consideration in Ex.P.76 amounting to Rs.180000/- is shown as paid through D.D. No.120781 and 120779 dated 14.09.94 for Rs.90000/- each issued by Indian Bank Chennai. 75.36 Item No.89 90 : PW.28 is examined to prove the sale deeds in relation to these two items of properties marked as Ex.P.77 Doc.No.480/94 and Ex.P.78 Doc. No.481/94. Both these documents are executed in favour of minor J. Vivek. The consideration of Rs.164800/- in Ex.P.77 is stated to have been paid through 4 DDs issued by Indian Bank Chennai bearing No.120785 120787 120789 and 120783 dated 14.09.1994 for Rs.41200/- each. In Ex.P.78 the consideration of Rs.164800/- is paid through DD Nos.120782 120784 120786 and

slide 519:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 519 120788 each for Rs.41200/- dated 14.09.94 drawn on the same bank. 75.37 Item No.91: PW.17 Sundari Shankar has deposed that she owned a house and the plot measuring 4380 sq. ft. at Thiruvenkanagar and in respect of the said land she entered into an agreement with one Ramesh her neighbour PW.161 and received an advance of Rs.1 lakh from him. Since he could not purchase the property within the stipulated time the time was extended and under the second agreement she received 175000/- as advance but he could not purchase the property. By then PW.17 had spent the advance money and therefore she told Ramesh to find out buyers. Two or three months thereafter the said Ramesh told her that a person close to A-1 is interested to buy the property. She her daughter and Ramesh went to the Sub-Registrar’s office and executed the sale deed as per Ex.P.46. The purchaser’s name was written as Sasikala Enterprises. The sale amount was Rs.5 lakhs out of which a D.D. for Rs.1.90 lakhs was given to her through Ramesh and Ramesh took 1.70 lakhs and rest of the amount was given to her. In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that the agreement was entered into with Ramesh for Rs.190000/- and asserted that it was for

slide 520:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 520 Rs. 5 lakhs. She further answered that during the registration the Sub-Registrar did not ask her whether she had taken Rs.1.90 lakhs. In Ex.P.46 the sale consideration is mentioned as Rs.190000/- paid through D.D. No.401108 dated 23.09.1994. 75.38 Item No.93: PW.48 K. Thangarajan is examined to prove the sale deed Ex.P.125 Doc. No.581/94 dated 27.09.1994 executed by Mrs. K. Margatham in favour of M/s. Green Farm Houses represented by V.N.Sudhakaran. The consideration shown therein is Rs.110000/- paid by way of DD bearing No.517857 dated 27.09.1994 drawn on Indian Bank Madurai Branch. The executant is the mother of PW.48. Accused have not cross-examined PW.48. 75.39 Item No.94 : Ex.P.47 Doc. No.794/94 relates to this item of property. The sale deed dt. 28.9.94 is executed by Shakuntala Balachandran in favour of M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. represented by its Director V.N.Sudhakaran. The total consideration mentioned therein is Rs.52 lakhs out of which Rs.15 lakhs is stated to have been paid at the time of entering into written agreement of sale by means of DD No.455080 dated 26.04.1994 drawn Indian Bank Peters Road Madras and the balance consideration of

slide 521:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 521 Rs. 37 lakhs is paid by means of 4 demand drafts bearing Nos. 517851 517852 517853 and 517854 dated 25.9.1994 for Rs. 950000/- Rs.950000/- Rs.9 lakhs and Rs.9 lakhs respectively. 75.40 Item No.95 to 102 : PW.40 Gangai Amaran is examined to speak about the execution and registration of the sale deeds in respect of item No.95 to 102. Through this witness the certified copies of the sale deeds are marked as Ex.P.96 Doc. No.595/94 to Ex.P.102. PW.40 has deposed that he purchased nearly 22 acres of land in Payanoor in Chengalpattu District. He built a small farm house in the land. Bhaskaran came to his house and took him to Poes Garden to meet A-1. There he met A-2. She told him that C.M. liked his house very much but PW.40 told her that the said house is useful to him for music and composing and story writing. His family members were not willing to sell the land but Sudhakaran and some officers came to his house and took the signatures of PW.40 and his wife on 7 th October and gave them two demand drafts one in the name of his wife and one in the name of PW.40 for Rs.1310000/-. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the certified copies of the sale deed Ex.P.96 to P.102. PW.40 specifically deposed before the Court that when he signed the sale deeds the details of the purchasers were left blank.

slide 522:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 522 A perusal of Ex.P.96 Doc.No.595/94 and Ex.P.97 Doc.No.596/94 reveal that these documents are executed by Smt. S. Mani Megalai in favour of Smt.Sasikala. The consideration of Rs.1 lakh in Ex.P.96 is stated to have been paid by the purchaser by means of demand draft No. 401538 dated 7.10.94 and the consideration of Rs.195000/- in Ex.P.97 is mentioned as paid by means D.D. bearing No.401539 dated 7.10.94. In both the documents the name of the bank which issued the D.D. is left blank. Ex.P.98 Doc.No.597/94 Ex.P.99 Doc.No.598/94 Ex.P.100 Doc.No.599/94 Ex.P.101 Doc.No.600/94 and Ex.P.102 Doc.No.601/94 are executed by PW.40 Gangai Amaran on the same date and the consideration is stated to have been received by him as under Ex.P.98 - Rs.195000/- D.D.40154 dt.7.10.94 Ex.P.99 – Rs.160000/- D.D.401541 dt.7.10.94. Ex.P.100- Rs.170000/- D.D.401542 dt.7.10.94. Ex.P.101- Rs.150000/- D.D.401543 dt.7.10.94. Ex.P.102- Rs.150000/- D.D.401544 dt.7.10.94. Ex.P.103 Doc.No.602/94 is executed by Smt. Bhuvaneswari Ammal and the consideration of Rs.190000/- is stated to have paid to her by means of D.D. No.401545 dated 7.10.1994. In this document also the name of the bank which issued the DD is left blank.

slide 523:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 523 75.41 Item No.103 : PW.22 Palani Swami has deposed that Housing Board had allotted 2 grounds and 1500 sq. ft. of land to him in Razak Garden Street Arumbakkam. In 1994 he sold the said plot for Rs.15 lakhs as per Ex.P.68 P.No.264/94 the certified copy of which is marked as Ex.P.69 Doc.No.295/95 to V.N.Sudhakaran of Mahasubbulakshmi Kalyana Mandapam and received 2 demand drafts for Rs.750000/- each. The consideration of Rs.750000/- has been acknowledged to have been received by the vendor. But the details of the pay order are left blank. 75.42 Item No.104: PW.23 Ambalavanan has stated before the Court that she executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Sasikala a partner of Jaya Publications as per Ex.P.70 Doc. No.703/94 and received Rs.30 lakhs by way of two demand drafts for Rs.15 lakhs each. The certified copy of this sale deed is marked as Ex.P.71. The testimony of PW.23 is not challenged in the cross- examination. 75.43 Item Nos.105 to 109: PW.76 Siva is examined to prove the execution and registration of Documents No.694 695 696 697 and 698/94 in favour of M/s. Riverway Agro Products Pvt

slide 524:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 524 Ltd. PW.76 has executed these documents as GPA of the respective vendors. The GPAs executed in his favour are marked as Ex.P.325 P.326 P.327 P.328 and P.329 and the certified copy of the sale deed relating to item No.105. Doc. No.694/94 is marked as Ex.P.330 Doc. No. 695/95 in relation to item No.106 as Ex.P.339 Doc. No.696/94 in relation to item No.107 as Ex.P.345 Doc. No.697/94 in relation to item No.108 as Ex.P.350 and document No.698/94 in respect of item No.109 as Ex.P.357. The power of attorneys are marked as Ex.P.331 to P.334 P.336 to P.338 P.340 P.341 P.342 P.343 P.344 P.346 P.347 P.348 P.349 P.351 352 353 354 355 356 through this witness. 75.44 Item No.110: PW.24 Tagari Tanali Walla has spoken about the sale of 50 cents of land at Sholinganallur village. According to this witness that land was purchased by him and his four friends and as they were not able to maintain it they sold that property for Rs.250000/- which was paid to them by means of 5 cheques for Rs. 50000/- each and all of them executed the power of attorney in favour of V.N.Sudhakaran and later they came to know that the said property was bought by V.N.Sudhakaran for J. Farm House. The testimony of this witness is not challenged in the cross-examination. The certified copy of the power of attorney marked through this witness as per Ex.P.72 discloses that

slide 525:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 525 under the said power of attorney absolute power to deal with the above property is granted to Sri.V.N.Sudhakaran. 75.45 Item Nos. 111 112 113 133 134 136 137 142 143 144 148 149 151 152 164 165 167 168 169 : In order to prove the transaction relating to these items prosecution has examined PW.56 Sri. Raja Ram. According to this witness he is doing Real Estate business under the name and style ‘Karthik Real Estate’ at Poroor. After negotiation he agreed to sell 500 acres of land situate in Uthukadu to Sudhakaran. The price was decided at Rs.10000/- per acre. For the purpose of execution of the sale deeds he obtained the power of attorney from the land owners. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the certified copies of the sale deeds executed by him in favour of Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. as Ex.P.161 P.165 P.172 P.174 P.180 P.184 P.190 P.197 P.207 P.214 and P.221. The certified copies of the power of attorneys are marked through this witness as Ex.P.157 to 160 162- 164 166 to 171 173 175 to 179 181 to 183 185 to 189 191 to 196 198 to 206 208 to 213 215 to 220. His evidence is discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment.

slide 526:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 526 75.46 Item No.111: Ex.P.161 Doc. No.808/94 is dated 22.12.94. It is executed in favour of Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. The office address of the Company and the name of the person representing it are not mentioned in the document. The consideration of Rs.127000/- is shown to have been paid through cheque Nos.360519 to 360521 dated 21.12.92 drawn on Syndicate Bank. 75.47 Item No.112: PW.70 Venkatesan has stated about the sale of 14.42 acres of land for Rs.144200/- and has stated that he received the consideration through 4 DDs. Through this witness the copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.291 and the Power of Attorney executed by joint owner Rani is marked as Ex.P.290. There is no cross-examination of this witness. 75.48 Item No.113: PW.54 Dinathayalam has spoken about the sale of 8.60 acres of land to Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. at the rate of Rs.100 per cent and the copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.148. He has admitted that two DDs. worth Rs.43000/- each were given to him and his brothers. This witness is not cross-examined by the accused.

slide 527:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 527 75.49 Item No.133: Ex.P.165 Doc. No.32/95 dated 10.1.1995 executed by P.S.Raja Ram in favour of Meadow Agro Farms Pvt Ltd. The consideration of Rs.60000/- is stated to have been received through Syndicate Bank dated 10.1.95 Rs.49000/- and Rs.11000/- vide D.D. No.360685. 75.50 Item No.134: Ex.P.172 Doc. No.33/95 dated 10 th …1995 is executed for Rs.116600/-. The mode of payment is not mentioned. 75.51 Item No.136: Ex.P.174 Doc. No.148/95 dated 8.2.1995 the consideration of Rs.96500/- is stated to have been paid through D.D. 121472 of Indian Bank dated … 2.95. 75.52 Item No. 137: Ex.P.180 Doc. No.149/95 dated 8.2.1995 for Rs.102900/- paid through D.D. No.121473 dated 9.2.1995 issued by Indian Bank. 75.53 Item No.142: Ex.P.184 Doc. No.213/95 dated 4.3.1995 for Rs.83200/- paid through Indian Bank DD No.121614 dated 4.3.95.

slide 528:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 528 75.54 Item No.143: Ex.P.190 Doc. No.214/95 dated 4.3.95 for Rs.86500/- paid through Indian Bank D.D. No.12615 dated 4.3.95. 75.55 Item No.152: Ex.P.197 Doc. No.242/95 dated …. for Rs. 64050/- paid through D.D. 121713 dt. 15.3.95 of Indian Bank. 75.56 Item No.164: Ex.P.207 Doc. No.360/95 dated 29.4.1995 for Rs.71150/- paid through Indian Bank No.122043 dated 2.5.95. 75.57 Item No.165: Ex.P.214 Doc. No.361/95 dated 29.4.1995 for Rs. 157100/- paid through Indian Bank cheque No.122042 dated 2.5.95. 75.58 Item No.167: Ex.P.221 Doc. No.446/95 dated 9.6.1995 for Rs.95000/- paid through D.D. details not mentioned. 75.59 Item No.148: Ex.P.154 Doc. No. 239/95 dated 15.3.95 executed by K. Manavalan power agent of M.R.M. Raja

slide 529:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 529 Gopal for consideration of Rs.10800/- through bank draft No.121709. 75.60 Item No.149: Ex.P.155 Doc. No.240/1995 dated 15.3.95 by K. Manavalan power agent of M.R.M. Raja Gopal for consideration of Rs.18000/- through Indian Bank draft No.121711 dated 15.3.95. 75.61 Item No.151: Ex.P.156 Doc. No.241/95 dated 15.3.95 by K.Manavalan power agent of M.R.M. Raja Gopal and others for consideration of Rs.112500/- paid through Bank DD. Details not mentioned. 75.62 Item Nos.153 to Item Nos.158: These six documents relate to 1/6 th undivided share of land in five grounds and 1133 sq. ft. in Sy.No.3334/1A of Luz Avenue registered as document No.249/95 248/95 247/95 250/95 251/95 and 252/05 dt. 21.03.1995. PW.43 Nageswar Rao and the District Registrar is examined in proof of the execution of these documents. The name of the purchaser is not entered in any of these documents marked as Ex.P.105 to P.110 respectively. In respect of the payment of consideration it is mentioned that the consideration of Rs.7.50 lakhs in each case is paid by the purchaser vide

slide 530:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 530 Canara Bank Mylapore cheque No….. dt. 24.02.1995 in favour of Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. The details of the cheque is also left blank in all these documents. 75.63 Item No.114 to 121: Through PW.76 the prosecution has marked the certified copies of the sale deeds executed in favour of M/s. Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. viz. Doc. Nos. 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 and 818/1994 marked as Ex.P.363 366 377 388 396 408 419. The power of attorneys executed in the name of PW.76 empowering him to execute the above sale deeds are marked as Ex.P.364 P.365 P.367 to P.376 P.378 to P.387 P.389 to P.395 P.397 to P.407 P.409 to P.418 P.420 to P.430 P.432 to P.442. Though this witness is cross-examined in respect of other aspects spoken to by him in his chief- examination regarding the involvement of the District Registrar Sri.Rajgopal and A-3 in the purchase of the above properties the execution and registration of these documents and their legal validity is not challenged in the cross-examination. Regarding ed in the name of Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. on 22.12.1994 he executed the sale deeds in respect of Doc. Nos. 811 to 818/94.

slide 531:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 531 This witness deposed that his father-in-law had purchased 4 grounds of land in Singravelan Street Neelangarai in the name of his wife Arifa. They built a house therein by spending Rs.11 lakhs without permission from MMDA. After staying there for a year they decided to sell that house. In 1993 Sudhakaran and Sasikala came to inspect that house and after negotiation the sale price was settled at Rs. 25 lakhs and they were given Rs.10 lakhs in cash first. The remaining 15 lakhs was paid through D.Ds for Rs.680000/- and Rs.820000/-. The DDs were given to him by A-3. The sale deed pertaining to this land was registered in the name of M/s. Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. 75.64 Item No.168 169: Doc. No.467/95 468/95 Ex.P.910 and P.911 relate to these items of land. Both these deeds are executed by Smt. N. Sasikala A-2 in favour of Meadow Agro Farms Ltd. for consideration of Rs.145000/- in each case. The mode of payment is not specified in the document. PW.159 is examined to prove these documents. 75.65 ITEM No.170: Doc No.191/95 In the annexure the document is wrongly typed as 191/95 instead of 491/1995. Ex.P.104 is the registered

slide 532:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 532 deed executed by Smt. A. Kanthabai in favour of A-2 in respect of this item of property. PW.41 is examined to prove this document. 75.66 Item No.171 172: Document No.492/95 Doc.493/95 PW.159 has spoken about the registration of this property as per Ex.P.912 and Ex.P.913 executed by Mrs. M. Vasantha Bai in faour of A-2 for a consideration of Rs.346500/- and M. Ashok Kumar in favour of A-2 for a consideration of Rs.284000/-. 75.67 Item No.175: Doc. No.4752/93 PW.159 is examined to prove the sale deed executed by Smt. Indhirani Rangaraj in favour of Sasi Enterprises dt. 24.12.1993. The total consideration is Rs.507000/- 75.68 Item No.292: Shed allotted by SIDCO PW.150 Chandran Manager in Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Development Corporation has stated about the allotment of a site in favourt of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. The application is marked as Ex.D.810. The witness has stated that along with the application the applicant has paid advance of Rs.5000/- On

slide 533:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 533 7.4.1995 itself the order was issued allotting 3 industrial sheds. The sale amount of Rs.15.75 lakhs was paid through D.D. of Indian Bank Abirampuram. The D.D. is marked as Ex.P.811. PW.150 has further stated that the grantee has not taken the possession of the allotted shed hence the allocation was cancelled on 30.08.1996. 75.69 Item No.297: PW.142 Kannamani Manager of SIDCO Company is examined regarding the allotment of 1.12 acres of land to Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. and the file relating to the allotment is marked as Ex.P.773. The sale price of Rs.859950/- is stated to have been paid on 06.05.1994. 75.70 Item No.305: Doc. No.633/94 In respect of this property PW.77 Janaki the Sub-Registrar has been examined and the document is marked as Ex.P.323. 76. The learned Counsel has raised serious dispute regarding the cash component shown in item Nos.70 72 and 74 of Annexure-II. 70 Actual consideration paid to Tr. Jagadesh A Raja S/o. Alagu Raja 22 Bazullah Road Chennai-17 by DD Rs.235200/- and by cash Rs.570200.00

slide 534:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 534 Rs.335000/- on 8.3.94 for purchase of 6.75cents covered in Doc.No.189/book 4 of 1994 dt. 9.3.94 of S.R.O. Adyar – 72 Actual consideration paid to Tmt. Gayathri Chandran W/o. K.T.Chandravadanam 22 Bazullah Road Chennai-17 by DD Rs.530400/- and by cash Rs.335000/- on 8.3.94. Rs.865400.00 74 Actual consideration paid to K.T.Chandravadanam 22 Bazullah road Chennai-17 by DD Rs.235200/- on 8.3.94 and cash Rs.335000/- on 10.4.94. Rs.570200.00 A-2 has disputed only the cash component shown by the prosecution viz. Rs.335000/- in item No.70 Rs.335000/- in item No.72 and Rs.335000/- in item No.74 and it is submitted that the said amount totaling Rs.1005000/- which is not supported by any documentary evidence is liable to be excluded. In support of this argument the learned Counsel has referred to the evidence of PW.16 Sri. Jagadeesh Raja and would submit that the witness examined by the prosecution himself having not spoken about the payment of cash transaction the claim of the prosecution being contrary to the oral testimony of PW.16 and the contents of the agreements of sale Ex.P.140 141 and 142 relied on by the prosecution the alleged amount of Rs.1005000/- is liable to be excluded.

slide 535:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 535 76.1 In order to answer this objection it may be necessary to refer to the evidence of PW.16 Sri. A. Jagadeesh Raja who has deposed before the Court that PW.16 his brother-in-law Mr. K.T.Chandravadanam and his wife Mrs. Gayathri together bought a building measuring 9 ground at Akkari Village for Rs.150000/- during 1992-93. He constructed a house therein measuring 600 sq. ft. and also built a swimming pool and a shuttle-cock playground. They were not given permission to construct the house and hence they decided to sell the land. One Amanulla PW.51 a Real Estate Businessman approached him and after one week he came with an agreement and power of attorney. He offered to pay Rs.10 lakhs and took PW.16 to the Sub-Registrar’s office and gave 3 cheques for Rs.10 lakhs each. When he read the agreement it was written in the name of Green Farm House Sri V.N. Sudhakaran. When PW.16 insisted for the signature of Mr. V. N. Sudhakaran PW.51 told him that he would get his signature later and took the agreement but did not return the agreement to him. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the copies of power of attorneys executed by PW.16 Mrs. Gayathri and Sri.K.T.Chandravadanam as Ex.P.30 P.31 and P.32 respectively and the sale agreements executed by them are marked as Ex.P.43 to P.45. 76.2 It is pertinent to note that PW.16 has stated in his examination-in-chief that the income derived by

slide 536:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 536 him from the above property is declared in his income tax returns and through this witness the copy of the statements of the total income declared by him for the year ended 31.3.1994 in the Income Tax returns filed by him for the A/Y. 1994-95 is marked as Ex.C.1. But PW.16 in the chief-examination itself has stated that the Income Tax returns shown to him viz. Ex.C.1 is fabricated and maintained that in the Income Tax returns filed by him he has declared the long term capital gain as Rs.235200/-. This document came to be marked as Ex.C.2. On verification of Ex.C-1 and C-2 it is seen that though both these documents are styled as statement of total income for the year ended 31.3.94 appended to the returns filed by PW.16 for the A/Y. 1994-95 Ex.C.1 does not bear the signature of PW.16 whereas Ex.C-2 discloses the signature at the foot of all the pages. Hence reliance could be placed on Ex.C-2. As PW.16 himself has affirmed on oath that he has declared only Rs.235000/- as the long term capital gain this evidence deserves to be accepted. 76.3 As against the evidence the prosecution has not produced any reliable material to show that cash consideration of Rs.335000/- was paid to PW.16 or to the aforesaid K.T.Chandravadanam and Gayathri at the time of execution of the sale agreements or at the time earlier or later thereto. Undisputedly Ex.P.43 P.44 and P.45 have come into existence at an undisputed point of

slide 537:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 537 time and if infact cash consideration was paid over and above the D.D. amount the said sum also would have been mentioned in the agreement of sale especially when the possession itself is delivered to the vendee on the date of the agreement of sale. In any case the prosecution having failed to substantiate the payment of cash consideration of Rs.335000/- as detailed in item Nos.72 to 74 with cogent and convincing evidence the said amount of Rs.335000/- shown under item Nos.72 to 74 are liable to be deducted. 76.4 ITEM No.92 : 92 4380 sq. ft. land with 520 sq. ft. house in S.No.588/2A 2B in Thiruvenkada Nagar Colony M/s. Sasi Enterprises. Document No.509/94 dt. 26.9.94 of DR North Madras Excess amount paid to seller Tmt. Sundari Shankar over and above document value. Rs.310000.00 Under item No.91 the prosecution has included a sum of Rs.265000/- being the consideration and cost of registration of Doc. No.509/94 towards the purchase of 4380 sq. ft. of land situated in Tiruvenkata Nagar colony. Under item No.92 a sum of Rs.310000/- is included as the excess amount paid to the seller Tmt. Sundari Shankar over and above the document value. 76.5 This payment is disputed by A-2 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove any

slide 538:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 538 payment over and above the consideration shown in the above document. 76.6 In order to appreciate the above contention reference may have to be made to the relevant portion of the evidence of PW.17 PW.161 and PW.159 coupled with the documents marked by the prosecution at Ex.P.46 viz. the sale deed executed by Smt. Sundari Shankar in favour of M/s. Sasikala Enterprises. It is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 23.09.1994 marked through PW.17 wherein the entire sale consideration of Rs.190000/- is shown to have been paid by the purchaser by D.D. No.401108 dated 23.09.94 at the time of execution of the sale deed. PW.17 Smt. Sundari Shankar the owner of the aforesaid property deposed on oath that she was the owner of plot at C-62 Thiruvenkata Nagar Ambaltur Chennai measuring 4830 Sq. Ft. She had constructed a house measuring 600 Sq. Ft. therein. She wanted to sell that land. Her neighbour one Ramesh wanted to buy it. She entered into an agreement to sell the said property for Rs.5 lakhs and received Rs.1.75 lakh as advance. But the said Ramesh could not purchase the property and PW.17 was not in a position to refund the advance money. After two or three months the said Ramesh told PW.17 that a person close to Selvi J. Jayalalitha has come forward to buy the property and she was taken to registration office and executed the

slide 539:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 539 sale deed. PW.16 specifically deposed in her chief- examination that the sale amount was Rs.5 lakhs. Out of that amount a D.D. for Rs.190000/- was given to her and out of the remaining amount Ramesh took Rs.175000/- due to him and gave her the rest of the amount in cash. Her daughter Bama Chandran and Ramesh have signed the sale deed as witnesses. She further deposed that the amount given as cash is not shown in the sale deed. In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she had entered into an agreement with Ramesh for Rs.190000/-. She asserted in the cross-examination that the said agreement was for Rs.5 lakhs. She also denied the suggestion that at the instance of the police she has falsely stated that she had taken Rs. 5 lakhs in connection with the said dealing. 76.7 It is the submission of the learned Counsel for A-2 that the so called agreement entered into with Ramesh is not produced in evidence and more over her testimony being contrary to Sec.92 of the Evidence Act no reliance can be placed on her testimony. The learned Counsel also pointed out that Ramesh the attester to Ex.P.46 is examined as PW.161 but in his evidence he has not spoken anything about the execution of the agreement for Rs.5 lakhs with PW.17. Therefore the claim made by the prosecution in this regard is not supported by oral or documentary evidence.

slide 540:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 540 76.8 I have gone through the evidence of PW.161 Sri. R.Ramesh the Asst. Manager at Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch. The relevant portion of his chief- examination reads as under “During December 1992 to purchase a house and a vacant site in Thiruvenkata Nagar Ambaltur Chennai from Mrs. Sundari Shankar in the name of myself and my wife we executed a sale agreement for that I gave Rs.175000/- to Sundari Shankar as advance. To purchase the above mentioned property I wanted to avail loan from our bank. But they told that the loan will not given for old house. I informed Sundari Shankar about this and asked her to return the advance she had taken. But she told me that as she had invested the advance money in a property in Porur she could not return the advance. She told me to sell that property to another person and take my advance. So requested out Manager Mrs. Susarita Sunder Rajan to make arrangements for the above mentioned property to be sold to Mrs. Sasikala. She spoke to Tmt. Sasikala and finally agreed to purchase that property for Rs. 5 lakhs. In September 1994 I brought the above Sundari Shankar to District Registration Office North Chennai and arrayed for the registration. Then Mr. Raja Gopalan was the District Registrar. Mr. Raja Gopalan gave the sale amount for the above mentioned property. Rs.190000/- was given as a D.D. in the name of Mrs. Sundari Shankar. The remaining Rs.310000/- was given to me as cash from that amount. I took the advance of Rs.175000/- which I had paid. I handed over the remaining amount and the demand draft to Mrs. Sundari Shankar. In the sale deed I have signed as a witness. ”

slide 541:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 541 In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW.161 did not show the agreement copy to the police. However he has maintained in the cross-examination that his wife and he signed the agreement in which they fixed the price as Rs.5 lakhs as sale amount for that house. In the further cross-examination PW.161 has answered thus “My wife and I gave back the agreement we made to them. We don’t have the photo copy for that. I don’t have any documents regarding the agreement with Mrs. Sundari Shankar. I don’t have any documents regarding the loan availed in the bank regarding the agreement with Mrs. Sundari Shankar these is only the oral deposition. I have given my wife and I gave Rs.175000/- to Mrs. Sundari Shankar as cash.” 76.9 Thus it could be seen that PW.161 has substantially corroborated the testimony of PW.17 with regard to the prior agreement of sale entered into between PW.17 and PW.161. Both these witnesses have stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed Rs.175000/- was paid as advance consideration and the said amount was refunded to PW.161 at the time of execution of the sale deed Ex.P.46. It is borne on record that the sale consideration in Ex.P.46 is shown as Rs.190000 and it is also not in dispute that the said consideration of Rs.190000/- was paid to PW.17 through D.D. Under the said circumstances if in fact the said consideration was the total consideration

slide 542:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 542 received by PW.17 in respect of sale transaction naturally a question would arise as to how PW.17 would have repaid the advance received by her in respect of very same transaction. It is not the case of either of the parties that PW.161 was repaid Rs.175000/- after encashment of the D.D. In all probability PW.161 would not have signed the sale deed as witnesses if the advance consideration paid by him was not refunded to him before the registration of sale deed. Therefore the testimony of PW.161 appears to be nearer to the truth. In this context the answers elicited from the mouth of PW.161 in the course of the cross-examination that the sale agreement was returned to the vendor appears to be probable and leads to the inference that on refund of Rs.175000/- on the execution of the sale deed the agreement of sale was returned to the vendor. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of PW.161 and probabilities also suggest that he would not have allowed the sale to go through without getting the refund of the money paid by him. Accused have not brought on record any circumstance to show that PW.161 has any reason to give false evidence against the accused taking upon himself the contractual relationship with PW.17. Therefore taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the accused in this regard.

slide 543:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 543 77. Cash paid over and above Sale Consideration. Item No.24: 24 Amount paid to TNHB towards allotment of plot No.L-66 Old No.524 N Anna Nagar Chennai-40 in favour of Tmt. J. Elavarasi Rs.235813.00 PW.128 Balakrishnan Asst. Secretary Tamil Nadu Housing Board has deposed that as per Ex.P.718 Plot No.E-83 Besant Nagar was allotted to A-3. Ex.P.720 is the order of allotment. Ex.P.721 is the application submitted by A-3. Along with the application address proof income certificate and declaration that applicant is the wife and children do not own any house or plot at any other place were required to be furnished and accordingly A-3 submitted the declaration and age proof and income certificate. In the income certificate Ex.P.732 the yearly income of A-3 is shown as Rs.44000/- and as per Ex.P.724 the Tahsildar has certified that A-3 is residing at No.18 Balamuttukrishnan Street Chennai-17. An allotment order was passed determining the total value of the plot at Rs.288750/-. It was paid on 30.07.1992 as per Ex.P.725. The registration fee also was paid. The ownership was delivered. As per Ex.P.728 the Surveyor delivered the possession to A-3. This witness further deposed that as per Ex.P.719 HIG Plot No.10 Egmore-374 Alwar Pet Chennai was

slide 544:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 544 allotted to A-4 and again Plot No.524 was allotted instead of the earlier allotment as per Ex.P.729. Ex.P.730 is the application submitted by A-4. Along with the said application she submitted the income certificate as per Ex.P.732. Address proof as per Ex.P.733 and two certificates issued by the Tahsildar. As per Ex.P.732 the yearly income of A-4 was Rs.48000/-. The total value of the plot is Rs.234813/- The amount was paid as per Ex.P.735. The possession was delivered on 23.10.1992 as per Ex.P.736. On 25.02.1993 no objection certificate was granted to her to construct a residential house in the said plot. In the cross-examination it is suggested to PW.128 that the site allotted to A-3 is still with the Housing Board and the money paid by A-3 should be returned. PW.128 denied the said suggestion. The allotment and the payment made by A-3 and A-4 in respect of the above allotment and the declarations given by them regarding their address and income status has not been disputed in the cross-examination. Hence the accused are not entitled for return of the amount. 77.1 Item No.31 : 31 Cost of acquisition of Maha Suba Lakshmi Kalyana Mandabam Chennai- 106 from the then Shareholders on 19.7.93 from Tr. B. Selvaraj and others by Tr. VN Sudhakaran and others. Rs.3851000.00

slide 545:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 545 PW.10 Selvaraj has deposed that he and his uncles Kandaswami and Armugam were running business by name A.K. Enterprises A.K.Traders and A.K. Syndicate. The Tamil Nadu Housing Society had allotted two quarter ground land in the name of his uncle Armugam at Arumbukkam MMDA Colony. They decided to construct a Kalyana Mandapam in that land. They completed the construction in 1992-93 and the named Kalyana Mandapam as Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam. They availed a loan of Rs.19 lakhs from the Central Bank of India on payment of interest of Rs.30000/- per month. Since they could not generate regular income they decided to sell the Kalyana Mandapam. Mr. Sudhakaran came to their shop. He came to know that he is the foster son of Selvi J. Jayalalitha. As he wanted to buy the Kalyana Mandapam PW.10 verified in the bank that as on that day Rs.28 lakhs was due to the Bank. Apart from Rs.28 lakhs the banker also told him that Rs.10 lakhs taken as business loan and also be refunded. PW.10 specifically deposed that they agreed to sell the Kalyana Mandapam for Rs.3851000/- and received the amount through DDs. PW.10 further deposed “for the Kalyana Mantapa they had paid Rs.28.05 lakhs through one DD. Apart from that for the 10 lakhs which was availed for our business was paid through three DDs. We have not executed any sale document for receiving the money. ”

slide 546:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 546 In the cross-examination it is elicited that in Ex.P.40 the details of the bank account and the DDs are not shown. Ex.P.40 is the letter issued by the Manager of Central Bank of India China Bazar to PW.10. It reads as follows “Mr. B. Selvaraj Dt. 12 th Nov 1996 30 Godown St. MADRAS-600 001. Dear Sir As stated in your letter dt 15/10/1996 we wish to inform you that the following amounts have been credited on 19/7/1993 as mentioned below:- Name of the A/c. Type Amt credited ” M/s. A.K.Enterprises Cash Credit Rs.333333/- by clearing M/s. A.K.Traders -do- Rs.333334/- -do- M/s. A.K.Syndicate -do- Rs.333333/- -do- M/s. Mahasubhalakshmi Term Loan Rs.2851000/--do Kalyana Mandapam others Yours faithfully MANAGER 77.2 The file also contains the certified copies of the pay-in-slips for having deposited Rs.333334/- to the A/c. of A.K. Traders Rs.333333/- to the A/c. of A.K. Syndicate Rs.333333/- to the A.K. Enterprises and Rs.2851000/- to the A/c. of Mahasubhalakshmi Kalyana Mantapa on 17.7.1993. In view of the documentary evidence produced in support of the payment of Rs.10 lakhs the objection raised by the accused cannot be sustained.

slide 547:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 547 77.3 Item No.33: 33 Cost of acquisition of shares of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. at No.48 Inner Ring Road Ekkattuthangal on 1-9-93 towards transfer of shares Rs.6405000/- machinery cost Rs.2016000/- from Tr. Naresh Shroff by Tr. VN Sudhakaran and Tmt. N. Sasikala. Rs.8421000.00 The accused have disputed only the machinery cost of Rs.2016000/-. PW.15 one Naresh Shroff has deposed that he knows Mr. Seetharam Proprietor of Sastri Nuts and Plate who had his office at No.48 Ekkattathangal. Initially that Company was owned by one person and then it was changed into a Private Ltd. Company. PW.15 bought the shares of Shastri Nuts and Plates Company for Rs. 7 lakhs. He shifted his Off-set press to this building. He used to print books for Tamil Nadu Text Book Society and private companies. During 1991- 92 Mrs. Sasikala came to his Company at Ekkaltuthangal. She wanted to buy the machineries which he had bought from England for Rs.8 lakhs. She gave a cheque of Jaya Publications. She told that she would take machinery after some time. He was asked to do the printing work with the printing machine purchased by A-2. PW.15 refused saying that he cannot be responsible if any repair occurs during the printing. In the meanwhile he received notices from Urban Commissioners office. The Tahsildar also visited his

slide 548:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 548 factory. He approached A-2 for help. A-2 came to his factory and asked him to sell the factory to her. She called him to Poes Garden and discussed the details of the Company. He quoted Rs.70 lakhs for the shares but they wanted to give only Rs.64500/- and in this regard a Memorandum of Undertaking was brought by V.N.Sudhakaran to his office. Along with Mr. V.N.Sudhakaran Auditor M. Rajasekaran also came to his office. They fixed Rs.2016000/- for machinery. On the date of his examination the prosecution got marked Ex.P.41. The original was returned to the witness. They signed the plan Ex.P.42 was also marked on behalf of the prosecution. PW.15 further deposed that amount of Rs.6405000/- and Rs.2016000/- were paid to him through cheques. These cheques were given in the name of shareholders viz. PW.15 his wife Shalini Shroff and children Nithan Shroff and Nikil Shroff. They were credited to their bank account at Oriental Bank of Commerce at Anna Salai. He further stated that apart from the above said amount an amount of Rs.1140400/- was given through cheques for repaying the loans borrowed by the Company. After the sale the name of the press was changed to M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the purchasers name does not find place in Ex.P.41. However he denied the suggestion that he did not go to Poes Garden to meet Sasikala.

slide 549:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 549 This issue is considered in detail while considering the cost of machineries. In view of the conclusions stated therein the objection raised by the defence is rejected. 77.4 Item No.64 66: 64 Amount paid towards the cost of acquisition of 10.78 acres over and above the document value Doc No.42/94 dt.8.2.94 of S.R.O. North Madras Rs.465000.00 66 Amount paid over and above the cost in document No.43/94 dt 5.2.94 SRO North Madras to the seller Tr. Gopinath. Rs.485000.00 PW.46 Gopinadan has stated in his evidence that he had purchased agricultural lands in Chiruthavur Alathur Karunguzhi villages. In the end of 1993 Amanullah asked him whether he is willing to sell his land and accordingly he agreed to sell about 30 acres of land at the rate of Rs.45000/- per acre. Amanullah agreed to pay Rs.33.000/- per acre. He paid Rs.9.65 lakhs for the entire land. Rs.5.60 lakhs was paid in cash and the remaining Rs.4.05 lakhs he gave DDs. PW.46 deposed that he signed the sale deed in the house of Amanullah in the presence of the Registrar Mr. Rajagopal. He specifically deposed in his evidence that he received 6 DDs for 4.05 lakhs and deposited Rs. 3.04 lakhs in his Royal Wines A/c. in Punjab Sindh Bank. The remaining Rs.1.01 lakh he deposited in the

slide 550:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 550 account of Associated Trade Links in Vijaya Bank Adyar Branch. He further deposed that he distributed the cash given to him to the power agents and others and further stated that he came to know that the purchaser of these properties is Sudhakaran. Through this witness Ex.P.122 Doc. No.39/94 the certified copy of sale deed is marked and Ex.P.122. In the cross-examination it is elicited that Documents No.122 123 and 124 were registered in Amanullah’s house. The sale amount shown in the sale deed is correct. It is also elicited that regarding his business PW.46 is maintaining the income and expenditure account and he is and Income Tax payee. He denied the suggestion that he did not produce his Income Tax statement and other documents because it will not be seen that he has not taken the extra cash as stated in his evidence. It is further elicited that except the amount mentioned in the sale deed he has not received any other amount from Amanullah. So the details given by him in his chief examination that he received amount of Rs.5.06 lakhs is not correct. It is further elicited that when he had come to the Court for giving evidence the Police Officers compelled and threatened him to say that he received Rs.5.06 lakhs and hence he has stated so in his chief-examination. But this witness was recalled by the P.P. and in the

slide 551:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 551 re-examination by the learned Spl. P.P. a specific question was put to this witness as under Qtn : have you received cash of Rs.5.06 lakhs Ans : With regard to that I don’t know whether Mr. Amanullah had made any dealings with the Power of Attorney holders. PW.51 Amanullah Marikayar is examined regarding the execution of the sale deed Ex.P.138 Doc.No.40/1994 in favour of J. Elavarasi. The consideration is shown therein is Rs.190000/- paid to the vendor at the time of execution of the sale deed. PW.51 has clearly stated that he has not received anything more than Rs.1.90 lakhs shown in the sale deed. As the prosecution has failed to substantiate the payment of any amount over and above the sale consideration shown in the document the amounts at item Nos.64 and 66 are liable to be deleted. 77.5 Item No.127 145: 127 Cost of transfer of 614000 shares of M/s. Ramraj Agro Mills Limited at Vandampalai 24.11.94 at the rate of Rs.3/- per share from Tr. Gandhi and others 618000 shares minus 4000 shares. Rs.1842000.00 145 Cost of acquisition of M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. at Vandampalai village in Nannilam Taluk i.e. subsequent payment made to SIPCOT by Ramraj Agro Mills Rs.723806/- from 23.11.95 Rs.357000/- on 20.1.96 and Rs.400000/- on 6.4.96. Rs.1480006.00

slide 552:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 552 PW.52 Gandhi has deposed that he had jointly bought 618000 shares of M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. at the rate of Rs.5/- per share. His family had bought 224313 shares. They could not get proper income from the said Mill and decided to sell it. In 1994 Ramaswamy Udayar brought Sudhakarn to them and asked him to sell the Mill. They negotiated and agreed to sell it at the rate of Rs.3/- per share. Sudhakaran Sundaravadanam Elavarasi and Prabha took over the Board of Management and in all 618000/- shares were bought by them. In the cross-examination it is elicited that M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. is a public limited Company. They sold their family shares of 224313. He signed and gave the documents for registration. He did not go to the registration office. There is no denial of the purchase of shares by A-3 and A-4 along with two other Shareholders. PW.53 Asokan has deposed that PW.52 is his uncle. His relatives jointly bought M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd. The other shares were bought by outsiders. They transferred the shares to Sudhakaran and his people at Rs.3/- per share. The testimony of this witness is also not challenged in the cross-examination as a result the prosecution has proved the transaction listed at item No.127.

slide 553:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 553 77.6 Item No.145: PW.90 Smt. Sheela Balakrishnan Secretary Administration Reforms Department has deposed that the Chairman of the Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd. Gandhi wrote a letter to the Managing Directors of SIPCOT Company stating that V.N.Sudhakaran T.V. Sundaravadanam J. Elavarasi and Tmt. Prabha were appointed as additional directors. The existing members Gandhi Asokan Satyavel Mahilavannan wrote a letter stating that they withdrew from their post. The said letter is Ex.P.542. SIPCOT agreed for the change of administration. Ex.P.544 is the resolution of the Board of Meeting. 77.7 Item No.150: 150 Amount paid over and above the document value in respect of Rs. Property covered by Document Rs.293/95 and 294/95 dt 4.4.95 of S.R.O. North Madras Item Rs.160 161 of Annexure-II Rs.1000000.00 PW.51 Amanullah Marikayar the husband of Smt. Arifa the vendor of the above properties has deposed that his father-in-law purchased the aforesaid property in the name of his wife and they built a house therein by spending Rs.11.00 lakhs. A-2 and A-3 agreed to purchase the said lands for Rs.25.00 lakhs and paid Rs. 10.00 lakhs in cash and the remaining Rs.15.00 lakhs was paid by means of two D.Ds for Rs.680000/- and

slide 554:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 554 Rs.820000/-. According to PW.51 the Sub-Registrar was brought to his house and his wife executed Ex.P.135 and P.136 before the Registrar. Regarding the paymet of consideration in cash this witness deposed that the receipt of cash is not shown in Ex.P.135 and P.136. In the cross-examination though he has affirmed that he has received the payment in cash the real vendor having not been examined before the court and there being no corroboration to the oral testimony of this witness merely on the basis of his oral say the said amount cannot be fastened on the accused. Hence the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs shown in item No.150 is liable to be deleted. 77.8 ITEM No.159 : 159 Cost of acquisition of Luz Avenue property other than the consideration covered by document Nos. 247/95 to 252/95 of S.R.O. North Madras for the purpose of clearing the loan that stood in the name of properties in the TB Abirampuram. Rs.7600000.00 Under item No.159 the prosecution has added a sum of Rs.76 lakhs towards the cost of acquisition of Luz Avenue Property. The defence of the accused is that the Luz avenue property is purchased under six sale deeds produced in evidence as Ex.P.105 to P.110. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the entire amount of Rs.76 lakhs is liable to be deleted. In support of this objection the learned Counsel for A-2

slide 555:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 555 has drawn my attention to the relevant portion of the evidence of PW.43 44 and 45 and Exs. P.111 to 121 marked through this witness. PW.43 Nageswara Rao Managing Director of Amrutanjan Limited has deposed that he and his wife started “Srinivasa Video Company” in the year 1990 and it was closed in 1991. Later they started Srinivasa Investments P Ltd. Bharani Beach Resorts P Ltd. and Srinivasa Video P Ltd. They had a cinema theatre in Vijayawada. He had taken Rs. 35 lakhs using his over draft facility from the bank on the security of his house situated at No.1-1 Luz Avenue. The plot was in the name of his sister Ramayi Ammal. The building was in his name. As he could not repay the loan it was transferred to Abirampuram Branch of Indian Bank. After transfer the principal and interest rose to Rs.11000000/- in the year 1994-95. The bank manager Sucharita Sundararajan advised him to dispose of the house No.1-1 and to pay back the loan. She told him that there were people to buy the property. Two days thereafter Sudhakaran and Sasikala came to see the property. After seeing the house they told PW.43 and Sucharita to contact them. Accordingly they went to Poes Garden and met Sasikala. Sucharita quoted Rs.13000000/-. PW.43 insisted Rs. 2 crores. The Bank Manager requested PW.17 to introduce his sister Ramayi Ammal to her. On 19.3.1995 PW.43 went to Abirampuram Branch along with his sister Ramayi

slide 556:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 556 Ammal one consultant PW.45 Shankar and his brother’s wife Rajeshwari. Sri. Rajagopal from registration Department his Assistant Branch Manager Bank Cashier and Kamal the P.A. of his brother were present. Ramayi Ammal signed the sale deed and PW.43 and Shankar subscribed their signatures as witnesses. Six blank cheques worth Rs.44 lakhs were given to bank itself. One cheque for Rs.10 lakhs was given to Ramayi Ammal. An amount of Rs.58.73 lakhs cash was credited into the account of PW.43. He was also given cash amount of Rs.17.27 lakhs out of which he gave an amount of Rs.9 lakhs to his sister Ramayi Ammal. The Bank Manager Sucharita took Rs.80000/- towards expenses. The amount of Rs.58.73 lakhs was credited to his loan account. Through this witness prosecution got marked the copies of six sale deeds of the sale deed executed on that day as Ex.P.105 to P.110. PW.43 further deposed that at the time of registration of the sale deed the purchasers name was not filled in. PW.44 Shivaji Rao has deposed that he worked as a typist under PW.43 from February 1992 to January 1996. He saw Smt. Sucharitha Manager of Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch when she came to the house of Nageswara Rao PW.43 in March 1995. On 18.3.1995 when he was in the house of PW.43 Smt. Sucharita gave him 11 bank payment challan slips and asked him to fill them up. She gave the details to be

slide 557:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 557 filled up and accordingly he filled up the pay-in-slips which are to be marked through this witness as Ex.P.111 to P.121. This witness further deposed that in Ex.P.111 to P.121 different dates are written even though all of them were filled up in the same day. In the cross-examination it is elicited that in Ex.P.111 to P.121 he has subscribed the payee’s signature. But this witness was recalled in the year 2003 and was subjected to further cross-examination. During his cross-examination PW.44 answered that the evidence given by him in the chief-examination that he had gone out and worked for PW.43 is not correct and due to police compulsion he stated during his first inquiry that Tmt. Sucharita Bank Manager visited the house of PW.43. PW.45 Tr. Shankar has stated that he is a Chartered Accountant and he knows PW.43 and his sister Ramayi Ammal. She consulted him regarding this matter. PW.43 was taking loan from the Indian Overseas Bank for which Ramayi Ammal pledged her house site as surety and also stood as guarantor. Regarding this he requested Abirampuram Indian Bank Branch Manager to verify the documents submitted by Ramayi Ammal. In this matter PW.45 Ramayi Ammal and her personal Secretary Kamal visited Indian Bank Abirampuram for 4 or 5 times. This witness specifically deposed that Indian Bank Abirampuram had given

slide 558:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 558 loan to Nageswara Rao on the security of Ramayi Ammal. The said loan was transferred to another branch. On 19.3.1995 he had been to Indian Bank Abirampuram. At that time Ramayi Ammal Nageswara Rao Kamal Branch Manager Sucharita and some persons from registration office were present. He put his witness signature on Ex.P.105 to P.110 sale deeds. When she signed the documents the purchaser’s name was not mentioned. Ramayi Ammal received cheques for Rs.10 lakhs at the time of subscribing her signatures. In the middle of 1995 the Income Tax Department sent a notice to Ramayi Ammal. Immediately he contacted the Bank Manager Sucharita and asked about the details of the purchasers. This witness further deposed that Rs.10 lakhs was paid by Bank Cheque to Ramayi Ammal. The remaining Rs. 44 lakhs was paid towards Bank loan. Apart from that Rs.58.73 lakhs cash was deposited in Nageswara Rao’s account. All these details were given to him by the Branch Manager. Further she told him that Rs.17.27 lakhs was given to Nageswara Rao by cash. After collecting this information he wrote these details in a sheet of paper and gave to Ramayi Ammal so that she would know that an amount of Rs.1.30 crores was given as the sale amount. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for A-2 that the evidence of PW.45 is hearsay evidence and

slide 559:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 559 therefore no credence could be given to his evidence. Smt. Sucharita is not examined by the prosecution. No document is produced regarding the deposit of cash to the Bank account of Nageswara Rao on that day as spoken by the witnesses and therefore the prosecution is not entitled to take into account any amount other than what is shown in the sale deed Ex.P.105 to P.110 and hence the entire amount of Rs.7600000/- included in item No.159 is liable to be deducted. I have gone through Ex.P.111 to P.120. They are the copies of the current account pay-in slips for cash deposits. According to PW.44 he himself wrote these pay-in slips in his hands as instructed by Smt. Sucharita. But on perusal of these documents it is seen that Ex.P.111 and P.112 are dt. 1.2.95. Ex.P.113 to P.119 are dated 28.2.95 and Ex.P.120 is dated 18.3.95. These pay-in slips stand for different amounts. Ex.P.111 dated 18.3.95 stands for Rs.1450000/-. According to PW.43 the sale deeds Ex.P.105 to P.110 were executed on 19.3.95 i.e. on a Sunday. He has no where stated in his evidence that the cash consideration of Rs.58.73 lakhs was paid to him any time earlier to the date of registration. That being the case there is no reason for the bank Manager to instruct PW.144 to write the anterior date in the pay-in slips. There is no explanation as to why the different amount is entered in the said pay-in-slips if the entire amount of Rs.58.73

slide 560:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 560 lakhs was given to PW.43 on the date of the registration. In this context it is also pertinent to note that PW.43 was recalled at the instance of the accused and was subjected to further cross-examination on 29.1.2003 and at that time PW.43 has given a totally different version about the credit of cash amount into his loan account stating that by sale of the cameras he raised Rs.75 lakhs and deposited the money into his account to clear the loan. But even in this regard there is no clear evidence nonetheless solely on the basis of the pay-in-slips produced by the prosecution at Ex.P.111 to P.121 it may not be safe to hold that huge sum of Rs.76 lakhs was paid into the hands of PW.43 when he himself was not the owner of the said properties. The owner of the property viz. his sister Ramayi Ammal is not examined before the Court the Bank Manager is also not been examined. The loan account of PW.43 is not produced before the Court to ascertain the correctness of the statements made by the witnesses. Under the said circumstances merely on the basis of the fact that PW.43 had filled in the pay-in-slips as directed by the Bank Manager Smt. Sucharita it cannot be concluded that a sum of Rs.76 lakhs was paid by the accused towards the cost of acquisition of Luz Avenue property. In this context it is also relevant to note that the names of the purchaser were not entered in Ex.P.105 to P.110 at the time of registration of these documents. Though the entire transactions appear to

slide 561:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 561 be shoddy and suspicious and it is really shocking to note as to how the Registrar could register the document leaving the name of the purchaser blank. The endorsements made by the Registrar on this document indicates that the purchaser was not present at the time of registration of the document. PW.43 has not stated as to who paid the sale consideration and the cash amount of Rs.58.73 lakhs to him. He has merely stated that Ramayi Ammal signed the sale deed. Shankar and he put the witness signature. Six blank cheques worth Rs.44 lakhs were given to the bank itself. One cheque for Rs.10 lakhs was given to Ramayi Ammal and an amount of Rs.58.73 lakhs cash was credited to his account. On the basis of the vague and general statement made by PW.43 without there being any corroboration thereto solely on the basis of his oral testimony the cost of Rs.76 lakhs cannot be mulcht on the accused. Hence this amount shall be deducted from the computation of the assets. 78. III. NEW / ADDL. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS: In Sl. No.174 176 to 191 301 302 of Annexure II the prosecution has listed 19 new / additional construction said to have been constructed by the accused during the check period. The total value of these constructions come to Rs.281740430/-. The details of the construction are as under

slide 562:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 562 174 New/Additional Construction in building at 5 B C East Coast Road Door No.4/130 Raja Nagar Neelankarai Chennai-41 Ref. Doc.No.4752/93Of S.R.O. AdyarEvaluation Report Rs.8075000/- 176 New/ Additional construction in Farm House Bungalows at Payannur in Chengai Anna District. 12590261.00 177 New/ Additional Construction building at Door No.48 Jawaharlal Nehru Road Industrial Estate Guindy Ekkatuthangal Chennai M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. Printers 21363457.00 178 New/ Additional Construction in the residential building at D.No.3/178C Vettuvankeni Chennai 15259076.00 179 New/ Additional construction in the building at the Grape Garden Farm House in the limits of Jeedi Metla and Petpesherabad Villages in A.P. 64033901.00 180 New/ Additional construction in the posh Bangalow at Siruthavur in Chegai MGR Dist. 54052298.00 181 New/ Additional construction in the residential building at D.No.36 Poes Garden Chennai – 86. 72498000.00 182 New/ Additional construction in building at 149 150 of TTK Road Chennai – 18. 2959000.00 183 New/ Additional construction in building at Sea Shell Avenue No.2/1-B-3 Apartment Sholinganallore Saidapet Taluk. 8036868.00 184 New/ Additional Construction in Building at Door No.19 Pattammal Street Mylapore Chennai 800000.00 185 New/ Additional Construction in residential building at Door No.21 Padmanabha Street T. Nagar Chennai-17 2043000.00 186 New/ Additional Construction in residential building at No.L/66 Anna Nagar Chennai 2483759 187 New/ Additional Construction in Building at Door No.5 Murugesan Street T.Nagar Chennai-17 1092828.00 188 New/ Additional Construction in 5311000.00

slide 563:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 563 residential building 4 Nos in the campus at No.1/240 Enjambakkam in New Mahabalipuram Road. 189 New/ Additional Construction in residential Building at No.1 Murphy St. Akkarai Chennai. 2038959.00 190 New/ Additional Construction in Building at S.No.32/2-4 Plot Nos.S-7 Ganapathy Colony Tr. Vi-Ka Indl. Estate Guindy Chennai-32. 3934000.00 191 New/ Additional Construction in Buildings and the change of roof for the works shed at MF-9 Guindy Industrial Estate Chennai-32. 1417538.00 301 Cost of renovation and additional construction between June 1992 and 1993 of the building at Plot No.102 ITI Cross Road Pon Nagar Trichy owned by Tmt. N. Sasikala covered by Document No.2256/90 dt. 3-5-90 of S.R.O.T. O.R.B. Trichy 3934000.00 78.1 ITEM No.174 : 174 New/Additional Construction in building at 5 B C East Coast Road Door No.4/130 Raja Nagar Neelankarai Chennai-41 Ref. Doc.No.4752/93Of S.R.O. AdyarEvaluation Report Rs.8075000/- The prosecution has valued this item at Rs.8075000/-. According to the defence Sasi Enterprises has spent only Rs.4039019/- for the said additional construction and the same is spoken to by DW.95 through whom the defence has got marked the valuation of the various buildings including item No.174 whereunder DW.95 has valued the structure at Rs.4039019/-. Therefore it is the contention of A-2

slide 564:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 564 that the difference of Rs.4035981/- is liable to be deducted. In appreciating this contention it may be relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.117 Sri. Era Govindan the Executive Engineer P.W.D Buildings who has stated in his evidence that on 25.10.1996 he inspected Door No.130 Raja Nagar Plot No.7 Neelankarai East- Coast Road. Asst. Exec. Engineers Sri. Lakshmanan Vijayabalan and some other Engineers assisted him. Kadiresan Dy.S.P pointed out the location. There were three buildings. The relevant portion of his evidence regarding the nature of construction reads as under “The buildings at the area was inspected by me on 25 th 26 th 28 th and 29.10.1996. Kadiresan the Deputy Superintendent Mohan the resident Devarajan the representative of owner were present at the time of evaluation of the building. Muthusamy an officer from taluk office was also present there. There were three buildings in that area. I gave as No.1 to the building which was by the side of the road and facing west I gave as No.2 to the building which was facing south east of west direction and I gave as No.3 to the building which facing the north-east direction. There are two bedrooms one kitchen big hall one and three bathrooms in the ground floor at building No.1. There are four bedrooms a lengthy hall and a kitchen at the first floor. There were steps to go to first floor. The two floors were paved with mosaic tiles costly painted Porcelain Ceramic tiles. All the

slide 565:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 565 bathrooms were paved with costly Porcelain ceramic tiles. Chandelier was hanging at the first floor hall. Modern tiles were fixed above the sunshades. Carved granites were fixed at the entrance of the house. There were two dish antenna on the building. The diameter of one dish antenna is 8 feet and another one is 6 feet. There were six refrigerators in the building. I dug up the foundation of the building and enquired the neighbours and concluded that it was built in the year 91-92. I took into account schedule rate list of P.W.D. for the year 93-94 to evaluate the said building. Wherever the item did not figure in the schedule rate list I fixed the rate with the help of the Fair Traders and after giving 10 discount for depreciation with my personal experience I evaluated the said building. Building No.2:- There are one bed room one hall and one kitchen in the ground floor and three bed rooms in the first floor. Four bedrooms had separate bathrooms. Two floors are paved with the costly marbles. Bath room floor was paved with spartek stones. Ruby red stones are fixed at every unit of the entrance. The front portion of the 1 st floor had a slope roof and it was covered by modern tiles. I dug the foundation of the building and on enquiry with the neighbours I came to conclusion that it was built in the year 93-94. Building No.3:- was constructed for accommodating three families. Building No.3 have all facilities like building No.2. I told that in building No.2 is one unit. What I mean to say is another unit in ground floor has one bedroom hall kitchen three bedrooms in upstairs and separate bathrooms in another unit. Building No.1 ground floor area is 178.87 Sq. meter and upstairs area is 171.59 Sq. meter. Ground floor

slide 566:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 566 area of building No.2 is 189.14 sq. meter. First floor area is 203.32 Sq. meter. Ground floor of building No.3 is 288.47 Sq. Meter and the area of first floor is 302.44 Sq. Meter. The value of the building No.1 is Rs.1047446/- excluding the electrical works. The value of the building No.2 excluding the electrical works is Rs.1917557/-. The value of the building No.3 excluding the electrical works is Rs.2801811/-. The value of drainage outside the building and other works is Rs.822975/-. The value of the electrical works for these three buildings are Rs.819690/-. The electrical works are evaluated by Narayanan Vadivelu Asst. Engineer. Asst. Exec. Engineer of Electricity Department are also out team members. I have submitted the evaluation report Ex.P.673. Service charge 9 was included for the building plans and supervision of building at the time of construction amounting to Rs.665521/-. Electrical materials drainage and other expenses including the service charge for the three buildings Rs.8075000/-. Measurements and building plans were enclosed with Ex.P.673”. This witness was cross-examined on 20.1.2000 and by and large the defence could not shake the veracity of the testimony of this witness nor could bring out any serious defects in the valuation report filed by him except eliciting that the notes prepared during the evaluation were not enclosed to the report and the quotation or the information gathered from the traders regarding the value of the non-scheduled items were not supported by documents. However this witness was recalled on 7.1.2003 by the accused and was subjected to further cross-examination and at this time he

slide 567:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 567 deposed at variance that the earlier statements made on oath thus creating discrepancy in his evidence. But after the transfer of the case to the State of Karnataka PW.117 was recalled by the learned Spl. P.P. and was asked to clarify as to which of the two versions given by him on oath were correct. PW.117 unequivocally stated that the first version i.e. what he has stated in his chief-examination is true and correct. As against the above evidence A-2 has examined DW.75 P. Suthanthira Kumar Executive Engineer in P.W.D. Tamil Nadu who was one of the members of the team of experts for valuation of the buildings. Though this witness has stated in his chief-examination that his signature does not find place in Ex.P.673 for the reason that he disagreed with the method of valuation this witness has not disputed the fact that the valuation of the building was done by the committee headed by PW.117 and he was also present during the inspection. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted the suggestion that at the time of inspection the measurements were taken. When it was specifically suggested to DW.75 that one Mr. Devaraj was present on behalf of the owner DW.75 has not denied this suggestion. The further answers elicited from the mouth of this witness read as under Qn: I suggest to you that on the basis of the measurement taken the team of

slide 568:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 568 experts determined the value of the property. What do you say Ans :I took measurements and asked the other team members to prepare the valuation report based on the above measurements. Qn: I suggest to you that on the basis of the measurement taken a sketch of the buildings was prepared at the spot. What do you say Ans: On the basis of the measurements taken lines sketch of the property was prepared. Qn: I suggest to you that the team of experts have prepared the valuation report adopting Tamil Nadu PWD S.R. Rates and also the market rates in respect of non-schedule items. What do you say Ans: This procedure has to be adopted for determining the value. Qn : I suggest to you that the plan which is attached to the valuation report Ex.P.673 has been prepared by the team of experts on the basis of the measurements taken at the spot. What do you say Ans: Yes. The above answers fully support the version of PW.117 that not only the measurements were taken and the plan was prepared even the age of the building was

slide 569:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 569 determined by the team member in unison and by adopting S.R. rates the value of the construction was determined. The testimony of DW.75 does not any way deviate from the testimony of PW.117 regarding the method followed by them for determination of the valuation of the above structure. 78.2 ITEM No.176 : 176 New/ Additional construction in Farm House Bungalows at Payannur in Chengai Anna District. 12590261.00 The defence of the accused is that the entire amount claimed under this head is liable to be excluded for the reason that the building in question was in existence at the time of the purchase of the property and A-2 has not made any additional constructions to the Farm house as contended by the prosecution. In support of its case the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW.107 Mr.Sornam the Superintending Engineer in Tamil Nadu P.W.D. According to this witness on 30.10.1996 he along with the team members consisting of Shivalingam the Asst. Exec. Engineer Shankar Asst. Engineer Senthil Kumar Asst. Engineer Thiruthuva Raj Asst. Exec. Engineer Electricity Selvaraj Asst. Exec. Engineer inspected the bungalow at Payannur. Inspector Jayapal and Ponnuraj the representative of the owner were

slide 570:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 570 present. After examining the installation of electrical connection and enquiry with the neighbours workers and by testing the foundation they assessed that the building was constructed in 94-1995. The main bungalow had a ground floor had two bed rooms and one servant room. The first floor had three bed rooms. There was a staircase in verandah leading to the first floor. The construction was done in such a way that the second floor’s roof would be visible from the ground floor. The kitchen was constructed in the ground floor. The kitchen and sit out had mosaic floors. The hall bed rooms of the ground floor and the verandah and the bedrooms of the first floor had marble flooring. The main door was made of high quality Teak. The inside doors were of flush shutters. The railing of the staircase leading to the first floor verandah and the verandah railing were both made of decorated Teakwood. The building’s exterior was painted with cement paint and the interiors were painted with emulsion. There was a borewell of 150 mm bore and 15 metre depth beside the building. Through the water pump the water was stored in the water tank in the second floor. The water closet and wash basins were of different colours. He and Thiruthuvaraj Asst. Exec. Engineer and Selvaraj Asst. Engineer assessed the electric work. They determined the total value of the civil works at Rs.9477077/- and the value of the electrical work at Rs.3113184/- in total

slide 571:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 571 Rs.12590261/-. Through this witness the prosecution got marked the valuation report as Ex.P.662. This witness further deposed that adjoining the main building there was place for parking the vehicles a rest room a shed for parking the tractor a room for the generator servant quarters store room two circular wells a store room and motor room a shed for visitors to rest a shed for watchmen another rest shed a culvert small temple and two rest rooms three motor rooms one aquarium one double quarters one paddy threshing yard surrounded by a compound walls and also an approach road to the main building. They took detailed measurement of all the constructions and prepared the assessment report as above. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the price of the non-scheduled items was written on a sheet of paper and after the final estimation it was torn. In the cross-examination this witness is also asked about the break-up cost of the sanitary wares and the decorated tiles and it is elicited that PW.107 inquired the price of these items from a shop situated at Kodambakkam 100 Feet Road. Even though he was fully cross-examined at the first instance the accused got this witness recalled on 30.12.2002 and substantially differed from his earlier statements made on oath stating that the foundation was neither poked

slide 572:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 572 or dug and the measurement were not incorporated in the report. Ex.P.662 does not carry separate estimate for the quality of the construction in the ground floors of the five buildings and that they assessed the building according to their Department calculation. These answers are contrary to the contents of the report marked through this witness. PW.220 Sri. Thiruthuva Raj has corroborated the testimony of PW.107 regarding the valuation of the electrical devices found in the above property. This witness has clearly stated that after preparing the report in this regard it was handed over to PW.107 and he and the Asst. Engineer Selvaraj have affixed their signatures to Ex.P.662. As against this evidence the accused have relied on the evidence of DW.93 Porselvan. According to this witness he joined Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service as Asst. Engineer in the year 2008. Through this witness the accused got marked the attested copies of the applications submitted by one Smt. S. Manimegalai seeking service connection to her residence. Attested copy of the agreement dated 09.09.1991 attested copy of the certificate issued by the Village Administration Officer and attested copies of the sanction order test report and suppliers’ report as Ex.D.251 to D.257. Based on these documents it is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused that the electricity connection was taken to this building prior to the check

slide 573:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 573 period and therefore the claim laid by the prosecution is totally baseless and liable to be rejected in-toto. Before accepting this argument it is necessary to look into the sale deed relating to the property in question which are marked as Ex.P.96 to P.103. Ex.P.96 and Ex.P.97 dated 7.10.1994 are executed by S. Manimegalai in favour of A-2 in respect of 5.80 acres and 3.52 acres of land situated in 155 Payannur village for consideration of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs.195000/- respectively. Ex.P.98 Ex.P.99 Ex.P.100 101 102 dated 7.10.1994 are executed by Mr. Gangai Amaran in favour of A-2 in respect of 5.82 0.40 0.40 2.76 and 4.23 acres of land situated in 155 Payyanoor village for consideration of Rs.195000/- Rs.160000/- and Rs.170000/- Rs.150000/- and Rs.150000/- respectively. Ex.P.103 is dated 7.10.1994 executed by Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Ammal through her G.P.A. Ganghei Amaren in favour of A-2 in respect of 51 cents of land situated in 155 Payannur village for consideration of Rs.190000/-. There is not even a remote mention about the existence of any building in any of the properties conveyed to A-2 under these sale deeds Ex.P.96 to

slide 574:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 574 P.103. Under the said circumstance the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the structures standing in the properties at Payannur village were in existence prior to the check period cannot be accepted. No doubt it is true that in his evidence PW.40 has stated that he purchased nearly 22 acres of land in Payannur Village bit by bit and he built a small farm house in the said land. But there is nothing on record to show that the said farm house has been conveyed to A-2 or to any other accused under the said sale deeds. In this context it is pertinent to note that PW.40 has deposed that he knows Baskaran the son of Smt. Sasikala’s sister Vanitha. He took him to the house of Poes Garden to meet Selvi J. Jayalalitha. There he met A-2. She told him that C.M. visited Payannur Land and liked it very much and she was very much interested to buy it. For that PW.40 replied that the house is very useful for music composing and story writing and he did not want to sell it. Thereafter A-3 Sudhakaran talked to him daily over phone or came to his house. His family members were not willing to sell the land. At last they decided to sell it. Sudhakaran and some officers came to his house and got his signature and the signature of his wife on 7 th October. They gave two D.Ds. One in his name and the other in the name of his wife for a sum of Rs.1310000/-. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the aforesaid sale deeds

slide 575:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 575 Ex.P.96 to P.103. This witness further deposed that when he signed the sale deeds there were no details of the name of the purchaser and it was left blank. But later he came to know that it was purchased in the name of A-2. This witness has further deposed that after selling that property he went to that area and noticed that a compound was built around the property and big building with car shed was also constructed. This testimony is sufficient to hold that the buildings evaluated by PW.107 and PW.220 were constructed only after the execution of the sale deed in favour of A-2. The documents relied on by the accused viz. Ex.D.251 to D.252 also do not establish the existence of the buildings prior to the check period as contended by the accused. Ex.D.251 is the zerox copy of the application said to have been submitted by S. Manimegalai for service connection to her premises. It does not bear any date nor does it specify the property in respect of which the said connection was sought. Ex.D.252 is dated 10.9.1991 relating to Door No.SF 392/2B. Ex.D.253 is the model copy of the agreement of September 1991 which does not contain the description of the property. Ex.D.254 is said to be the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer dated 18.9.1991 certifying that the wet land measuring 40 cents situated in Survey No.155 of Payannur village with house constructed thereon in 25 cents of land is

slide 576:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 576 owned by S. Manimegalai. Ex.D.255 is the copy of the test report and Ex.D.256 is the service connection dated 16.11.1991. But as already stated above Smt. S. Manimegalai having not conveyed the building which is said to have been electrified as per Ex.D.251 to D.256 these documents do not help the accused to support the contention that the said constructions were in existence much before the check period as sought to be contended. 78.3 ITEM No.177: 177 New/ Additional Construction building at Door No.48 Jawaharlal Nehru Road Industrial Estate Guindy Ekkatuthangal Chennai M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. Printers 21363457.00 The accused have disputed the entire sum of Rs.21363457/- on the ground that A-2 was not the owner of this property and the prosecution has not produced any title deeds or documentary evidence or sale deeds in proof of the ownership of M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. over the properties. The evidence produced by the prosecution by way of examination of PW.107 coupled with the valuation report Ex.P.663 reveals that this property was valued by PW.107 on 4 th 5 th and 6 th November 1996 in the presence of Balaji the representative of the owner. In his evidence PW.107 has given the details of the

slide 577:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 577 building stating that the said building is situated at No.48 Jawaharlal Nehru Road Chennai. One of the buildings therein was old it had a ground floor and the first floor. The other new building was constructed in 1995. It had a ground floor first floor and second floor. There was a press in the building and an administrative office. The old building roof was half asbestos and half R.C.C. The area of the building was 1394.41 sq. mtr. The total area of 3 floors in the new building was 591.71 sq. mtr. The flooring of the first floor was done with marble. Second floor was done using cement and the rooms in the buildings had plaster-of-paris false ceilings and thermocol false ceilings. The front portion was fixed with granite slabs. The compound wall extending to above 25 mtrs. was decorated with Dolpur stones. According to PW.107 the total value of the buildings is Rs.21363457/- including the cost of electrical installations. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the valuation report Ex.P.663. PW.107 has specifically stated in his evidence that in Ex.P.663 he has shown the method followed by him for assessment of the building and since they did not know the age of the building they deducted 10 depreciation from the cost. The prosecution has not produced any documents of title in respect of the property described in item No.177 but has examined PW.15 one Naresh Shroff

slide 578:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 578 who has deposed that he knows Mr. Seetharam Proprietor of Shastri Nuts and Plates who had his office at No.48 Ekkattathangal. Initially that Company was owned by one person and then it was changed into a Private Ltd. Company. PW.15 bought the shares of Shastri Nuts and Plates Company for Rs.7 lakhs. He shifted his Off-set press to this building. He used to print books for Tamil Nadu Text Book Society and private companies. During 1991-92 Mrs. Sasikala came to his Company at Ekkattathangal. She wanted to buy the machineries which he had bought from England for Rs.8 lakhs. She gave a cheque of Jaya Publications. She told that she would take machinery after some time. He was asked to do the printing work with the printing machine purchased by A-2. PW.15 refused saying that he cannot be held responsible if any repair occurs during the printing. In the meanwhile he received notices from Urban Commissioners office. The Tahsildar also visited his factory. He approached A-2 for help. A-2 came to his factory and asked him to sell the factory to her. She asked him to come to Poes Garden and discussed the details of the Company. He quoted Rs.70 lakhs for the shares but they agreed to give only Rs.6405000/- and in this regard a Memorandum of Undertstanding was brought by V.N.Sudhakaran to his office. Along with Mr. V.N.Sudhakaran Auditor M. Rajasekaran also came to his office. They fixed Rs.2016000/- for machinery. On

slide 579:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 579 the date of his examination the prosecution got marked Ex.P.41. The original was returned to the witness. The copy of the plan was marked on behalf of the prosecution as Ex.P.42. PW.15 further deposed that Rs.6405000/- and Rs.2016000/- were paid to him through cheques. These cheques were given in the name of shareholders viz. PW.15 his wife Shalini Shroff and children Nithan Shroff and Nikil Shroff. They were credited to their bank account at Oriental Bank of Commerce at Anna Salai. He further stated that apart from the above said amount an amount of Rs.1140400/- was also given to him through cheques for repaying the loans borrowed by the Company. After the sale the name of the press was changed to M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the purchaser’s name does not find place in Ex.P.41. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to Poes Garden to meet Sasikala. Regarding the payment of Rs.6405000/- towards the purchase of shares the Bank Statement produced by the prosecution relating to A/c. No.2196 standing in the name of Tmt. N. Sasikala discloses that the said sum has been debuted to the account of Naresh Shroff Shalini Shroff Nithan Shroff and Nikil Shroff as stated by PW.15. Ex.P.61 the file containing the building permission and the approved building plans disclose

slide 580:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 580 that M/s. Shastri Nuts and Plates Pvt. Ltd. had made an application for additional constructions and the permission was accordingly granted on 26.11.1993. The file contains the planning permit dated 26.11.1993 and the approved building plans and building blue prints. As already stated by PW.15 by then M.O.U Ex.P.41 dated 1.9.1993 was entered into between Mr. Naresh Shroff and other Shareholders as ‘A’ Group and A-2 to A-4 and one B. Sriduladevi as ‘B’ Group whereunder the entire paid up capital of Shastri Nuts and Plates Pvt. Ltd. was agreed to be transferred to ‘B’ Group. The said M.O.U. specifically recites that the ‘A’ group shall transfer to ‘B’ group or its nominees the shares held by ‘A’ group against the payment of full consideration of Rs.6405000/-. It further recites that ‘A’ group shall comply with all Company Law formalities to induct the persons named by the ‘B’ group as the Directors and the ‘B’ group shall be only entitled to the assets of the Company. It further recites that the original title deeds invoices/ plans drawings etc. of the land and buildings and machinery of the Company shall be handed over to ‘B’ group. These recitals coupled with the unrebutted testimony of PW.15 regarding the transfer of shares to A-2 to A-4 and the payment of full consideration of Rs.6405000/- conclusively establishes that PW.15 and other Shareholders ceased of their right or interest in M/s. Shastri Nuts and Plates Pvt. Ltd. from the date of the M.O.U. and the said

slide 581:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 581 Company was taken over by A-2 to A-4 on payment of full consideration to PW.15 and other Shareholders as spoken to by PW.15. The building approval having been obtained subsequent to the said M.O.U. on 26.11.1993 the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused that the title in the above property has not vested with A-2 and that she is not liable to answer the cost of the new constructions effected therein pursuant to the aforesaid licence cannot be accepted. 78.4 ITEM No.178: 178 New/ Additional Construction in the residential building at D.No.3/178C Vettuvankeni Chennai 15259076.00 Out of Rs.15259076/- computed by the prosecution under this head the defence admits the cost of construction of Rs.10247.286/- on the basis of Ex.D.306 viz. the valuation report prepared by DW.95. As the differential amount of Rs.5011790/- is in dispute it is necessary to refer to the relevant evidence produced by the parties to find out whether the said disputed amount is liable to be excluded from the assets of the accused as contended. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW.98 Sri. Velayuthan Supdt. Engineer in Tamil Nadu P.W.D. According to this witness on the request of the Prevention of Corruption Police and as

slide 582:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 582 per the orders of his higher officers he inspected the buildings bearing Door No.3/178C situated at East Sea Shore Road Vettuvenkeni. Chennai on 24 th 25 th and 28 th October 1996 and prepared the valuation report as per Ex.P.643. This witness specifically deposed on oath that at the time of the inspection Krishna Rao the Asst. Manager PW.243 Muralidharan were present. There were four buildings. One building had three floors each having 42 flats with one bed room and other two buildings had three floors each with two bed room flats. The other building had a ground floor and first floor. It had a garage to park the vehicle one store room and few rooms for the accommodation of employees. Garage construction was completed. The other buildings were not fully completed. Few of the wooden doors were fixed and the remaining were stored. As the garage was closed they took the measurement from outside and calculated the area. The compound wall was erected around the buildings and the value of the compound wall was assessed separately. Cost of electrical items was assessed by the Electrical Engineer at Rs.475701/-. Thus the total valuation of the structure was Rs.15859076/-. As the work was done during 1995-96 the assessment was done at the rate prevailing during 1995-96. By enquiring with the security and the nearby people they confirmed that the construction was done during the year 1995-96.

slide 583:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 583 In the cross-examination it is elicited that the work of construction would have started three months before 28.10.1996 PW.98 did not see any plan for the construction. Model plan prepared by them was not enclosed to Ex.P.643. PW.98 did not know whether the building materials found at the location were meant for that construction or for any other construction. Though this witness was further recalled at the instance of the accused and prevaricated from his earlier statements with regard to the facts noted in Ex.P.643 yet when he was recalled by the prosecution and was specifically questioned in the re-examination as to which among the two versions stated by him regarding the age of the construction were correct PW.98 unequivocally answered that the first version viz. what he has stated in his examination-in-chief is true and correct. As against the above evidence the defence has relied on the testimony of DW.76 M. Shanmugam who was working as Engineer at the relevant point of time and was a member of the team of assessors who prepared Ex.P.643. I have already discussed his evidence in the preceding paragraphs and with reference to Ex.P.643 this witness has deposed that his signature finds place in Ex.P.643 and this witness stated that the building referred in the said report were inspected on 21 st 25 th and 28.10.1996 and he signed Ex.P.643 on

slide 584:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 584 2.1.1996. This witness has also stated that the building was incomplete and the construction might have been commenced 3 to 4 months prior to the date of inspection. No other circumstances are brought out in the evidence of this witness to doubt or disbelieve the facts noted in Ex.P.643 or the valuation arrived at by them as a team in respect of the half constructed building described in item No.178. The evidence of the other witness examined by the defence viz. DW.95 is also discussed above. The defence has mainly relied on the report prepared by him regarding the valuation of eight properties including item No.178. In the said report he has furnished the area of construction and has determined the total value of the building at Rs.10247286/-. On perusal of the measurements shown in Ex.P.643 it is seen that PW.98 and his team has prepared detailed abstract furnishing the description of the rate quantity and the rate per square meter and have arrived at a total cost of construction which is not shown to be false or baseless by the accused. The author of Ex.P.643 has stated about the basis for determining the valuation which has also not been falsified or demonstrated to be wrong. DW.95 has given the total area of the building without furnishing the detailed measurements of individual items. Even otherwise this report having been unilaterally prepared by DW.95 during the pendency of

slide 585:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 585 the proceedings no reliance can be placed on the said report. 78.5 Item No.179: 179 New/ Additional construction in the building at the Grape Garden Farm House in the limits of Jeedi Metla and Petpesherabad Villages in A.P. 64033901.00 PW.98 has stated that on 8.12.1996 9.12.1996 and 10.12.1996 he along with his team members assessed the building in the grape garden premises at Jeedi Metla. Mr. Ramvijayan agent of A-1 was present. In that place there was a new building surrounded by a compound wall. Three sheds for securities and an old building were found within the premises. That was renovated with granite and marbles. Apart from that a garage for parking vehicles workers to stay and generator room were constructed separately. Workers’ residence were roofed with asbestos. Managers and officers rooms were constructed separately. Surrounding the premises 1112-65 meters of compound wall was built to a height of 3 meters with black stones. It was framed with thorn fence and iron angles. In one corner of the compound wall a dumping yard was built. The new building renovated old buildings and the three sheds and the garage were assessed as per the price list of 1995-96. Other buildings were assessed with the price of 1994-95. The year of construction was decided on the basis of the

slide 586:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 586 information given by Ramvijayan and from the details of electrical connection. The value of the building was calculated as per the Andhra Pradesh price list taken from them. The assessment was done as per the plinth area. The total value of the constructions is Rs.64033901/- inclusive of Rs.4153653/- being the value of the electrical work. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the valuation report Ex.P.645. In the cross-examination this witness reiterated that he determined the age of the building on the basis of the date of electrical connection and the enquiries from the nearby people and from his experience. The other aspects of his evidence and the method adopted by him for valuation has not been challenged in the cross-examination. However on 18.12.2002 this witness was recalled for further cross-examination at the instance of the accused and he substantially resiled from his earlier statements stating that in Hyderabad they inspected total four buildings. Among them three buildings were constructed 15 years back and the new building might have been constructed three months before his inspection. Further he answered that he did not collect the price list prevailing in Hyderabad and further stated that Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh P.W.D. did not have price for marble construction and the price detailed in Ex.P.645 is mentioned with their own assumption. But when this witness was recalled

slide 587:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 587 by the prosecution and was subjected to re- examination he confirmed that the first version stated in his examination-in-chief is correct. 78.6 Item No.180: 180 New/ Additional construction in the posh Bangalow at Siruthavur in Chegai MGR Dist. 54052298.00 PW.107 Sornam Supdtg. Engineer P.W.D. has stated that on the instruction of the Chief Engineer he along with the committee constituted by the Chief Engineer inspected Siruthavur bunglow Mahabalipuram Road on 25.10.1996. On behalf of the owner one Ponnuraj was present. They inspected the buildings in his presence. There was a main bunglow a swimming pool a generator room two water tanks three motor rooms two buildings for servants quarters with three living units in one and 10 living units in the other building in the premises. There were two wells of round shape and six ponds to grow fish. There were canals with pipes to cross the channel. A compound wall was built around the main building. There was a road leading to the bunglow from the main road. They made a test hole to find out the details of the foundation and the quality of the material in the presence of Ponnuraj. The main building had a ground floor and a first floor. This building was built with R.C.C. pillars and was linked with beams. The ground floor had six bed rooms a lounge one reception room dining hall

slide 588:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 588 office room kitchen room store room and room for keeping cooked items room for washing hands pooja room and a room for servants. A dove cote has also been built. The main building’s floor was decorated with marble slabs. The walls were decorated with marble stones white marble stones and other marble stones with carved workmanship. The bathrooms were fixed with metallic and ceramic tiles. Doors and windows were made of teakwood frames with iron grills. The portico was fixed with ruby red granite. The first floor had a bath tub. PW.107 and the group engineers took the detailed measurement. When they inspected the building it was under construction. The building has been completed. The construction work might have been started in 1995 and completed in 1996. Hence they followed 1995-96 schedule of rates applicable to Chengai Anna District. Thiruthvaraj Exec. Engineer Electrical and Selvaraj took measurement of electrical work. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the valuation report as per Ex.P.661. In the cross-examination this witness maintained that the buildings were assessed as per the P.W.D. schedule of rates. Regarding the inquiry made with the traders in respect of the price of the sanitary work and marbles he answered that he took down the prices from the market on a small sheet of paper and presently he is not in possession of it. He maintained that Ponnuraj

slide 589:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 589 was present all throughout the inspection and has successfully withstood the cross-examination. 78.7 Item No.181 : 181 New/ Additional construction in the residential building at D.No.36 Poes Garden Chennai – 86. 72498000.00 According to the prosecution the new / additional construction detailed in Sl. No.181 was built by A-1 in her residential premises at Door No.36 Poes Garden Chennai. In order to prove this aspect of the case the prosecution has examined PW.116 the Executive Engineer PWD and PW.220 Thirutvaraj the Asst. Exec. Engineer Elec and has relied on Ex.P.671 672 and Ex.P.2152. PW.116 A. Jayapal has deposed that during 1997 he was working as Executive Engineer Building Division-4 in P.W.D. Under orders from the Chief Engineer Building P.W.D he along with Asst Exec. Engineer T. Ponnaiah Pandian Vijayabalan and Lakshmanan Asst. Engineers Prabhakar Ravi Thangarajan and Raviraj Junior Engineers Vasudevan and Venugopalan and Asst. Exec. Engineer Electrical Gandhi Asst. Exec. Engineer Electrical Thiruthuvaraj Asst. Engineer Electrical Selvaraj took measurements of the buildings located at Door No.36 Poes Garden Chennai for evaluation on 8-12-1996 and 9.12.1996. The campus had a main building and a newly built 5 storyed building one 2 storyed building and security

slide 590:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 590 quarters inside a very high compound wall. The main building was renovated completely. The basement had a new office room connecting the outside verandah. The top portion of the new office room was seen on the first floor. It was attached to the old building. The entire second floor was newly built. The newly built area of the main building was 72.27 sq. mtrs. The newly built area on the first floor was 49.12 sq. mtrs. The other area was completely renovated. The new buildings were estimated to have built during 1993-94. This estimation was based on the sanction given in 1993-94. The garage block was estimated to have built during 1993-94 based on direct inspection and other documents. The main building was fitted completely with high quality marbles and polished granite stone slabs. The exterior of the building was fitted with polished granite of uniform colour. The toilets had high quality sanitary and bathroom fittings. The surrounding walls were fitted with expensive porcelain tiles and granite slabs. There were also bath tubs and telepanic sic showers. The entrance of the drawing room of the main building and the entrance of the dining hall had very expensive sculpture carved structures. All the almirahs bore excellent craftsmanship. The furniture including sofa sets were made of high quality materials. Table tops were fitted with polished granite stones. The lawns and the landscaping in front of the building was done by experts. There were also artificial water fountains.

slide 591:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 591 The campus had five level building raised on concrete pillars with a basement ground floor and three other levels. There was a cinema theatre attaching 3 rd and 4 th floor. There was a conference hall its doors were crafted by the talented artisans with exquisite carvings. The tables chairs sofas found therein bore extraordinary craftsmanship. The terrace had well designed lawn. The building had a separate staircase and a lift. The basement of the two storey building was designed to accommodate a parking lot and rest rooms for the vehicle drivers. The first floor had an office room computer room and conference hall. The flooring and the walls of the conference room were fitted with expensive polished granites. The furniture were made of high quality wood with excellent craftsmanship. The exterior was fitted with the granite in the main building. The security room and the compound wall were built of granite. The compound wall had height of 3.2 meters with two main gates made of iron grills. The iron gates had well designed structures. These iron gates were made of steel with metal plating and powder quoting. Electric Connections inside and outside: The campus had two generators of 125 K.V.A. and 62.5 K.V.A. A total of 39 air conditioners with a

slide 592:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 592 capacity ranging from 1.5 ton to 2.5 tons. The mini cinema theatre was fitted with two projectors of 35 MM along with other light and sound equipments. The chandeliers fixed at many places across the building were counted and evaluated. Television sets dish antenna and other equipments were taken into account for evaluation. The materials used for Electrical connection inside and outside alone were evaluated at Rs.105.25 lakhs and enclosed to the report. Thus the total value of all the buildings in the campus is fixed at Rs.72498000/- Rupees Seven Crore twenty four lakhs ninety eight thousand Ex.P.671 is the valuation report and Ex.P.672 contains the building plans sketches. Ex.P.671 does not include the cost of the land. This witness is extensively cross-examined on 13.01.2000 and it is elicited that with regard to the cost of electrical installation he enclosed the report from the Electrical Engineer as per Ex.P.2152 and with regard to other items he valued them separately as shown in the report. It is brought out in the cross- examination that for the purpose of determining the rates of basic items used for renovation he adopted the schedule of rates and for other items he checked them from the market or shops. PW.1 admitted in the cross- examination that in respect of the newly constructed areas he followed the plinth area rate approved by the

slide 593:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 593 Chief Engineer and for the other items rates were fixed after checking them in the shops. It is elicited that he noted down the rates in his note book and he had brought the note book to the Court on the date of his examination. It is further elicited that regarding the valuation of the carved doors he checked the rates at Arya Bhangi by showing the photographs of the door and the rates were noted down by him on a sheet of paper which was later torn. Likewise it is elicited that the rates noted by him in respect of various other items were also torn by him after preparing the report. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the 5 storied building has 21 items for which rates are not found in the schedule of rates. He took the rates for these items from the shops. The total value of these 21 items is Rs.19829100/-. He can specify the names of the persons who furnished those rates. The rates of the chandeliers and the furniture were also collected from the shops. The lift installed in the five storey building was made by OTIS Company with capacity to carry six persons. He did not go to OTIS Company to verify the rate but adopted the value on the basis of the lift installed in their P.W.D office. The value of the iron gate was checked at Metal Craft and other metal Companies. It is further elicited that totally 39 air conditioners were installed in the building and the value of the window air conditioners was Rs.1013430/- and the value of the split-air

slide 594:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 594 conditioners was Rs.909435/-. He noted down the brand name and after preparing the report he tore up the papers. The rate of 35 MM projector was checked with AVM Company and he also checked the value of the dish antenna. He denied the suggestion that he has inflated the rates under the instructions of the police. Two years after his cross-examination this witness was recalled and again subjected to cross- examination. Surprisingly during this cross- examination he contradicted his own earlier version and deposed that Ex.P.671 does not bear the signature of anybody on all the pages. He further answered that the team was divided into four sub-groups and the said four sub-groups took the minutes separately but none of them were included in Ex.P.671. The owner of the buildings mentioned in Ex.P.671 were not present during the evaluation. The schedule of rates was not enclosed to Ex.P.671. The market rates of the items were not included in the schedule of rates and the rates checked in the market were not enclosed to Ex.P.671. He further answered that the signature of the representative of the buildings was not obtained in the copies of Ex.P.671 all the five buildings they inspected were situate at Door No.38 Poes Garden and some of the old structures were intact. The details about the time of renovation of old buildings is not given in

slide 595:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 595 Ex.P.671. All the buildings they inspected were repaired whenever necessary and were well maintained. As per the advice of the Department they did not take the guidance of the Forest Department to evaluate the wooden structures at Door No.36 they had not taken any quotation as a proof to show that they checked the market rates they did not check the market rates of the glass materials and further stated that none of the building plans attached to Ex.P.672 are originals. He even went to the extent of stating that the compound wall of all the four buildings would have been built in 1968 and they did not take the samples from the floor and wall for valuation and did not consult any Horticultural Expert to evaluate the lawns and did not fix separate valuation for the construction materials used to join the first floor and car shed. He denied the suggestion that the five storied building is not in side the campus and that Ex.P.671 does not mention Door No.31-A. PW.116 further answered in the cross- examination as follows: “we have mentioned only the total area of the structures and have not mentioned the length breadth height and weight of the structures separately.” “We have not enclosed any proof for the enquiries we have made outside. The construction of the five storey building we have inspected would have been started around 2 – 3 months before our inspection and would have been completed at the time of our inspection.

slide 596:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 596 After the transfer of the case this witness was recalled at the instance of the learned Spl. P.P. and was reexamined by putting a question: “In your examination- in-chief you have given the year of construction of various buildings covered by Ex.P.666 to 672 but in cross-examination you have given contradictory statements giving the year of construction out side the check period which one of the two versions is correct Ans: My first version i.e. what I have stated in examination in chief is correct. During the cross-examination by the defence counsel PW.116 answered that what he has stated in the examination-in-chief is supported by documents but they are not produced before the court. PW.220 Thirutvaraj has deposed that his qualification is B.E. Elec. He worked as an Asst. Exec. Engineer in Electrical Sub-Division Chaupak in 1996. As per the orders of his higher officer Tr. Thangavelu he and Asst. Engineer Selvaraj valued the electrical devices in the Ex-Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha’s house in Poes Garden Chennai on 08.12.96 and 09.12.96 and took note of all the electrical devices in the said house. The report given by him is at Ex.P.2152. As per this report two generators a lift with capacity to draw six persons air conditioners refrigerators televisions decorative electrical lamps were found in the house. He has mentioned all the

slide 597:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 597 details in his report. According to him the total electrical devices valued in the house is Rs.10525000/- This witness was cross-examined on 19.10.2000 and he substantially stood by his chief-examination affirming that his team inspected the Poes Garden for two days and along with him Asst. Engineer Selvaraj Administrative Engineer Tr. Jayapal and Asst. Engineer were present and they did the work as one team. They assessed the house buildings on the basis of the prevailing market rate for that month. In his report he mentioned the brand names for 36 items out of 118 items but he did not take any quotations in writing from the companies when they inspected the Poes Garden an advocate of the owner was present. He further answered that the Chief Engineer did not give him any order in writing to inspect the Poes Garden. When they inspected the Poes Garden the electrician Veelagiri was with them. This information is mentioned in Ex.P.2152 but his signature is not taken thereto. It is elicited in the cross-examination that even before the said date he has been attending to the electrical work in Poes Garden and he is having documents in his office for having done the maintenance work of Poes Garden. It is also elicited that in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 129 he inquired the rate in the market and it was valued on the rate prevailed in November 1996 and at the time of

slide 598:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 598 valuation all the devices were in working condition. It is further elicited that he has taken into account the P.W.D rates in November and December 1996. He has denied the suggestion that he did not prepare Ex.P.2152 and he signed the report prepared by the Police. This witness was also recalled on 19.12.2002 at the instance of the accused and during this further cross-examination he diluted the effect of his earlier examination stating that as per the rules of the Tamil Nadu P.W.D a valuation of Rs.15000/- and above has to be done by the Electrical Engineer or his higher official and when he assessed the electrical devices in this case he was not holding the post of Electrical Engineer. However this witness answered that “when we inspected the electrical devices we prepared a proceedings note which runs into 5 or 6 pages. In each page there are 10 to 15 entries. The proceedings note is not in the Court. The assessment value amount is approximate value.” This witness further answered that since the team members did not have any training to value the electronic devices they could not do the assessment and further stated that item Nos.126 to 129 were made of stone and it is a decorative item and therefore they did not have the qualifications to assess those items. The A/C units items valued by them were old pieces and they did not take into consideration the wear and tear of the machines. Finally this witness

slide 599:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 599 answered that at the time of the assessment other than his team and the Police nobody was present. 78.8 Item No.182: 182 New/ Additional construction in building at 149 150 of TTK Road Chennai – 18. 2959000.00 PW.116 A. Jayapal is examined to prove the valuation report Ex.P.667 in respect of these constructions. According to this witness he along with his team members inspected the building at No.149 150 Sriramnagar TTK Road on 23.101996. The building was unfinished. The basement had an area of 390.67 sq. meters. The ground floor measured 486.79 sq. meters. The area of first floor was 266.17. The Chennai Metropolitan Authority sanctioned the plan in 1995 and the construction was stopped at least six months before the inspection. Hence they followed 1995-96 rate fixation list. The building had very little brick construction. The basement was made of stone structure with concrete some parts of the floors were constructed and pillars were raised. Electrical pipes were fixed at the time of laying the concrete. Only those pipes were considered for valuing the electrical works. The total value of the building was assessed at Rs.29.59 lakhs. In the cross-examination it is elicited that centering was not removed at certain places. The

slide 600:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 600 material used for centering looked damaged. The steel rods in the columns were rusted and based on these facts he concluded that the work might have stopped around six months back. He reiterated that schedule of rates applicable to 1995-96 were applied and asserted that Electrical Engineers viz. Sam and Prabhakar estimated the cost of electrical work. 78.9 Item No.183: 183 New/ Additional construction in building at Sea Shell Avenue No.2/1-B-3 Apartment Sholinganallore Saidapet Taluk. 8036868.00 PW.116 has also stated about the valuation done by his team in respect of the above buildings and through this witness the valuation report prepared by him and his team is marked as Ex.P.669. PW.116 deposed that the inspection was done on 29.10.1996 and 30.10.1996. They dug a pit to evaluate the foundation. As per the measurement the basement of the first building had an area of 310.73 sq. mtrs. The first floor measured 279.79 sq. mts and the second floor 12.4 sq. mtrs. Totally 602.92 sq.mtrs. The second building basement had an area of 376.72 sq. mtrs first floor 319.68 and third floor 9.39 totally 705.71 sq. mtrs. At the entrance there was a security room with an area of 2.76 sq. mtrs. Except for the painting the entire construction was over. Both the buildings had very modern designs designed by talented Architects.

slide 601:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 601 The doors windows and almirahs had made of high quality teak wood. The sloping roof was adorned with ornamental tiles. Flooring was done with expensive marble. Bathrooms were fitted with high quality glazed tiles. Two swimming pools were built near the two buildings with necessary arrangements to reach them. There was a separation wall made of ornamental bricks between the two buildings. The pathways were laid with broken marble interspersed with mosaic chips. The electrical fittings were evaluated by the Electrical Engineers. The buildings were valued according to the 1995-96 rate fixation list. In the cross-examination it is elicited that Ex.P.669 contains six items which are not found in the schedule of rates. It is elicited that there are different grades in Teakwood. Craftmanship was just ordinary in windows and almirahs. There are no special rates for windows and doors with good craftsmanship. No expenditure is shown separately for these special doors windows and almirahs. In the cross-examination the value of the marbles and the ornamental tiles are extracted but by and large the veracity of his evidence was not shaken. But this witness was again recalled on 13.01.2000 by the accused and as expected this witness retracted from his earlier versions and answered against his own reports. But when he was recalled and subjected to re-examination by the learned

slide 602:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 602 Spl. P.P. after the transfer of the case he unequivocally stated that the first version stated in his chief- examination is correct. During the further cross- examination by the accused he reiterated that what he has stated in the chief-examination is supported by documents but they have not been produced before the Court. 78.10 Item No.184: 184 New/ Additional Construction in Building at Door No.19 Pattammal Street Mylapore Chennai 800000.00 In proof of the valuation of this property the prosecution has relied on the oral testimony of PW.116 and the Valuation Report Ex.P.670. In his evidence PW.116 has deposed that he along with the team evaluated the above construction on 5.11.1996. The oral testimony of this witness is in conformity with the contents of Ex.P.670 wherein it is stated that the existing building ground floor + first floor has been modified by extending the plinth area in the front and rear side in ground floor and first floor adding one room and stair head room in second floor as framed structure with improved facilities. In his evidence as well as in Ex.P.670 the plinth area of the extended work as per the actual measurement is set out as under: a Ground Floor - 42.06 M2 b First Floor - 42.27 M2

slide 603:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 603 c Second Floor - 23.42 M2 It is specifically stated in the report that the old building was of load bearing structure and the new extension is of framed structure. It is further stated that taking into consideration the approval of plans accorded for the improvements to the existing buildings by MMDA No. 1124/93 dated 3.3.93 and Corporation No. 908/93 dated 3.3.93 it was ascertained that this building was improved during the year 1993-94 and therefore adopting the approved plinth area rate for the year 1993-94 and local rates for the items not covered by the plinth area rates the total cost for the building was estimated at Rs.8.00 lakhs which includes internal and external electrification as per the report submitted by the Asst. Exec. Engineer P.W.D which is also enclosed to Ex.P.670. This witness was cross-examined on 31.12.2002 and it is elicited that the Police showed them the sanctioned building plan of Ex.P.670 but they were not given a copy of it. The owner or the representative of the owner were not present during the evaluation. The model building plan was not enclosed to the report Inspector Palani and Paliniyappan were present during the evaluation but they have not signed the report. It is further elicited that PW.116 did not verify any document regarding the ownership.

slide 604:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 604 This witness was again recalled on 21.02.2003 and was subjected to further cross-examination but nothing damaging has been elicited contrary to the contents of Ex.P.670. However at the instance of the prosecution this witness was recalled on 18.01.2011 and by way of reexamination the witness was asked to clarify the contradictions brought out in his examination and the witness answered that the first version given by him in his chief-examination is correct. Assailing the correctness and reliability of the report prepared by PW.116 and his team the learned Counsel for the accused strenuously contended that the report Ex.P.670 does not contain the details of the non- scheduled items the prosecution has not produced any reliable evidence in proof of the basis for fixing the rate of non-schedule items The Asst. Engineer who valued the internal and external electrification has not examined and the sanctioned plans are not produced before the Court to ascertain the actual date of the alleged renovation and the extent of the additional construction and therefore no reliance can be based on Ex.P.670. The learned Counsel further pointed out that PW.116 was not competent to value the wood items and there is no justification to include 15 of the cost towards the water supply and sanitary arrangement when it is admitted by the prosecution that the old building was already in existence which implies that in

slide 605:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 605 all probability the old building had water supply and sanitary arrangement and a sum of Rs.50433/- shown under this head is liable to be excluded. Likewise the addition of 9 towards the preparation of plan and design having not been substantiated by any cogent evidence the sum of Rs.69860/- towards item No.17 shown in the abstract is also liable to be excluded. Further the prosecution having not examined the Asst. Exec. Engineer who is said to have prepared the valuation of the electrical installations amounting to Rs. 88000/- is also liable to be excluded from the total cost of Rs. 8 lakhs fixed by the prosecution. The learned Counsel further submitted that the building in question belongs to Jaya Publications which has filed the returns before the Income Tax Authorities declaring the expenditure of Rs. 642290.03 which has been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities. The prosecution having not been able to substantiate the report filed before the Court the actual amount shown in the returns filed by A-1 and A-2 may be taken as the proper expenditure incurred towards the said construction. In appreciating the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the accused it is pertinent to note that in the written statement filed by A-2 u/Sec. 243 1 Cr.P.C. it is stated that “the actual expenditure on construction of the property till the end of March 1996

slide 606:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 606 amounts to Rs.642290.30 and the same has been intimated to the Income Tax Department vide the return of Income which were filed.” The accused have not produced any such returns before the Court to ascertain whether the amount declared before the Tax Authorities pertains only to the structure or whether it also includes any of the facilities and the non-scheduled items noted in the abstract viz. the ornamental doors teakwood cupboards and ruby red granites etc. The accused have not disputed the existence of these facilities. More over in the report as well as in the evidence of PW.116 it is brought out that the plinth area rate for the year 1993-94 was adopted. But A-2 has now admitted that the expenditure on construction was incurred till the end of March 1996 in which case the rate applicable for the year 1995-1996 ought to have been applied which would certainly be much higher than what has been estimated by the PW.116. 78.11 Item No.185: 185 New/ Additional Construction in residential building at Door No.21 Padmanabha Street T. Nagar Chennai-17 2043000.00 In respect of this item PW.116 deposed that he along with his team inspected the building at 21 Padmanabhan Street on 15 and 16.10.1996. The building had a ground floor first floor and a second floor. It was a framed structure with concrete pillars.

slide 607:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 607 Before taking measurements they dug the foundations and measured each room of the building. The ground floor had an area of 165.61 sq. mtrs. First floor 158.14 sq. mtr. Second floor 12.49 sq. mtrs. Apart from this there was a toilet and another room in the ground floor measuring 8.63 sq. mtrs. Corporation sanction was given to the building on 16.2.94. Electricity connection was given on 10.3.95. They evaluated the building on the basis of the PWD list applicable for the year 1994- 95. In respect of the articles not listed in the price list they considered the market value. Sam and Prabhakaran determined the value of the electrical fittings. The building had certain special features like facade fitted with ruby red granites sloped roof was fitted with ornamental tiles. The flooring was done with polished high quality marble stones. The exquisite wooden structure at the entrance was made of teakwood. The doors were of teakwood. The locks and other fittings were made of bronze. Bathrooms were fitted with superior quality glazed tiles. The interior and exterior was painted with high quality paint. The compound wall was fitted with Dolpur stones. The grills bore good workmanship. The pathways were laid with broken marble. There was a landscaped lawn. The valuation report is marked as Ex.P.666. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the sanctioned building plan was provided by the officials of Anti-corruption Department. He is extensively cross-

slide 608:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 608 examined regarding the classification of categories for fixing the schedule of rates. Regarding the non- standard items he answered that a note of the prices was collected from the shops and catalogue in respect of some items was also obtained through shopkeepers. Those details were noted in the notebook. Further this witness answered that there is no schedule of rates for ornamental doors and polished marbles and for paint. 78.12 Item No.186: 186 New/ Additional Construction in residential building at No.L/66 Anna Nagar Chennai 2483759 PW.98 has spoken about the assessment of the valuation of the building at Anna Nagar and through this witness the valuation report is marked as Ex.P.641. According to this witness he along with the team members inspected the buildings on 15 16.10.1996. They took the measurements. During the time of inspection one Sri.A.V.K. Reddy was residing in that building. He was present on both days of inspection. The electrical equipments were assessed by Mr. Gandhi Asst. Exec. Engineer Udayasuryan Asst. Engineer from the Department. On the basis of the rent agreement and the enquiries with the nearby people they determined that the building was constructed during 1994-95 and accordingly they applied the P.W.D. rate applicable for that year. The building contained ground

slide 609:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 609 floor measuring 138.42 sq. mtrs. and first floor measuring 151.42 sq. mtrs. It was a framed structure surrounded by ornamental gate and the entrance was decorated by broken marbles. The entrance pillars were made of granite stones the floor with marble stones and the staircase steps and wall with Dolpur stones. All these details are mentioned in Ex.P.641. In the cross-examination it is elicited that Ex.P.641 does not contain the details of the permission given by the Corporation and in which month the tenants occupied the house. It is further elicited that he assessed 7.5 for inside water supply and 7.5 for sanitary work. Though he diluted his evidence during the further cross-examination by the accused but when he was recalled and subjected to reexamination by the learned Spl. P.P. he confirmed that the first version stated in his chief-examination is true and correct. 78.13 Item No.187: 187 New/ Additional Construction in Building at Door No.5 Murugesan Street T.Nagar Chennai-17 1092828.00 PW.98 has also spoken about the inspection of Door No.5 Murugesan Street and the valuation report prepared by him is marked as Ex.P.642. He has stated that that the team inspected the building on 23.10.96.

slide 610:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 610 The Asst Tamil Nadu Housing Board was also present. The building plan was sanctioned by Corporation and Metropolitan Authorities. When he inspected the building underground concrete work had been completed. In the ground floor column pillars were standing at different levels. The steel required for construction was stored. As per their assessment the value of the building was Rs.1092828/- inclusive of the electrical work of Rs.15853/-. In the cross-examination also this witness reiterated that the plan was sanctioned on 28.5.1995 one year relaxation was given to start the construction. He has not added the service charge as only underground is constructed. 78.14 Item No.188: 188 New/ Additional Construction in residential building 4 Nos in the campus at No.1/240 Enjambakkam in New Mahabalipuram Road. 5311000.00 Through PW.116 the prosecution has marked the valuation report Ex.P.668 in respect of the above construction. According to PW.116 he along with his team members inspected the four buildings located at No.1/240 Enjambakkam for two days on 24 and 25.10.1996. All the four buildings were in different stages of construction. The inspection revealed that the

slide 611:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 611 construction had taken place during 1995-96. Hence they applied the rate fixation list of 1995-96 for the purpose of valuation. The first building was built up to second floor. Roofing was done for two bedrooms. The second building was built up to second floor. The third building was completed up to second floor and the roofing was also done. The fourth building was raised up to second floor but roofing was not done. The ground floor of all the buildings had doors windows and ventilators made of teakwood shutters and doors were not fixed. Cement plastering was done in certain parts. The date of plastering was written with chalk on the walls. Flooring was not done in any of the buildings. Marble slabs meant for the flooring were kept in the campus. Their price is also included in the valuation. Door frames and window frames meant for fixing were also seen in the premises and they were also considered for valuation. An overhead tank with a size of 2.86 x 2.26 meter and 1.2 mtr hight was built. A well with a diameter of 1.93 meters was sunk near the tank. Pipelines were not fixed. The value of the four buildings were assessed at 53.11 lakhs as per Ex.P.668. In the cross-examination this witness answered that except for marble slabs piled up there was schedule of rates for all other things. Sam and Prabhakar Electrical Engineers valued the electrical works and submitted the report on 02.11.96.

slide 612:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 612 78.15 Item No.189: 189 New/ Additional Construction in residential Building at No.1 Murphy St. Akkarai Chennai. 2038959.00 PW.98 has deposed that on 29.10.96 and 30.10.1996 they took measurements to assess the buildings at No.1 Murphy Street Hakkarai Village. The Asst. of Tamil Nadu Housing Board was also present. The building plan was provided by the officers of the Prevention of Corruption Department. The building was constructed during 1994-95. That was determined on the basis of electrical connection given to the building. The building had two floors. The area of the ground floor 180.59 sq. mtrs. first floor 188.68 sq. mtrs. There was slight difference in the area mentioned in the report. The report prepared by this witness is marked as Ex.P.644. In the cross-examination it is brought out that the value of the electrical work was evaluated by electrical Asst. Engineers Gandhi and Udayasuryan. In Ex.P.644 a sum of Rs.156134/- is included as service charge. It is also elicited that PW.98 did not provide the standard rate to the police. This witness resiled from his earlier statements during the further cross- examination by the accused but in the reexamination by the learned Spl. P.P. confirmed the correctness of

slide 613:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 613 the statements made by him during his examination-in- chief. 78.16 Item No.190: 190 New/ Additional Construction in Building at S.No.32/2-4 Plot Nos.S-7 Ganapathy Colony Tr. Vi-Ka Indl. Estate Guindy Chennai-32. 3934000.00 PW.117 Era Govindan is examined to prove the valuation of this item. Accordng to this witness he along with the Engineers of his team inspected the industrial shed at Plot No.S.7 Tr. Vi-Ka Indl. Estate on 12.11.1996. On behalf of the owners one Krishnaprakash was present. The building comprised of three floors. There was highly decorative and ornate staircase to go to the first and second floor. There was no wall in all the three floors but only RCC columns. All the floors were laid with marbles ceramic tiles were fixed inside the building. Dolpur stones were fixed outside the building. Ruby red shining granites were fixed at the entrance. Walkway around the building was paved with Kota Stones. The compound wall was built all around. The area of the ground floor measured 285.12 sq. mtrs. first floor 288.66 sq. mtrs and third floor 301.13 sq. mtrs. In the open terrace staircase had a separate room measuring 8.65 sq. mtrs. They arrived at a conclusion that the building was built in 1991-92 by digging the foundation and on enquiry with

slide 614:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 614 neighbours and by their technical experience. The total value of the building was assessed at Rs.3934000.00 and valuation report was prepared as per Ex.P.677. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he assessed the value of the materials which did not figure in the list by enquiring with traders. He did not note down the address and telephone numbers of those persons. That data was not enclosed with the valuation report. PW.117 was present when electrical engineers evaluated the electrical articles. 78.17 Item No.191: 191 New/ Additional Construction in Buildings and the change of roof for the works shed at MF-9 Guindy Industrial Estate Chennai-32. 1417538.00 PW.117 has deposed that he along with his team inspected the industries at Door No.MF-9 Tr. Vi-Ka Indl. Estate Guindy on 4.11.96. A. Rajan the representative of the owner was present at the spot. There were four workers’ sheds. Two sheds had two units and the other two consisted of one unit each. In all it had six units. The approved plan showed that only the roof was modified but the whole building was new construction. Its foundation was laid under Rim- Pile foundation method. He arrived at the conclusion that the building was constructed in the year 1993-94 on the basis of the enquiry and on the strength of his experience. In addition to the four buildings an

slide 615:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 615 overhead tank was also constructed. Each unit had a medium sized room and two godowns. Every unit had its own independent toilets and bathrooms. Every unit had cement flooring and cemented roof. The entrance of the units was paved with carved rough stones. The area of the one unit building was 43.68 sq. mtrs. Building No.2 measured 85.95 sq. mtrs building No.3 measured 101.3 sq. mtrs. building No.4 measured 47.68 sq. mtrs. The total cost of the building was Rs.1545000/-. Drawings and the valuation reports of the electrical goods were enclosed with the report Ex.P.674. This witness further deposed that again he inspected the said shed on 3.1.1997 and prepared the report as per Ex.P.675. In Ex.P.675 the total value of the sheds is shown as Rs.2383098/- but the prosecution has included only Rs.1417538/- being the value of the buildings in item No.191. In the cross-examination it is brought out that PW.117 evaluated the buildings pursuant to the orders of the Chief-Engineer. The buildings mentioned in Ex.P.674 are ordinary buildings and he valued them on the basis of square area method of P.W.D. He denied the suggestion that there will be likelihood of huge difference between detailed report and the evaluation report and hence he did not file the detailed report. He also denied the suggestion that his valuation report contains inflated figures as desired by the police.

slide 616:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 616 78.18 Item No. 301: 301 Cost of renovation and additional construction between June 1992 and 1993 of the building at Plot No.102 ITI Cross Road Pon Nagar Trichy owned by Tmt. N. Sasikala covered by Document No.2256/90 dt. 3-5-90 of S.R.O.T. O.R.B. Trichy 3934000.00 PW.144 Veerabahu Spl. Chief Officer P.W.D. Buildings Madurai has deposed that he received an order from the Chief Engineer to inspect and prepare a report of a building situate in Plot No.102 Pon Nagar Trichy. He inspected that place along with Asst. Exec. Engineer Jayabalan Inspector Suresh Kumar Murugeyan. D. Vivekanandan who was in that house was present. He prepared the notes of the proceedings as per Ex.P.781. Again on 9.4.1997 he visited the place to assess the entire building along with inspector Suresh and Asst. Exec. Engineer. Vasu the earlier owner of the building was present. He inspected the building and prepared the report as per Ex.P.782. According to this witness the entire flooring of the ground floor was made of granite. Ground floor was air conditioned. Granites were laid in the verandah. Pooja room had a teak wardrobe. Dining room had granite flooring. Attached toilet with geyser front gate had decorated arches all the rooms had curtains and related woodwork. In the first floor bedrooms had four separate A/c. units with lower. From his experience he

slide 617:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 617 came to know that the building was constructed during 92-93. In the cross-examination this witness answered that the building he inspected was an old building. He handed over the notes of proceedings to the police but they are not enclosed with Ex.P.782. The granite flooring might have been done in the year 1990 and further stated that as desired by the police he prepared the evaluation report as per Ex.P.782. Further this witness answered that they have not seen the approved plan of the old building or the additional construction. But this witness was recalled by the learned Spl. P.P. and in the re-examination he answered that the statement made by him to the effect that the building constructed in the year 1992-93 is correct. 78.19 Item No.302: 302 ii Cost of acquisition and renovation of two flats on the fourth floor at Door No.1 Wallace Garden I Street Chennai-34 owned by M/s. Lex Property Development P Ltd. covered by Document No.370/94 of S.R.O. Thousand lights Rs.3446032.00 PW.87 Subhiah has stated that from July 96 to September 1999 he worked as Exec. Engineer in Tuticorin. On the instructions of the Jt.Supdt. he inspected the land and buildings belonging to Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. situate at Serakulam Village

slide 618:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 618 on 14.11.1996. The Asst. Exec. Engineer Jr. Engineer The Dy. Supdt. Village Administration Officer and employees of Riverway Agro Products Pvt Ltd. were present. There was one farm house three pump rooms and three borewells. From the labourers he came to know that the buildings were constructed during the year 1995-96. As bricks and cement mixtures were there he decided that the buildings have been constructed during 95-96 only. He prepared a report as per Ex.P.518. The Village Officer and the Jt. Supdt. and the workers employed there have also signed Ex.P.518. He prepared a map of the building noted the measurements and after returning to his office prepared the valuation report as per Ex.P.519. This witness further stated that he prepared the valuation as per 1995-96 P.W.D. price list and in respect of the items not listed in the price list he ascertained the price from neighbouring places and his own experience. He further stated that there is a mistake in the calculation and the total value comes to Rs.708288/-. In the cross-examination this witness answered that Ex.P.518 was written by the Asst. Exec. Engineer Kailasam. Measurements were taken while the report was being completed. On 14 th he took the measurements and he himself noted them down. He came to know the price of stone pillars through enquiry from nearby people. But these details are not found in Ex.P.519. In respect of the borewells he took the rates

slide 619:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 619 of Tamil Nadu Water Board. The notes used for the preparation of the report are destroyed after preparing the report. This witness also was recalled by the accused and he deposed against his own previous statement but during the reexamination by the learned Spl. P.P. on 3.1.2011 he affirmed that the version stated by him stating that the constructions were made in 1995-96 is correct. 78.20 The learned Counsel has highlighted the following defects in the evaluation of the buildings viz. i Measurements of buildings is not given in the valuation report. Without furnishing the measurement of cross section it is not possible to find out the quantity of construction. ii Age of the building and period of the construction is not determined by acceptable and scientific methods. iii Basis for Calculation of the price for non- scheduled items is not provided in any of the assessments. iv Though the witnesses have stated that valuation is determined on the basis of the PWD rate PWD rate book is not furnished for inspection of the Court.

slide 620:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 620 v The assessment of eight properties are stated to have been conducted between October 1996 and December 1996 i.e. after the check period which ended on 30.04.1996. There is no evidence to show that any constructions were made after April 1996 till the date of inspection of the properties by the investigating agency. vi In almost all the assessment reports it is stated that the constructions are valued as per the rate prevailing in 1996 but no evidence is produced before the Court as to what was the actual rate prevailing in 1996. vii The valuation is effected without notice to the owner and in their absence contrary to the guidelines contained in the vigilance manual. viii As per the vigilance manual the calculations are required to be made on detailed estimate basis whereas in the instant case all the witnesses have admitted and it is borne on the valuation report produced before the Court that the valuation was done on plinth area basis. ix The officials who assessed the constructions were not experts in valuation

slide 621:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 621 of property and none of the assessors were qualified and competent to assess the buildings or the renovations. x The committee was appointed by orders of the Government and the purpose of the valuation was intimated in advance to the valuers. As a result none of the valuers were in a position to act independently. xi The committee was not acting in unison and there was no coordination between the members of the committee which has resulted in apparent discrepancies in the method of valuation adopted by different members. The members of the committee have not signed the report. xii No effort is made to determine the expenditure incurred by A-1 and when the said expenditure was incurred by her. 78.21 In support of his argument that the plinth are rates should not have been followed for valuation of buildings constructed by the Government servant the learned Counsel for the accused has referred to the Circular Memo No.WKS II 3/91451 dated 6.6.1981 issued by the Chief Engineer Public Works Department General and Buildings Madras which reads as follows Subject.- Buildings – Valuation of buildings for vigilance enquiry – Procedure to be followed – Instruction issued – Regarding

slide 622:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 622 Requisitions are often received from the offices of the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for valuation of buildings constructed by Government Servants. 2. In this connection it is observed that the purpose of vigilance enquiry is to assess the probable expenditure one might have reasonably expected to have incurred in putting up the construction of the building. As such the adoption of the market rates prevailed during the actual period of construction of the building concerned will alone be the proper basis for arriving at the probable original cost of construction since the valuation is sought for enquiry purpose it is preferable to prepare a detailed estimate based on the schedule of rates for the actual period of constructions and the net estimated value so arrived at shall be treated as the probable original value of construction. For this purpose details on actual or probable period of construction shall be obtained from the Vigilance Department. For any item of work not provided for in the schedule of rates suitable rates may be worked out or lump- sum provision of adopted on reasonable basis at the discretion of officer furnishing the valuation. The Superintending Engineers of regular circles should also see that one copy of schedule of rates is kept in separate stock file on permanent basis for reference in such matters at any later date. 3 The Executive Engineer concerned should take every effort in reporting the probable original cost of construction on the most reasonable way indicating in the covering letter the probable period of constructyion the basis for the rates adopted and the period difference in actual construction and the plan furnished by the Vigilance Department etc. so that further correspondences can be avoided or minimized.

slide 623:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 623 4. The Superintending Engineers are requested to take note that the procedures adopting the plinth area rates as on the date of valuation restricting the valuation for sanitary electrical and water supply items to fixed percentages such as 7-1/2 percent each and deducting for depreciation etc. as contemplated in C.E.’s Buildings Circular Memo. No.II.3/67092/73-8 dated 15 th October 1973 is meant for fixing reasonable rent for private buildings taken on lease and this procedure should not be adopted for valuation of probable original cost of construction required by Vigilance Department.” 78.22 There is nothing in this Circular to indicate that plinth area rates should not be adopted in assessing the buildings. Clause No.4 of the said memo deals with the procedure to be followed for fixing the reasonable rent for private buildings taken on lease. Therefore the argument based on the said circular is mis-conceived. 78.23 Even DW.95 examined by the defence has stated before the court: “I have adopted plinth area rates for the evaluation of the building in my report.” Further this witness has stated “I have produced the plinth area rate books applicable to Chennai and Chengalpattu MGR district in Tamil Nadu for the year 93-94 94-95 and 95-96. Through this witness the defence has marked the plinth area rates for the relevant years as per Ex.D.380 D.381 and D.382. Even in Ex.D.306 produced by this witness he has assessed the valuation on plinth rate area in respect of the civil construction

slide 624:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 624 and for non-scheduled items. Therefore the argument of the learned Counsel that plinth area should not have been adopted for estimating the value of the buildings cannot be accepted. 78.24 The learned Counsel pointed out that one of the fourteen persons mentioned in Ex.P.14 who participated in the assessment of the buildings is examined by the accused as DW.78 and this witness has pointed out plethora of defects in the investigation report relied on by the prosecution which is sufficient to hold that the valuation reports prepared by the prosecution witnesses are not in accordance with the established norms and the said officials were not competent to assess the building and estimate their cost. 78.25 I have gone through the evidence of DW.78 who has deposed that during the year 1995 he was working as Asst. Exec. Engineer in Public Works Department. Ex.P.671 bears his signature. A team of experts consisting of 14 persons was constituted by the Government for assessing the value of Poes Garden House property of A-1. Out of them 11 were Public Works Department Civil Engineers and three were Electrical Engineers. According to this witness building valuation can be done on the basis of plinth area of the building. The other method adopted in building valuation is detailed method. The Public Works

slide 625:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 625 Department S.R. rates are in respect of general items only and for non-schedule items rates are not fixed by Public Works Department. From the report Ex.P.671 it is not possible to state the basis on which the rates on special items were adopted. According to this witness by looking at Ex.671 and Ex.671 it is not possible to verify and state whether the quantum mentioned in the abstract are correct or not. By looking at the granite marble slabs claddings in Poes Garden building it was not possible to say as to when they were laid. The cross-section details of 5 storeyed buildings are not enclosed to the report Ex.P.672. 78.26 In appreciating the testimony of this witness it is relevant to note he was only an Asst. Engineer who assisted the team and was not independently required to assess the buildings. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he has signed Ex.P.671 without raising any objections. He has also admitted that the team took the measurements of the property referred in Ex.P.671 and Ex.P.672 during the inspection and these measurements were noted in the working sheets by the team members. This evidence is in conformity with the testimony of PW.116. He has admitted that Ex.P.671 is based on plinth area rate of 93-94. It is further elicited that he did not involve himself in the preparation of the working sheet. When a specific suggestion was made to this witness that the

slide 626:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 626 team had adopted detailed estimation method for valuing properties referred in Ex.P.671 and P.672 DW.78 answered “we had also adopted plinth area method for the valuation”. 78.27 The prosecution has not denied the fact that in respect of the new constructions plinth area rate is adopted as stated in the respective reports. The details in this regard find place in the abstracts. In the report it is specifically stated that during the assessment it was ascertained that the buildings have been constructed in the relevant year noted therein and accordingly the valuation was determined on the basis of the P.W.D. rates of the relevant year. 78.28 Though the learned Counsel for the accused has repeatedly argued that the age of construction or renovation has not been determined by the valuation team the evidence culled out above clearly disclose that the assessing team had arrived at the year of construction in each case. In this context it is relevant to refer to the written statement filed by the accused u/Sec. 2431 Cr.P.C. wherein A-1 has unequivocally admitted that the renovation and the construction in respect of the item No.181 was effected during the check period. That apart the prosecution has produced the files relating to the sanction obtained by the respective accused for constructions of the aforesaid buildings which are already discussed in the

slide 627:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 627 earlier part of this judgment. The said files contain the building plans and the approval granted by the statutory authority which corroborate the contents of the valuation reports submitted before the Court. It has also come in evidence that in some cases the buildings are constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans and in some cases there is violation of the building plans. The prosecution has also produced direct evidence to show that in respect of the completed constructions electrical connection also has been taken. In the face of this evidence the contention of the accused that the age of the buildings has not been determined and the measurements and the dimensions thereof are not specified in the report do not hold any water. 78.29 The learned Counsel for the accused has produced Exs.D.380 Ex.D.381 and Ex.D.382 which disclose the plinth area rates for preparation of rough cost estimate for the building schemes for obtaining the approval of the competent authority for adoption during 1993-94. In the said documents it is stated that the plinth area rates are inclusive of provisions of internal water supply and sanitary installations at 7.5 each on rough cost estimates and the plinth area rates are inclusive of provisions of internal electrical installations at 10 on the rough estimated cost of residential buildings and non-residential buildings and at 15 on

slide 628:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 628 the rough cost estimate of hospital buildings and at 7.5 on the rough estimated cost of godown and bus stand. These documents do not help the accused who have been contending that the plinth area rate should not be adopted in estimating the cost of the construction. Even in Ex.P.671 only for the new constructions plinth area rate is adopted and for all other items either the scheduled rates or the lump-sum rate has been used. 78.30 Learned Counsel has referred to large number of authorities to drive home the point that the testimony of an expert witness must satisfy the basic requirements under law. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that an expert must possess expertise in the field in which he is examined as a witness. He should be absolutely independent with no stakes in the litigation. An expert must be in a position to support his reasoning with data verifiable by the Court and only then he qualifies to be an expert witness and the testimony of such witness can be relied on by the Court for the purpose arriving at a just decision in the matter in controversy. The learned Counsel has placed reliance in the case of White House Repellent and Jordan and another respondents House of Lords 1981- 1 WLR 246 wherein at page 10 it is observed : “While some degree of consultation between experts and legal advisors is entirely proper it is

slide 629:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 629 necessary that expert evidence presented to the Court should be and should be seen to be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation. To the extent that it is not the evidence is likely to be not only incorrect but self- defeating”. In State of H.P. vs. Jailal and others 1999 7 SCC 280 it is observed: “An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case... The credibility of such witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.” In Ramesh Chandra Agarwal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors. 2009 9 SCC 709 it is held: “Mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence even if it comes from an expert where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion the evidence even though admissible may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value.” On the same point Sri. Amit Desai the learned Senior Counsel for A-3 and A-4 has referred to the case

slide 630:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 630 of Magan Bihari Lal vs. The State of Punjab 1977 2 SCC 210 wherein dealing with the evidentiary value of the report of handwriting expert the Honble Supreme Court has held that “…it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of the handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of the handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.” On the requirement that the opinion evidence of an expert could be relied on only when it is corroborated by other evidence the learned Counsel has referred to the case of Musheer Khan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 2 SCC 748 wherein it is observed that before the Court can appreciate the relevance of the finger prints the Court has to look to the substantive evidence. Similar proposition is laid down in the case of Shashi Kumar vs. Subodh Kumar AIR 1964 SC. 529 as under “before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence”. 78.31 It is the submission of the learned Counsel that in the instant case even though it has come in evidence that the architect was examined by the

slide 631:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 631 investigating officer and his statement was recorded neither the said architect nor the contractor are examined by the prosecution which could have been the best evidence to prove the alleged expenses incurred for the construction. The learned Counsel pointed out that in Annx-III at Sl. No.208 a sum of Rs.20000/- is shown under the head “Expenditure” paid by A-4 to the architect but shockingly in the valuation report prepared by PW.107 a sum of Rs.43 lakhs is shown as the amount paid to the architect which itself is sufficient to show that the prosecution has resorted to dubious methods to inflate the figures so as to create suspicion in the mind of the Court on the magnitude of the assets purported to be held by the accused. 78.32 Though the learned Counsel has made much of the non-examination of the architect and the contractor the non-examination of the witnesses by themselves cannot be taken as a circumstance weakening the case of the prosecution if the prosecution is otherwise able to substantiate the fact in controversy by the evidence produced before the Court. In this context it is apposite to refer to the very same decision relied on by the learned Counsel for A-3 reported in 1974 3 SCC 388 wherein at para 13 it is observed as under “It is no doubt true that the prosecution is bound to produce witnesses who are essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the

slide 632:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 632 prosecution is based. Apart from that it cannot be laid down as a rule that if a large number of persons are present at the time of the occurrence the prosecution is bound to call and examine each and every one of these persons. The answer to the question as to what is the effect of the non-examination of a particular witness would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. In case enough number of witnesses have been examined with regard to the actual occurrence and their evidence is reliable and sufficient to base the conviction of the accused thereon the prosecution may well decide to refrain from examining the other witnesses. Likewise if any of the witnesses is won over by the accused party and as such is not likely to state the truth the prosecution would have a valid ground for not examining him in Court. The prosecution would not however be justified in non- examining a witness on the ground that his evidence even though not untrue would go in favour of the accused.” 78.33 In the instant case there cannot be any dispute that the Engineers examined by the prosecution are competent to estimate the valuation of the structures. The accused themselves have relied on the valuation report prepared by the P.W.D. Engineers who were part of the team to controvert the reports prepared by the prosecution witnesses. It is not explained by the prosecution as to why the reports prepared by DW.78 and DW.83 are preferable to the reports prepared by the entire team which are proved in a Court of law. Undisputedly the actual cost incurred for the constructions is within the knowledge of the

slide 633:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 633 accused. It has come in evidence that contractors and architects were appointed in connection with the construction. The learned Counsel for A-4 himself has referred to the payment made to the architect who is examined by the accused as DW.88. Under the said circumstance instead of relying on the reports of DW.78 and DW.83 the accused could have very well produced the actual bills for having purchased the materials and could have examined the contractors and the persons who supplied the materials in proof of the actual cost incurred for the constructions. 78.34 It is pertinent to note that the accused do not dispute the measurement of the buildings and the nature of the constructions and the quality of the materials used therein. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have specifically deposed about the use of high quality marble and exquisite decorative articles and use of teakwood for the doors and windows and for other purposes. No doubt it is true that the prosecution has not produced any direct evidence in proof of the cost of these special items and has solely relied on the oral testimony of the above witnesses who have merely stated that they ascertained the price of the marbles and other special items from the market. But it should not be forgotten that the special items having been procured by the accused from the concerns known to them the price paid thereto is specially within the

slide 634:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 634 knowledge of the accused. Having regard to the burden cast on the accused in view of the provisions of Sec. 131e of the Act which requires the accused to offer satisfactory explanation when the existence of assets are proved by the prosecution the accused were not prevented from adducing necessary evidence to show that the value of the special items quoted by the prosecution is more than the price paid by them in respect of these special items. 78.35 No doubt it is true that an attempt is made by the accused to prove the cost of the marbles by examining DW.96 and through him the copies of invoices are marked as Ex.D.210 series. But on going through his evidence it is seen that the rates furnished by him relate to the year 1999 whereas the buildings in question are proved to have been constructed between 1994 and 1996. Therefore even the rates spoken to by DW.96 cannot be accepted. The invoices produced by this witness do not tally with the description of the marbles noted in the respective valuation reports. Therefore I do not find any justifiable reasons to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused regarding the valuation adopted by the prosecution. However as the prosecution has not produced convincing evidence in support of the value fixed by the PWD Engineers in respect of the value of the special items and there being

slide 635:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 635 some dispute regarding the payments of the architect’s fees in order to meet the ends of justice it would be proper to reduce the over all cost of constructions by 20 of the total estimation given by the prosecution witnesses. In this way by reducing the total cost of constructions by 20 the cost of the new and additional constructions of the buildings effected by the accused during the check period is determined at Rs.225392344.00. 79. IV: GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY: ANNEXURE – II Item Nos. 284 – 290 284 86 items of Jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 31.3.1991. Rs.1750031.00 285 62 items of Jewels claimed to be of Tmt.N.Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 31.03.1991 Rs. 938460.00 286 26 items of Jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s.VBC Trust on 16.01.92 Rs.1930852.00 287 34 items of Jewels purporting to be of Tmt.N.Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 16.01.1992 Rs. 1754868.00 288 41 items of Jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 31.3.92 Trust on 31.03.1991. Rs. 2390058.25

slide 636:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 636 289 228 items of Jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s.Kirtilal Kalidas Co. - Rs.14075958.00 290 Value of 394 items of jewels seized from the house of Selvi J. Jayalalitha during2/96 after excluding 74 items of jewels out of 468 Jewels already evaluated by M/s. Kirtilal Kalidas Co. 21 items of jewels and M/s. VBC Trust 53 items of jewels. Rs.31267725.00 295 Gold Jewellery Plain/ studded studded with Diamonds weighing 39.22 carets of diamond and 777.73 grams of Gold presented to V.N.Sudhakaran and Sathiyalakshmi at the time of their Betrothal by J.Jayalalitha on 12.6.95 Gold Rs.295061.50 Diamonds Rs. 899320.00 Total Rs.1194381.00 Rs.1194381.00 Item Nos.284 and 285 of Annx–II are shown in Annexure-I at Sl. No. 44 and 45 as the assets at the beginning of the check period as on 01.07.1991. Therefore the value of these two items amounting to Rs.2688491.00 cannot be included in the computation under this head. 79.1 PW.259 the Investigating Officer has stated that on 06.12.1996 he obtained two search warrants from the Chennai Metropolitan Principal Sessions Court one to search No.36 Poes Garden and another to

slide 637:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 637 search Jeedi Metla property. On 7.12.1996 he came to know that A-1 was arrested in another case. Hence he went to the office of the City Commissioner Chennai and sought permission to meet A-1. He met A-1 and explained her about the search warrant and required her to send her representative to assist in the search. She authorized Mr. Bhaskaran and Mr. Vijayan as her representatives. Accordingly PW.259 sent PW.256 with a team along with Mr. Vijayan to Hyderabad. On 7.12.1996 at 12.30 pm. he along with his team went to No.36 Poes Garden and met Mr. Bhaskaran the representative of A-1. He permitted to conduct the search. A superficial search was carried out from 7.12.96 to 12.12.96. After the search on 12.12.96 the valuable jewels were kept in two separate rooms and sealed and keys were given to Mr. Bhaskaran. On 20.12.96 they got the rooms opened through Bhaskaran to value the jewels. PW.125 Vasudevan verified and valued the jewels and prepared a report. The gold and diamond jewels valued by PW.125 were seized through a mahazar as per Ex.P.703. Since it was a holiday he kept the seized articles in Nandanam branch treasury. The silver articles were not seized. They were kept in 36 Poes Garden in a separate room under lock and key handed over to Bhaskaran. 79.2 Ex.P.703 is the mahazar dt. 21.12.1996. It reads “Today 20.12.1996 between 15.30 hours and 8.30

slide 638:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 638 hours on 21.12.1996 in the premises of the house bearing Door No.36 Poes Garden including 31-A Poes Garden Chennai belonging to Selvi J. Jayalalitha in the presence of two authorized representatives 1 Tr. V. Baskaran S/o. Tr. V. Velayudhan 159 Karpagambal Nagar Kattiwakkam Madras-41 and 2 Tr. S. Shanmugham S/o. Tr. A.N. Sundar Vinayagam No.18 Appu Mudali Street Mylapore Madras-4 and the official witnesses 1 Tr. T.A.T. Abraham P.A. Genl to the Collector of Chennai and 2 Tr. P.C. Krishnamoorthy Spl. Tahasildar Urban Land Development Mylapore Chennai the following jewellery which were inspected examined and certified by Tr. M.V. Vasudevan Appraiser Customs Expert in jewellery were seized as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Court in reference Crl.M.P. No.7882/96 dated 19.12.1996”. 79.3 In the said mahazar the details of 468 items of gold jewellery with their weight and distinguishing marks are detailed. Item No.469 is VIP Maxima suitcases-5 Nos. Under Ex.P.705 13 gold items of jewellery were seized from the house bearing Door No.16 Chevalier Sivaji Ganeshan T. Nagar Chennai. 79.4 All the pages of the said seizure mahazar running to 51 pages are signed by all the persons named in the report and including V. Bhaskaran and in the last page the said Bhaskaran has acknowledged receipt of the copy of the said mahazar.

slide 639:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 639 79.5 The accused have not disputed the seizure of the gold and diamond jewellery as stated in Ex.P.703 P.705. But in the written statement filed u/Sec.243 1 Cr.P.C. have disputed the weight and valuation of the gold jewellery and silver articles A-1 in her written statement has taken up a plea that as per the seizure lists i.e. Ex.P.698 699 and 700 gold jewellery weighing 23113 grams were seized from No.36 Poes Garden and 4475 grams were seized from 31-A Poes Garden. All these jewellery were acquired before the check period. In addition A-2 Mrs. Sasikala also owned 1802.400 grams of jewellery. Thus the total amount of jewellery available earlier to check period was 28137.800 grams excluding the mementos like sword crown scepter etc. which belonged to AIADMK party of the total weight of 3365.800 grams. The prosecution has not given any explanation for the deficit in the weight of the gold jewellery that is seized compared to what was possessed by her earlier to check period. It is the further contention of A-1 that all the above acquisition of the jewellery were declared by her in her wealth tax assessment for the year 1991-92 i.e. before the check period as per Ex.P.2142. The mementos were kept with her only for safe custody and the treasurer of AIADMK party has claimed the mementos as belonging to the party. Therefore the entire value under the heading jewellery is liable to be excluded.

slide 640:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 640 i In the written statement filed u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. A-1 has furnished the calculation regarding the gold jewellery as under: Total quantity of gold jewellery seized including mementos 27589.17 grams Less mementos belonging to AIADMK party 3365.80 grams Balance 24223.37 grams Already disclosed in the wealth tax Returns and accepted by the Department on 20.11.1992 21280.30 grams Balance to be accounted 2943.07 grams 79.6 It is the stand of A.1 that there is no evidence to show that either A.1 or A.2 or other accused in the case purchased jewellery or gold from any one during the check period. The valuation of the jewellery given by PW.125 is ex-facie wrong. He has valued the jewellery as on December 1996. As a result there is no acceptable material to arrive at the value of the jewellery. It is further contended that the variation in the items of jewellery is on account of remaking of old jewellery into new patterns whereas the case of prosecution is a mathematical impossibility. Thus it is contended that the entire value shown by the prosecution under the head Jewellery is liable to be excluded. 79.7 In order to discharge the onus cast on the prosecution that these jewellery were acquired by the accused during the check period the prosecution has

slide 641:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 641 relied on the testimony of PW.155 Subbu Raj who has deposed that for the last 10 years he was working as the Manager in “Kirti Lal Kalidas Company” Jewellers in Rajaveedhi Kovai. One Mr. D. Shantakumar is the Administrative Shareholder of their Company. The Company’s name is found in appraiser’s list recognized by the Central Government. During November 1992 he and M.D. Shant Kumar went to the house of A-1. After five minutes they were called inside. Mrs. Shashikala came there. Jewels were found in four or five trays. They showed 19 items of jewels which were purchased in 1986-87 and asked them to value those items. PW.155 M.D.Shant Kumar weighed those 19 items separately and noted on a paper. Afterwards they were shown 44 jewels in another tray which were purchased in 1987-88 and were asked to assess their value. PW.155 weighed them separately and noted in a paper. Then 69 items which were bought in 1988-89 were asked to be valued and they were weighed separately and noted in a paper. Thereafter 96 items which were purchased in 1989-90 were valued and they were weighed and noted in a paper. Totally PW.155 weighed and assessed 228 jewels. Among them few were diamond jewels and others were golden jewels. The purchase receipts were not shown to him. He came to Kovai with the details marked on paper and on that basis prepared four separate reports and sent them to Chennai through

slide 642:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 642 courier service. PW.155 further deposed that he was given the copy of the income tax returns filed for the year 1986 wherein 7040 grams of gold were shown. Ex.P.857 is the assessment report in respect of 19 items. They included the value of 7040 grams of gold jewels in that assessment. Thus the total assessment value for the year 1986-87 is Rs.2295392/-. Ex.P.858 is the assessment of the 44 items. In this also they included the already reported value of the jewels. Thus the total assessment value for the year 1987-88 is Rs.4637590/-. Ex.P.859 is the assessment report in respect of 69 items. The total assessment value for the year 1988-89 is Rs.7810400/-. Ex.P.860 is the report in respect of 75 diamond jewels and 21 gold jewels and the total value for the year 1989-90 is Rs.14118091/- PW.155 further deposed along with the assessment report they submitted four bills towards their remuneration but till date they have not received that amount. This witness further stated that he and Shant Kumar were enquired by the Police and during the enquiry they compared the assessment list with the seized jewels and when compared they found only 29 items assessed by them matched with the items shown in the list. In his chief-examination he has detailed the said 29 items which matched with the items shown in the list. In the cross-examination it is elicited that from 1986 onwards every year on behalf of the Company

slide 643:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 643 they used to go to the house of Selvi J. Jayalalitha and assess the gold and diamond jewelers shown by her. The details of jewels found in Ex.P.860 are the jewels which A-1 had before 31.03.1990. As per that date A-1 had 948.71 carat diamonds and 21280.300 grams gold jewellery. As on that date the value of gold and diamond jewels was Rs.14118091/-. This witness further answered that he did not say that 29 items of jewels assessed by them matched with the jewel list prepared by the officers. During the cross-examination this witness answered that under compulsion of the police he deposed as per his chief-examination. This witness was recalled by the Public Prosecutor and subjected to reexamination on 18.01.2011 as under: Qn: In her examination-in-chief you have stated that only 29 items of jewellery found in Ex.P.703 matched with the assessment reports prepared by you till 1992. But in cross-examination dated 23.01.2003 it is stated that you did not say that only 29 items of jewels assessed by you match with the jewel list prepared by the officers. Among the two versions which one is correct Ans: The first version i.e. what I have stated in my examination-in-chief is correct. In the further cross-examination by the counsel for A-1 a question was posed to this witness : Qn: In cross-examination also you have deposed truth

slide 644:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 644 Ans : Yes. 79.8 PW.179 Srihari has deposed that he is running a jewellery shop in the name Ummidi Bangaru Chetti Trust at T.Nagar Chennai. He is one of the Trustees in that jewellery shop. His brother V. Sudhakaran is another Trustee. The letter V.B.C.D is embossed on all the jewellery sold from their shop. He is a recognized jewellery assessor appointed by Central Government. He assessed A-1’s jewels in the year 1975. A-1 had purchased jewels from their shop after 1975. When A-1 was Chief-Minister her representatives contacted him through telephone and purchased gold and diamond jewels and silver articles for A-1. They paid money for the jewels but never asked for receipt. When A-1 was the Chief-Minister he assessed and certified the jewels for the purpose of Income Tax. In those certificates he has mentioned the gold and diamond jewels their quantity weight and value. Once he made one diamond ottiyanam daboo–hip belt for A- 2 and received the making charges. During his examination this witness produced the copies of the certificates prepared by him which were marked as Ex.P.1010 to 1016. This witness has given the list of 53 items of the jewels which were found similar to the items described in Ex.P.703. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he was called approximately 10 times by the police for enquiry

slide 645:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 645 and during those enquiry the police forced him to sign on written papers for which he refused. It is further elicited that the police seized approximately 300 receipt books from their Company and returned it back approximately after one year. He further answered that he did not give the documents relating to Ex.P.1010 to Ex.P.1016 to the police and further stated that while tendering evidence before the Court he did not examine Ex.P.703 and without seeing the jewels and perusing the details mentioned in Ex.P.703 he cannot say whether they are included in the assessment report. He also denied that the representatives of A-1 had contacted him regarding purchase of jewellery. He further stated that he made the statement that diamond ottiyanam was made for A-2 under the compulsion of the police and since he did not make any ottiyanam question of handing over to A-2 did not arise. Since the witness resiled from his earlier statement made in the examination-in-chief he was recalled at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and in the re-examination he was questioned as under Qn: In your examination-in-chief you have given details with regard to the valuation of the jewellery done by you is true and correct. Ans: Yes it is true and it is out of my free will.

slide 646:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 646 79.9 In reply to the cross-examination by the counsel for A-2 the witness answered “value of diamonds value of golden jewellery pattern of jewellery studded diamond studded jewellery and their value Belgium cut diamonds Indian cut diamonds facets carats in that respect I have been asked in my cross- examination based on quality and carats I have given in my cross-examination. Those details have not been mentioned in my reports. But I have taken those details into consideration. The details are not mentioned in the reports.” 79.10 Ex.P.1010 is the valuation report given by PW.179 pertaining to the valuation of 62 items. The gross weight of the jewels is shown as 4553.600 grams and the value Rs.1098206. Ex.P.1011 is the valuation report dt. 31.03.1991 pertaining to 26 items. The gross weight is shown as 1782.950 and the value Rs.1930852/- Ex.P.1012 is dt. 16.01.1992 for 26 items weighing 1782.950 and the value is Rs.1930852.10. Ex.P.1013 is dt. 31.3.1992. 31 items are valued. Weight is 2827.300 and the value is Rs. 2390058.25. Ex.P.1010 to 1013 stand in the name of A-1. Ex.P.1014 is dt. 31.3.91 for 46 items weighing 1563.65 grams – Rs.394689/-

slide 647:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 647 Ex.P.1015 is dt. 31.3.1991 in respect of 34 items weighing 1931.100 grams valued Rs.1754868.00 Ex.P.1016 is dt. 16.01.1992 in respect of 34 items gross weight 1931.100 grans valued Rs.1754868.90. These three valuation reports stand in the name of A-2 Sasikala. Ex.P.858 is the valuation report dt. 17.11.1992 issued by Kirtilal Kalidas Co. marked through PW.155 in respect of 75 items total weight 21280.300 valued Rs.14118091.00 Ex.P.2206 marked through PW.227 is the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1991. Ex.P.2206 is the wealth tax return for the said year filed on 25.02.1993. In this statement the details of gold and silver are stated as under “Jewellery – Gold and Diamonds value as on 31.03.1990 based on the valuation report dt. 16.01.1992 after making proportionate adjustments. Rs.3200 x 1754869 Rs.1295704 4334 Silver 5 kgs. At Rs. 6443-15 Value Rs. 27468.” Ex.P.2179 is the wealth tax return filed on 20.11.1992 for the year 1991-92. In this statement jewellery – gold and diamond is valued as

slide 648:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 648 Rs.11013946/- and silverwares at Rs.7061400/-. In the note it is stated “the increase in value of the jewellery shown as on 31.3.91 with valuation as on 31.03.90 is on account of general increase in value of jewellery and also due to certain items of jewellery received as gifts during the year. Silverwares received as gifts have been duly considered in the wealth statement. Valuation report is being filed”. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1991-92 the Commissioner of Wealth Tax has accepted the value of the jewellery at Rs.15056146/- value of the silver 12.5 kg. at Rs.6646/- per kg. Rs.8307500. Ex.P.2124 79.11 PW.125 Vasudevan has deposed that in 1991 he joined service as an Assessing Officer in the Postal Appraiser Department in Customs Department. So far he has assessed and certified 500 to 600 times gold diamonds and precious stones. On 09.12.1996 he was called by the Commissioner and Dy. Commissioner of Customs Department to go over to Anti Corruption and Prevention Office accordingly the Anti Corruption and Prevention Officers took him to house No.36 Poes Garden belonging to A-1. Already PW.259 was there. He was introduced to him. Bhaskar Special Collector Tr.Krishnamurty Advocate Shekhar and Chandrashekhar and Selvi J. Jayalalitha’s aunt were present there. Apart from PW.259 Sri.Kalyana

slide 649:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 649 Sundaram and Purushottaman of the Police Department were also present. He was taken there to assess the gold jewellery diamond jewellery and silver articles. He assessed the gold diamond and silver articles in the houses i.e. No.36 and No.31-A he did the assessment from 09.12.1996 to 12.12.1996. He used Metlar Electronic Balance to weigh the gold and diamond jewellery. First he checked the balance properly by keeping equal weights on both sides. He checked the gold standard by rubbing the gold on the touchstone used by goldsmith. This test is known as “Streak Test” to check if the diamonds were pure he used a 10 x lens to assess the value of the diamonds what is called 4-C carat weight cut clarity and colour was taken into consideration. He prepared a separate value report for the jewellery in No.36 Poes Garden as per Ex.P.698. The gold ornaments and diamond studded in gold ornaments in No.36 Poes Garden the total weight was 23 Kgs 113 grams. The gold value on that day was Rs.9157253. The value of diamonds was Rs.24392790/-. The total value of gold and diamond gold jewellery was Rs. 33550043/-. Apart from him PW.259 and Tr. Bhaskar also signed Ex.P.692. 79.12 In No.31-A Poes Garden House there were 42 jewel boxes. In all the 42 boxes there were jewels. Along with this there were wrist watches in some boxes. There were 131 jewels in the 42 jewel boxes. The total

slide 650:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 650 weight of the jewels was 4 kgs and 475 grams. The value of the gold on that day was Rs.1737266/-. The value of diamond studded in gold was Rs.3024550/-. The total value of gold and diamond studded in gold jewels was Rs.4761816/-. Bhaskar PW.259 and other officers have signed Ex.P.699. PW.125 further deposed that he prepared a consolidated report as per Ex.P.700 and affixed his signature on all the reports. Through this witness the prosecution has marked the gold and diamond jewellery and the jewel boxes containing these items as MOs. 2 to MOs. 577 and the 4 suitcases as MOs. 578 to 582. 79.13 PW.125 further deposed that while valuing the gold he did not add the making charges and wastages and he took into consideration only the value of the gold and to fix the value of the diamonds he took into consideration its cutting colour carat weight 4C. The value of the rubies emeralds pearls corals and sapphire were excluded. This witness further deposed that first he weighed the ornaments and then deducted the approximate weight of the stones and accordingly determined the weight of the gold and its value. The gold used was 18 to 22 carats. Some jewels were made out of 14 carats and he valued them accordingly. In some jewels it is mentioned KDM. Before submitting a value report he made a small notes as per Ex.P.706

slide 651:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 651 and P.707. During his further examination MOs. 592 to 608 were also marked for the prosecution. 79.14 481 items of gold and diamond jewellery seized under the above mahazars has been marked as Material Objects as under Sl. No. MATERIAL OBJECTS Sl. No. MATERIAL OBJECTS 1 MO 3 25. MO 28 2 MO 4 26. MO 29 3 MO 5 27. MO 30 4 MO 6 28. MO 31 5 MO 7 29. MO 32 6 MO 8 30. MO 33 7 MO 9 31. MO 34 8 MO 10 32. MO 35 9 MO 11 33. MO 36 10 MO 12 34. MO 38 11 MO 13 35. MO 39 12 MO 14 36. MO 40 13 MO 15 37. MO 41 14 MO 16 38. MO 42 15 MO 18 39. MO 43 16 MO 19 40. MO 44 17 MO 20 41. MO 45 18 MO 21 42. MO 46 19 MO 22 43. MO 47 20 MO 23 44. MO 48 21 MO 24 45. MO 49 22 MO 25 46. MO 50 23 MO 26 47. MO 51 24 MO 27 48. MO 52

slide 652:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 652 49. MO 54 81. MO 80 50. MO 55 82. MO 81 51. MO 56 83. MO 82 52. MO 57 84. MO 83 53. MO 58 85. MO 84 54. MO 59 86. MO 85 55. MO 60 87. MO 86 56. MO 61 88. MO 87 57. MO 62 89. MO 88 58. MO 63 90. MO 89 59. MO 64 91. MO 90 60. MO 65 92. MO 91 61. MO 66 93. MO 93 62. MO 67 94. MO 94 63. MO 68 95. MO 96 64. MO 69 96. MO 97 65. MO 70 97. MO 99 66. MO 71 98. MO 100 67. MO 72 99. MO 101 68. MO 73 100 MO 102 69. MO 74 101 MO 103 70. MO 75 102 MO 104 71. MO 76 103 MO 105 72. MO 77 104 MO 106 73. MO 79 105 MO 107 74. MO 108 106. MO 149 75. MO 109 107. MO 150 76 MO 110 108. MO 151 77. MO 111 109. MO 152 78. MO 112 110. MO 153 79. MO 113 111. MO 154 80. MO 114 112. MO 155

slide 653:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 653 113. MO 115 146. MO 156 114. MO 116 147. MO 157 115. MO 118 148. MO 158 116 MO 120 149. MO 159 117. MO 121 150. MO 160 118. MO 123 151. MO 161 119. MO 125 152. MO 162 120. MO 127 153. MO 163 121. MO 129 154. MO 164 122. MO 130 155. MO 165 123. MO 132 156. MO 166 124. MO 134 157. MO 167 125. MO 136 158. MO 168 126. MO 138 159. MO 169 127. MO 140 160. MO 170 128. MO 142 161. MO 171 129. MO 144 162. MO 172 130. MO 146 163. MO 173 131. MO 148 164. MO 174 132. MO 175 165. MO 206 133. MO 176 166. MO 208 134. MO 177 167. MO 209 135. MO 178 168. MO 210 136. MO 179 169. MO 212 137. MO 180 170. MO 213 138. MO 181 171. MO 214 139. MO 183 172. MO 215 140. MO 184 173. MO 216 141. MO 185 174. MO 217 142. MO 186 175. MO 219 143. MO 187 176. MO 220 144. MO 188 177. MO 221 145. MO 189 178. MO 222

slide 654:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 654 179. MO 190 212. MO 224 180. MO 191 213. MO 225 181. MO 193 214. MO 226 182. MO 195 215. MO 228 183. MO 196 216. MO 230 184. MO 198 217. MO 231 185. MO 199 218. MO 233 186. MO 201 219. MO 235 187. MO 203 220. MO 237 188. MO 204 221. MO 239 189. MO 241 222. MO 271 190 MO 243 223. MO 273 191. MO 244 224. MO 275 192. MO 245 225. MO 276 193. MO 247 226. MO 278 194. MO 248 227. MO 279 195. MO 249 228. MO 280 196. MO 250 229. MO 281 197. MO 251 230. MO 283 198. MO 252 231. MO 284 199. MO 253 232. MO 285 200. MO 254 233. MO 286 201. MO 255 234. MO 288 202. MO 256 235. MO 290 203. MO 258 236. MO 293 204. MO 259 237. MO 294 205. MO 260 238. MO 295 206. MO 261 239. MO 296 207. MO 262 240. MO 297 208. MO 263 241. MO 298 209. MO 264 242. MO 299 210. MO 266 243. MO 300 211. MO 267 244. MO 301

slide 655:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 655 245. MO 268 278. MO 302 246. MO 270 279. MO 303 247. MO 304 280. MO 327 248. MO 305 281. MO 328 249. MO 306 282. MO 329 250. MO 307 283. MO 330 251. MO 308 284. MO 331 252. MO 309 285. MO 333 253. MO 310 286. MO 334 254. MO 311 287 MO 335 255. MO 312 288. MO 336 256. MO 313 289. MO 337 257. MO 314 290. MO 338 258 MO 315 291. MO 339 259. MO 316 292. MO 340 260. MO 317 293. MO 341 261. MO 318 294. MO 342 262. MO 319 295. MO 343 263. MO 320 296. MO 345 264. MO 321 297 MO 346 265. MO 322 298. MO 348 266. MO 323 299. MO 350 267. MO 324 300. MO 351 268. MO 325 301. MO 352 269. MO 326 302. MO 353 270. MO 354 303. MO 388 271. MO 355 304. MO 389 272. MO 356 305. MO 390 273. MO 357 306. MO 391 274. MO 359 307. MO 392 275. MO 360 308. MO 393 276 MO 361 309. MO 394 277. MO 363 310. MO 395

slide 656:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 656 311. MO 364 344. MO 396 312. MO 366 345. MO 397 313. MO 367 346. MO 398 314. MO 368 347. MO 399 315. MO 370 348. MO 400 316. MO 371 349. MO 401 317. MO 372 350. MO 402 318. MO 374 351. MO 403 319. MO 375 352. MO 404 320. MO 377 353. MO 405 321. MO 378 354. MO 407 322. MO 379 355. MO 408 323. MO 381 356. MO 409 324. MO 382 357. MO 410 325. MO 384 358. MO 411 326. MO 385 359. MO 412 327. MO 387 360. MO 413 328. MO 414 361. MO 447 329. MO 415 362. MO 449 330. MO 416 363. MO 451 331. MO 417 364. MO 453 332. MO 418 365. MO 454 333. MO 419 366. MO 455 334. MO 420 367. MO 457 335. MO 422 368. MO 458 336. MO 423 369. MO 459 337. MO 424 370. MO 461 338. MO 425 371. MO 463 339. MO 427 372. MO 464 340. MO 429 373. MO 466 341. MO 430 374. MO 467 342. MO 431 375. MO 468 343. MO 433 376. MO 469

slide 657:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 657 377. MO 435 410. MO 471 378. MO 436 411. MO 473 379. MO 437 412. MO 475 380. MO 438 413. MO 476 381. MO 439 414. MO 477 382. MO 441 415. MO 478 383. MO 443 416. MO 479 384. MO 444 417. MO 480 385. MO 445 418. MO 481 386. MO 482 419. MO 515 387. MO 483 420. MO 516 388. MO 484 421. MO 518 389. MO 485 422. MO 520 390. MO 486 423. MO 522 391. MO 487 424. MO 523 392. MO 488 425. MO 525 393. MO 489 426. MO 526 394. MO 491 427. MO 527 395. MO 492 428. MO 529 396. MO 493 429. MO 531 397 MO 495 430. MO 532 398. MO 496 431. MO 534 399. MO 498 432. MO 536 400. MO 499 433. MO 538 401. MO 500 434. MO 539 402. MO 502 435. MO 540 403. MO 503 436. MO 542 404. MO 504 437. MO 545 405. MO 506 438. MO 547 406. MO 507 439. MO 548 407. MO 508 440. MO 549 408. MO 510 441. MO 550 409. MO 511 442. MO 551

slide 658:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 658 443. MO 512 470. MO 552 444. MO 514 471. MO 553 445. MO 555 472. MO 598 446. MO 556 473. MO 599 447. MO 557 474. MO 600 458. MO 558 475. MO 601 459. MO 559 476. MO 602 450. MO 560 477. MO 604 451. MO 561 478. MO 605 452. MO 562 479. MO 606 453. MO 563 480. MO 607 454. MO 564 481. MO 608 455. MO 565 456. MO 566 457. MO 567 458. MO 568 459. MO 569 460. MO 570 461. MO 571 462. MO 572 463 MO 573 464. MO 574 465. MO 575 466. MO 577 467. MO 593 468. MO 595 469. MO 596 In the cross-examination it is elicited that PW.125 is an appraiser and not a valuer. He is a Central Government employee. Till then he did not assess the

slide 659:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 659 gold and diamond certificates given by Anti Corruption and Prevention cases of the State Government. He was deputed by the Asst. Commissioner orally. During those 7 days he did not apply for leave. Out of the 7 days he was totally engaged with his work line and he did not attend his office work. It is further elicited that Ex.P.698 to 701 were not prepared by him and he did not know who prepared those documents. The rate of the jewels was fixed as on 09.12.1996. To prepare the report Ex.P.698 to P.701 model report was prepared. He only corrected the model reports. In his report he has not shown the gold weights and diamonds separately. He has mentioned the weight of gold and diamonds approximately. Ex.P.704 is the copy of the reports of Ex.P.698 to 701. On 20.12.1996 when he signed the report he did not compare the model report given by him earlier. It is further elicited that on 23.02.1996 he was taken to the Registrar of Chennai Metropolitan Civil Court and in front of the Registrar he weighed the jewellery and identified them. 79.15 Sri. B.Kumar the learned Counsel for A-1 has staunchly disputed the valuation reports relied on by the prosecution and has also questioned the competence and expertise of PW.155 PW.177 and PW.259 to value the gold and diamond articles and to compare them with the returns submitted by the accused. At the outset the learned Counsel pointed out

slide 660:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 660 that in Annexure-II the prosecution has listed 871 items of gold and diamond as possessed by accused Nos.1 and 2. But admittedly items Sl.No.284 and 285 are shown in Annexure-I as the assets held by A-1 at the beginning of the check period. These two items are excluded the A-1 and A-2 are required to explain the possession of only 723 items totally amounting to Rs.51410467/-. In the instant case its an admitted fact that A-1 is an Income Tax Assessee since 1965. Ever since her minority A-1 has been filing Income Tax returns as well as Wealth Tax returns as per the Wealth Tax Rules. For the assessment year 1986-87 to 1990- 91 A-1 submitted the Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns in November 1992. Along with the Wealth Tax returns for the relevant year a certificate issued by the Registered Valuer was appended as per Ex.D.857 to Ex.D.860. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the Registered Valuer Sri. T. Shant Kumar of Kirtilal Kalidas and Company has certified the weight and value of the gold and diamond jewels in the possession of A-1 during the relevant year. It is pointed out that in Ex.D.857 it is stated that the gross weight of diamond jewellery already declared as on 31.3.1987 is 7040 grams. Date Description Gross Weight Net Weight Value 31.3.87 Already declared 7040.000 7040.000 1429331 Total wt. Value of above Jewels 7556.650 2295392

slide 661:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 661 79.16 A reading of Ex.P.2124 reveals that A-1 filed her return of wealth before the Income Tax Authorities on 12.11.1992. In the said return she has declared the total value of jewellery – gold and diamond at Rs.2095366/-. In the note appended at the foot of the statement reads “the increase in value of jewellery shown as on 31.03.1987 with valuation as on 31.03.1987 is on account of general increase in value of the jewellery and also due to certain items of jewellery received as gifts during the year. A valuation report is being filed”. In the assessment order Ex.P.2177 the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax has observed that a valuation report dt. 17.11.1992 was filed on 26.03.1993 in response to the notice under Section 16 2 164 of the Act. According to this report in addition to 7040 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs.1429331/- disclosed in the statement accompanying the 1986-87 return the assessee is seen to have acquired 19 further items of diamond jewellery of 101 .49 carats of gross weight 516.650 grams valued as A.B.T. 8 66061/-. The valuation report does not indicate the itemwise particulars of gold jewels. This value as per valuation report is accepted subject to rectification. 79.17 If the above returns are read along with the evidence of PW.155 and PW.179 makes it clear that these items were valued in the month of November 1992 and the valuation reports prepared by PW.155 and

slide 662:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 662 PW.179 were produced along with the wealth returns filed for the previous year 1986-87 onwards. 79.18 Thus what emerges from the above evidence is that at the commencement of the check period A-1 was in possession of only 7040 grams of gold jewellery. As already noted above A-1 herself has admitted in the wealth returns that increase in the value of jewellery is on account of the jewellery received as gift during the year. This declaration presupposes that during the year 1992 A-1 had received gold jewellery. Under the said circumstance she is estopped from contending that all the jewellery seized by the prosecution was in her possession before commencement of the check period. This conclusion gets fortified from the testimony of PW.155 who has categorically stated before the Court that he was called to prepare the valuation report only in November 1992 and as required by A-1 and A-2 he prepared different valuation report for the relevant years commencing from 1986-87 even though the bills for the purchase of the said jewellery were not produced before him. From the evidence of this witness it stands established that the valuation reports were prepared only for the purpose of submitting the wealth tax returns in the year 1992 by segregating the articles for the previous years at the whims and fancy of A-1. Admittedly A-1 was not in possession of any bills for purchase of this gold and

slide 663:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 663 diamond jewellery as on the date of filing the wealth returns. There is also no explanation by the accused as to how the gold was accumulated during the years. Under the said circumstances merely because the wealth tax returns were filed by her before the initiation of the criminal proceedings does not exonerate her of her liability to explain the source of the huge quantity of gold and diamond articles. Even during the trial A-1 has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation except stating that all the jewellery were in her possession from the commencement of the check period. But the evidence discussed above proves it otherwise. 79.19 Another important aspect that emerges from the evidence of PW.155 and PW.179 is that Ex.P.1014 to Ex.P.1016 valuation reports were prepared in the name of A-2 in order to facilitate her to file wealth returns in her name in respect of the gold ornaments described threin. There is no evidence as to when and how A-2 acquired these gold and diamond articles. It has come in evidence that her husband was in Govt. service till 1991. If so in all probability the source for acquisition of these assets would have been available with A-2 and could have been produced before the Court to explain her ownership over these jewellery. The fact that in 1992 while preparing the valuation reports in relation to the gold jewellery possessed by A-1 separate valuation reports were prepared in the

slide 664:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 664 name of A-2 leads to the inference that in order to avoid the large scale disclosure of the gold and diamond jewellery possessed by A-1 some of these items were declared in the name of A-2. This amounts to a serious instance of abetment and conspiracy alleged against the accused. The very fact A-2 is unable to explain the source of acquisitions of these valuables it could be presumed that A-2 has aided and abetted A-1 in holding the said assets in her name. 79.20 From the above evidence the prosecution has proved the seizure of gold and diamond jewellery of the total weight of 27588 grams. But as it is proved in evidence that 7040 grams of gold and diamond jewellery were in possession of A-1 prior to the check period the said quantity is required to be left out from the total computation of the value of the gold and diamond jewellery found in the possession of A-1. Thus the total weight of the gold jewellery found in the possession of A-1 as on 30.04.1996 comes to 20548 grams. 79.21 Regarding the valuation of the gold as in 1992 we have the reliable material in the assessment order Ex.P.2206 wherein the assessing officer has adopted the rate of gold as on 1991-92 at Rs.4334/- per 10 grams. The learned counsel for A-1 has produced the copy of Circular No.646 dt. 15.03.1993 issued under Rule 19 of Sch. III of Wealth Tax Act

slide 665:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 665 wherein the same rate is published by the concerned authorities. Thus the value of 20548 grams of gold found in possession of A-1 during the check period is calculated as below: 20548 x Rs.433/- Rs.89055032/- It has come in the evidence of PW.125 that while valuing the gold he did not add the making charges and wastages and took into consideration only the value of the gold and to fix the value of the diamonds he took into consideration the cutting colour carat weight. He has further stated that first he weighed the ornaments and then deducted the approximate weight of the stones and accordingly determined the weight of the gold and its values. This witness has separately given the value of the diamonds at Rs.24392790/-. Since the gross weight of 7040 grams is deducted the proportionate value of the diamonds comes to Rs.16261820/-. Thus adding this figure to the value of the gold as above the total value of the gold and diamond jewellery found in the possession of A-1 during the check period comes to Rs.25159144/- 80. V: SILVER ARTICLES: In Annexure-I the prosecution has detailed the assets in the possession of the accused at the beginning

slide 666:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 666 of the check period i.e. as on 1.7.1991. at Sl. No. 46 of Annx.-I as under Sl. No 46 Silver ware weighing 700 kgs as per the IT Returns filed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha Valaue worked out at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per KG. Selvi J. Jayalalitha Rs. 2800000/- 80.1 In Annx-II relating to the assets found in possession of the accused at the end of the check period i.e. as on 30.4.1996 at Sl. No. 291 it is stated as under Sl. No. 291 Silver ware weighing 1116 kgs. The value of 700 kgs at Rs. 4000/- per kg + 416 kgs at Rs. 5000/- per kg Rs. 2800000/- + Rs. 2080000/- as per search list estimation as observed during search Rs. 4880000/- ii Regarding silver articles A.1 has taken up a plea that in the wealth tax returns filed by her for the year 1990-91 she had disclosed a quantity of 550 Kgs. of silver. This return has been accepted by the Assessing Authority. In the next assessment year ending on 31 st March 1991 she had disclosed the value of silver possessed by her at Rs.8307500. The rate per kilo adopted by the Income Tax officer was Rs.6646 per kg. to which there was statutory deduction of 15 allowable under the Wealth Tax Act. Thus before the check period she had declared 1250 Kgs. of silver and

slide 667:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 667 the same has been duly assessed as per Ex.P.2142. Thus the silver seized of 1116 Kg. stands fully explained. 80.2 The written statement filed by A-1 in response to the examination u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. at page 10 is extracted here below “The prosecution has sought to add a value of 1116 kgs of silver seized on the search of 36 and 31-A Poes Garden as an asset requiring an explanation. PW 210 has given misleading evidence in this regard. In the Wealth Tax Returns for the assessment year 1990-91 I had disclosed a quantity of 550 kgs of silver. The Returns has been accepted and assessment order made. The next assessment year 1991-92 with the previous year ending on 31 st March 1991 I had disclosed the value of silver possessed by me at Rs. 8307500/-. The rate per kg of silver adopted by the I.T. officer was Rs. 6646/- per kg to which thee was statutory deduction of 15 per cent allowable under the Wealth Tax Act. Thus in this process the quantity of silver declared would amount to 1250 kgs. Thus before the check period I had 1250 kgs of silver duly disclosed and assessed. In the next assessment year viz. 1992-93 which is exhibited as P-2142 it is accepted that I have possessed 1250 kgs of silver. Thus the silver seized of 1116 kgs stand fully explained. Hence no addition is liable to be made on account of possession of silver”.

slide 668:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 668 80.3 A-1 has relied on the Wealth Tax Returns filed by her before the Wealth Tax Authorities as per Ex. P-2142. It is relevant to note that the said returns was filed on 23.11.1992 for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring a net wealth of Rs. 58194815/- This was processed u/Sec. 16 1 a of the Wealth Tax Act and intimation dt. 15.12.1992 was issued. In response to the notice issued u/Sec. 15 2 of the Wealth Tax Act assessee representative Sri R. Rajagopal Chartered Accountant appeared before the assessing authorities and the assessment appears to have been completed on 21.3.1995 wherein the value of silver weighing 1250 kgs at Rs.8040/- per kg appears to have been taken into account for determination of the Wealth Tax payable by A-1. 80.4 The prosecution has also let in evidence by examining PW.210 the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax to the effect that in the Property Tax Returns filed by A-1 for the assessment year 1991-92 she had shown Rs. 3021450/- as the value of the silver vessels and in the Property Tax Returns for the assessment year 1991- 92 the value of the silver articles was shown as Rs.7061400/-. 80.5 PW-125 has deposed that on 12.12.1996 he assessed the silver articles at No. 36 Poes Garden and the silver articles were displayed by the Anti Corruption

slide 669:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 669 officers and he prepared a separate assessment report Ex. P-701. As per that report he valued 1116 kgs. of silver articles at Rs. 5580000/-. When the said evidence was put to A-1 in her examination u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. A-1 replied that the I.O. Mr. Nallama Naidu was not authorized to conduct investigation u/Sec. 17 of the PC Act. He behaved in an unethical manner in bringing many silver articles from outside and mixing them up with her silver articles in order to show an inflated figure. 80.6 In answer to question Nos. 499 and 500 A-1 has replied as under “Silver items were also shown in my Wealth Tax Returns before the check period. No silver items were purchased during the check period. Mr. Vasudevan himself has said that he had not physically weighed the silver articles but had arrived at the value based on the information given by the prosecution i.e. DVAC. The DVAC made him colluded with their valuation. Moreover the valuation was done in my absence.” 80.7 Regarding the silver articles PW 259 the I.O. has deposed that on 7.12.1996 at 12.30 p.m. along with his team went to No. 36 Poes Garden and met Bhaskaran the representative of Miss. Jayalalitha and gave the details. During their search he prepared 3 observation mahazars and one seizure mahazar. At that time the gold and diamond jewellery and silver articles

slide 670:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 670 were valued by Vasudevan PW.125 and prepared assessment of the articles. When this evidence was put to A-1 in her 313 examination her reply is that as per the DV AC Manual the valuation has to be done in her presence. Deliberately the valuation has been estimated excessively. The items of jewellery owned by her earlier to check period have not been deducted. Those are the matters of record as she has filed Wealth Tax Returns disclosing them. 80.8 After completing the investigation by covering letter dt. 14.4.1997 the I.O. appears to have forwarded Annexures I to VII to A-1 affording an opportunity to her to satisfactorily account for the possession of the properties and pecuniary resources found to be disproportionate to her known sources of income. It is marked as Ex. P-2318. She was also asked to explain about the possession of silver ware weighing 1116 kgs valued at Rs. 4880000/-. The reply issued by A-1 through her counsel Sri K.A. Panchageshan dt. 24.4.1997 is marked as Ex.P-2319. The relevant portion of it is extracted below “Under the Code of Crl. Procedure she cannot be compelled to give any written statement especially touching any matter under investigation. She does not empower to construe that she has no material to satisfactorily account for the said quantum of assets if she failed to furnish her explanation to your letter. She will

slide 671:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 671 offer her explanation to the court during trial if any charge sheet is filed against her.” 80.9 As already discussed above in the wealth tax returns filed by her as per Ex.P.2179 she has categorically admitted that silverwares were received as gifts during the year. This declaration is consistent with the case of the prosecution that the additional silverware amounting to 416 kgs were acquired by her during the check period. A-1 has not produced any reliable evidence in proof of the source for acquisition of the silverware. As a result it could be safely inferred that 416 kgs of silver is the illegal acquisition of A-1. 80.10 PW.125 has valued the silver at the rate of Rs.5000/- per kg. whereas in the Wealth Tax assessment order relied on by the accused the silver is seen to have been valued at Rs.6646/- per kg. Since the rate adopted by PW.125 is advantageous to the accused adopting the said rate the value of 416 kgs. of silver is assessed at Rs.2080000/- which is added to the over all assets of A-1 acquired during the check period. 81. VI: FIXED DEPOSITS AND SHARES: Item Nos.258 to 277 The details of the fixed deposits and shares purchased by the accused during the check period are

slide 672:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 672 detailed in the below table which are not in dispute. PW.182 and PW.277 and PW.49 PW.156 and PW.303 PW.164 174 have spoken about these documents and the relevant F.D.s are marked in evidence which are also not in dispute. Hence the value of these fixed deposits and shares amounting to Rs.34262728/- is added in the total computation. 258 Fixed Deposit in Canara Bank Mylapore in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha under Kamadenu Deposit. KDR No.950485 dt 27.5.94 1603545.00 259 F.D. in Canara Bank Mylapore in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications under Kamadenu Deposit KDR No.941263 dt. 19.9.94 149544.00 260 F.D. in Canara Bank Mylapore in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications under Kamadenu Deposit TDR No.649868 dt. 20.4.95 500000.00 261 F.D. in Canara Bank Mylapore branch in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications KDR /941261 dt. 19.9.94 71218.00 262 F.D. in IB Abirampuram in the name of M/s. Super Duper P Ltd. TDR/649865 dt. 25.3.95 500000.00 263 -do- TDR/649866 dt. 25.3.95 500000.00 264 -do- TDR/ 649867 dt. 25.3.95 5000000.00 265 F.D. in Kothari Oriental Finance in the name of A-1 FDR No/ 47740 dt. 29.8.95 100000.00 266 -do- FDR/ 64280 dt. 29.7.95 By renewal of FDR 48173 100000.00 267 -do- FDR 64302 dt. 29.7.95 by renewal of FDR 48172 100000.00 268 F.D. in Sriram investments in the name of A-1 by renewal of FDR F-1945 renewed from F.D. 19451 47437 dt 29.5.91 300000.00

slide 673:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 673 269 -do- 5006835 dt 9.8.94 By renewal of FDR / 5006345 3000000.00 270 F.D. in Sriram Investments in the name of A-1 5007694 dt 12.9.94 1500000.00 271 -do- By renewal of FDR No. F 71533 and F 21330 which is to mature on 29.1.98 Dt 29.12.94 500000.00 272 -do- 5015594 dt 22.3.95 1500000.00 273 -do- 5015955 dt 22.3.95 1000000.00 274 -do- 5025367 dt 19.10.95 2000000.00 275 Investment in equity shares in Madras Oxygen and Acetylene Company Ltd. Coimbatore by A-1’s mother. 000 276 Shares in Kunal Engg. 000 277 F.D. in Canfin Homes in the name of A- 1 352/94 dt 6.3.95 10000000.00 298 Amount invested under R.I.P. Reinvestment plan by A-1 in Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch vide receipt No.176580 dt 18.6.92 10000000.00 303 Amount deposited in MIDR 70/9 with CBI Secunderabad after renewal of earlier MIDRs 66/9 68/33 and 60/9. SB A/c. No.20614 300000.00 306 Amount deposited in the name of Master Vivek in Indian Bank on receipt of terminal benefits of his father Tr. V. Jayaraman 38421.00 Total 34262728.00 82. VII CASH BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNTS: Item Nos.193 to 229 296 300-304 PW.162-Subramaniam Sr. Manager Canara Bank Mylapore Branch PW.182-Arunachalam Chief Manager Indian Bank Abirampuram Branch and PW.201-C.K.R.K. Vidhya Sagar officer Canara Bank

slide 674:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 674 Mylapore Branch have spoken about each of these items with reference to the extract of the statement of accounts which are marked in evidence and are not disputed by the accused. Hence the entire cash balance in the bank accounts of the accused amounting to Rs.9747751.32 is taken into account. CASH BALANCE AS PER ANNEXURE-II ITEM NO. NATURE OF ASSETS VALUE IN RS. 193 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the SB Acc. No. 4110 of Indian Bank Abhiramapauram opened on 12.9.1994 in the name of Master J. Vivek S/o J. Elavarasi 242211.50 194 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1134 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 23.11.1994 in the name of J. Elavarasi Signora Business Enterprises 167.20 195 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1071 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 11.3.1994 in the name of N. Sasikala Fresh Mushrooms Prop. 771.26 196 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1107 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 31.8.1994 in the name of J. Elavarasi Lex Property Development P Ltd. 85342.25 197 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1068 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 30.3.1994 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran 132221.00 198 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2018 of CB Mylapore opened on 12.10.1990 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 1929561.58 199 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1171 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 28.3.1995 in the name of J. Elavarasi. 340527.95 200 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 23832 of CB Mylapore opened on 16.4.1991 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 170570.13 201 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2277 of CB Mylapore opened on 10.11.1993 in the name of M/s Metal King in which Sasikala is the proprietrix 2900.28

slide 675:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 675 202 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2196 of CB Mylapore opened on 1.12.1992 in the name of Smt. Sasikala 1889.28 203 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2047 of CB Mylapore opened on 26.9.1990 on transfer Form Kellys Branch in the name of Jaya Publications in which Selvi J. Jayalalitha Smt. N. Sasikala are the partners 2079885.12 204 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 23218 of CB Mylapore opened on 23.5.1990 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala 1095.60 205 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 1245 of CB Guindy opened on 2.1.1995 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Metal King 317232.21 206 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 2220 of CB Mylapore opened on 7.4.1993 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran 47453.64 207 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 1689 of CB Anna Nagar East opened on 1.12.1993 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam 317475.64 208 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 24621 of CB Mylapore opened on 25.2.1992 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran 61430.00 209 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1179 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 5.5.1995 in the name of Jaya Finance Pvt. Ltd. 1760.00 210 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2219 of CB Mylapore opened on 7.4.1993 in the name of J. Elavarasi 118198.00 211 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 25389 of CB Mylapore opened on 23.1.1993 in the name of J. Elavarasi 894.00 212 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 2133 of CB Mylapore opened on 3.2.1992 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala 560.55 213 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 2250 of CB Mylapore opened on 29.7.1993 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala V.N. Sudhakaran i.e. Anjaneya Printers 1075335.64 214 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 2061 of CB Mylapore opened on 21.3.1991 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Smt. N. Sasikala M/s Sasi Enterprises 459976.22 215 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1050 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 27.1.1994 in the name of M/s Jaya Real 167.55

slide 676:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 676 Estate 216 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1152 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 25.1.1995 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala V.N. Sudhakaran i.e. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. 546577.50 217 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1059 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 27.1.1994 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala V.N. Sudhakaran M/s JJ Leasing Maintenance 1838.00 218 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1062 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Smt. J. Elavarasi V.N. Sudhakaran M/s JS Housing Corpn. 13671.80 219 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1058 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 27.1.1994 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala M/s Green Garden Apartments Farm House Smt. J. Elavarasi V.N. Sudhakaran 146.70 220 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1049 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 27.1.1994 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala V.N. Sudhakaran Smt. J. Elavarasi M/s Jaya Contractors Builders 10891.00 221 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1044 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 15.12.1993 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Smt. N. Sasikala M/s Sasi Enterprises 102490.18 222 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1149 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 23.3.1995 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran Smt. J. Elavarasi Smt. N. Sasikala M/s Sakthi Construcitons 102490.00 223 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1146 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 23.3.1995 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Smt. J. Elavarasi V.N. Sudhakaran M/s Gopal Promoters 102490.18 224 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1140 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 23.3.1995 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Smt. J. Elavarasi V.N. Sudhakaran M/s Lakshmi Constructions 102490.18 225 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1113 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 13.9.1994 in the name of V.N. 358.70

slide 677:

Spl.C.C.208/2004 677 Sudhakaran Smt. J. Elavarasi M/s Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. 226 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1095 of Indian Bank Abhiramapuram opened on 6.8.1994 in the name of Smt. J. Elavarasi V.N. Sudhakaran M/s M/s. Riverway Agro Products P Ltd. 2916.61 227 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the BOM Anna Nagar vide SB Acc. No. 5158 opened on 28.2.1990 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 205152.06 228 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the CBI of Secunderabad in SB Acc. No. 20614 opened on 19.5.1989 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 384760.67 229 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the CBI of Secunderabad in SB Acc. No. 23792 opened on 29.1.1993 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala 234000.00 296 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in CDS-ITP Acc. No. 32 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha in CBI T. Nagar Branch Chennai 21380.00 300 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in SB Acc. No. 38746 of CB Kellys Branch opened on 30.12.1988 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala 17502.98 304 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in CA No. 1952 of CB Myalpore of Namadhu MGR. 510968.16 TOTAL . . . 9747751.32 82.1 In proof of the above items the prosecution has marked the following documents: Item Nos. Exhibits P 193 1138 True copy of sta