State of Karnataka Vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha .

Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 300-303 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6117-6120 of 2015)

STATE OF KARNATAKA … … APPELLANT(S)

:Versus:

SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.304-307 OF 2017

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6294-6297 of 2015)

K. ANBAZHAGAN … … APPELLANT(S)

:Versus:

SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.308-313 OF 2017

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6121-6126 of 2015)

K. ANBAZHAGAN … … APPELLANT(S)

:Versus:

INDO DOHA CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS

AND ORS. ETC. … … RESPONDENT(S)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.314-319 OF 2017

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.7107-7112 of 2015)

Page 2

2

STATE OF KARNATAKA … … APPELLANT(S)

:Versus:

INDO DOHA CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS

LTD. AND ORS. ETC. … … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals project a challenge to the judgment and order

dated 11.5.2015 rendered by the High Court of Karnatka in

the appeals preferred by the respondents herein, thereby

acquitting them of the charge under Sections 120B and 109 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) read with Sections

13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(for short “1988 Act”) as framed against them and also

resultantly setting-aside the order of the Trial Court for

confiscation of properties, both movable and immovable, of

the concerned firms, as mentioned therein. In the meantime,

Page 3

3

after the conclusion of the arguments, the respondent No.1

expired and, thus in law, the appeals against her have abated.

Nevertheless, in view of the gamut of the imputations and the

frame-work of the charges as well as the nature of the

evidence, oral and documentary, available on records,

reference to her role and involvement, based thereon in

collaboration with other respondents would have to be

essentially examined. The respondents-accused would

hereinafter be referred to as respondents/accused/A1/A2/A3/

A4, as the case may be, contingent on the context.

3. Charges were framed against A1 – former Chief Minister of the

State of Tamil Nadu and the co-accused viz. A2, A3 and A4

(respondents herein), for commission of the alleged offences

punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of

the 1988 Act and further under Section 120-B and Section

109 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 (since

deceased) was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24th

June, 1991 till 13th May, 1996. Prior to this, she was a

member of the Rajya Sabha from April, 1984 till 27 th January,

1989 and further she was a member of Tamil Nadu Legislative

Page 4

4

Assembly from 27th January, 1989 till 30th January, 1991. She

also acted in the films during 1964-1972. Facts reveal that she

was the daughter of late Smt. N.R. Sandhya, who also acted in

films during 1960’s. Smt. N.R. Sandhya died in the year 1971

and by virtue of her mother’s Will dated 01.11.1971, A1

became the owner of 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; (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, A1 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;

Page 5

5

(vii) A new Maruti car bearing registration No.TMA-2466

worth Rs.60,435/- and (viii) Company shares.

Thus, the assets which were in the possession of A1 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.

4. A2 – Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan is the wife of one Mr. M.

Natarajan who had joined Government service as a Publicity

Assistant in the Department of Information and Public

Relation, Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 1970 and

thereafter promoted in succession eventually as Deputy

Director in the year 1986 in the same department. He

tendered his resignation from Government service on 1st

November, 1988 which was accepted by the Government of

Tamil Nadu with retrospective effect on 3rd April, 1991.

5. A2, as it appears from the facts, is the daughter one C.

Vivekanandan, a Medical Compounder, and her marriage with

said Natarajan was held in the early 1970’s. A2 was initially

an occasional visitor to the residence of A1 at No.36, Poes

Garden, Chennai-86, and started permanently living there

Page 6

6

with A1 from 1988 onwards and was acknowledged and

declared by A1 as her friend-cum-sister. A2 continued to live

with A1 since then.

6. A3 – Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran is the son of A2’s elder sister Smt.

Vanithamani and T.T. Vivekanandan. He started residing at

No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86 in the year 1992 while

pursuing his studies at New College, Chennai. A1 had

acknowledged and proclaimed A3 as her “foster son” and had

conducted his marriage with one Sathiyalakshmi at Chennai

on 7.9.1995, in a lavish celebrations.

7. A4, Tmt. J. Elavarasi is the wife of late V. Jayaraman, the

elder brother of A2. The said V. Jayaraman was a Government

servant and he died in December, 1991 due to electrocution

while attending to works in the Grape Garden of A1 at

Hyderabad. Following her husband’s death, A4 came to live at

No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86, from the beginning of 1992.

8. The case of the prosecution is that, as on 1.7.1991, A1 was

found in possession of properties and pecuniary resources in

her name and in the name of A2 Smt. N. Sasikala, who was

living with A1 at No. 36, Poes Garden, Chennai to the extent of

Page 7

7

Rs.2,01,83,957/- including the properties acquired in the

name of M/s. Jaya Publications, M/s. Sasi Enterprises and

Namadhu MGR, which had been floated by A1 and A2 with

themselves as partners. But, after 1.7.1991, there was sudden

spurt in the acquisition of assets and during this period, A1

and A2 floated several firms in the names of A2, A3 and A4

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., 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;

Page 8

8

xxviii. Vinod Video Vision; xxix. Fax Universal; xxx. Fresh Mushrooms; xxxi. M/s. Super Duper TV., and xxxii. M/s. Kodanadu Tea Estate;

9. 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. A1 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, A1 filed the income-tax

returns 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 A1, but also in

the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms floated in their

names. Scrutiny of various bank accounts maintained in the

Page 9

9

names of A1 to A4 and in the names of the above firms

disclosed that 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 A1

was holding the office of the Chief Minister and that A2, A3

and A4 were living under the same roof with A1 and not

having sufficient means to acquire the assets in their names,

established that the assets were actually acquired by A1.

10. It is further alleged that, pursuant to the criminal

conspiracy between A1, a public servant and her associates

viz., A2, A3 and A4, to acquire and possess properties and

pecuniary resources by A1 in her name and in the names of

A2, A3 and A4 and in the names of various firms floated by

them, they amassed properties and pecuniary resources to the

tune of Rs.66,64,73,573/- (later corrected as

Rs.66,65,20,395/-), which was grossly disproportionate to the

known sources of income of A1 and A2 to A4 during the check

Page 10

10

period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. According to the

prosecution, the income from the known sources of A1 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 A2, A3 and A4, agricultural income,

loans and the salary received by her as Chief Minister of Tamil

Nadu, worked out to a total of Rs.9,34,26,054/-, whereas

during this period the expenditure incurred by A1 including

repayment of principal amounts and interest on loan, and

other outgoings were assessed at Rs.11,56,56,833/-. Thus, as

on 30.4.1996, A1 being a public servant was found to have

acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in

her name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms

floated by them, which were overwhelmingly disproportionate

to her known sources of income to the extent of

Rs.66,65,20,395/- (Rupees Sixty Six Crores Sixty Five Lakhs

Twenty Thousand Three hundred and Ninety Five only) which

is an offence of criminal misconduct within the definition of

Sec.13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of 1988 Act and

A2, A3, and A4 conspired with A1 and abetted the commission

Page 11

11

of the above offence.

11. On 14.6.1996, Dr. Subramanian Swamy (PW-232), the

then President of Janata Dal lodged a complaint against A1

before the Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Madras, under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that A1, after assuming the

public office as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, had acquired

properties and earned income disproportionate to her known

sources of income. The said complaint was registered as

Crl.M.P. No.3238 of 1996 and by order dated 21.06.1996, the

Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge directed investigation

under Section 17 of 1988 Act and Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and

further directed to collect necessary materials and submit a

report before the Court within a period of two months.

Pursuant to the said order, PW-240 - Smt. Letika Saran, a

senior IPS Officer, took up the investigation, collected records

and documents from various sources.

12. During the investigation, the said order passed by the

Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge was challenged before

the High Court of Madras. The investigation was stayed for a

brief period and thereafter the High Court was pleased to

Page 12

12

direct the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras

(hereinafter also referred to as “DVAC”) to take appropriate

steps to investigate into the allegations made in the complaint

and ultimately, an FIR was filed against A1 on 18.9.1996 as

per Ext.P-2266.

13. During investigation, after conducting search of the

residential premises of A1 and various other locations, the

Investigating Officer found several incriminating materials and

voluminous documents were seized and statements of a large

number of witnesses were recorded. The incriminating

evidence collected during such investigation disclosed the

complicity of A2 to A4 in the alleged offence. Hence, an

application was filed before the Special Judge on 22.01.1997

for addition of A2, A3 and A4 as co-accused and for

incorporation of additional offences under Section 120-B of

IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of 1988 Act and

Section 109 of IPC. On completion of such investigation,

PW-259 (Shri Nallamma Naidu) laid the charges against all the

accused on 4.6.1997 which was duly registered as Spl. C.C.

No.7/97 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge

Page 13

13

(Special Court, I), Chennai.

14. The ball was set into motion and following charges were

framed by the Special Judge, Chennai:

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.66,65,20,395/- 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 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.

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.66,65,20,395/- for which you could not satisfactorily account, and thereby you A1 committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.

Thirdly:- That you A2 to A4 in pursuance of the said

Page 14

14

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 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.

15. The charges were denied by the accused persons. During

the pendency of the trial, the D.V. & A.C. was permitted

further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and was

granted letters rogatory by the Designated Court for collecting

evidence and materials relating to the alleged accumulation of

disproportionate assets/wealth by A1 in conspiracy with A2

outside the country. On the basis of the evidence collected

during further investigation, a separate FIR in Crime

No.2/AC/2000 was filed by the prosecution on 2.9.2000

against A1 and A2 which culminated into a charge-sheet dated

23.3.2001 registered as Spl.C.C. No.2/2001.

16. Subsequent thereto evidence was recorded from time to

time. Thereafter, steps were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Page 15

15

So far as A1 was concerned, she was permitted to answer a

questionnaire which was delivered to her with a direction to

answer it on 25.2.2003, which was adhered to by A1. A2 to A4

were also questioned as per Section 313 Cr.P.C. which was

duly concluded on 26.2.2003. Thereafter, defence witnesses

were examined. Thereafter, by its judgment dated 18.11.2003

in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.77-78/2003, the Supreme

Court transferred the said matter to the State of Karnataka

and in terms of the said judgment, the Government of

Karnataka by its order dated 27.12.2003 duly accorded

sanction for establishment of the Special Curt at Bangalore

and by Notification dated 19.02.2005, duly appointed Shri

B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of

Karnataka as Public Prosecutor to conduct the said matter.

17.Thereafter, the said matter bearing 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 the

Special Judge (i.e. 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at

Bangalore. Subsequent thereto certain steps were taken on

behalf of the accused and the matter travelled up to this

Page 16

16

Court/Supreme Court whereafter the trial was resumed before

the Special Judge. The accused were called upon to examine

their witnesses and subsequently 99 witnesses were produced

before the Court and concluded their evidence. Narration of all

eventful factual interventions has been avoided being not

decisively essential for the adjudication.

18. It appears that the Trial Court after hearing the parties

culled out the following points for determination:

(a)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that A1, being a public servant

acquired and possessed in her name and in the

names of A2 to A4 and in the names of business

enterprises floated in their names, pecuniary

resources and assets of the value of

Rs.66,65,20,395/- 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?

(b)Whether the prosecution further proves beyond

reasonable doubt that A1 to 4 were parties to a

criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring

and possessing pecuniary resources and assets to

the extent of Rs.66,65,20,395/- in the names of

A1 and in the names of A2 to 4 and the 32

Page 17

17

business enterprises floated in the names of A2 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?

(c) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that A2 to A4 abetted the

commission of the above offence by intentionally

aiding A1 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 A2 to

A4, rendering them liable for conviction for the

offence punishable u/Sec. 109 Indian Penal Code

R/w. Sec. 13(2) R/w. Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988?

(d)What order ?

19. The Trial Court appraised the evidence adduced in

respect of the points formulated by it and duly dealt with the

charges framed against the accused. The Trial Court

elaborately dealt with the matter after considering the

evidence, facts as well as the judgments cited before it, the

Page 18

18

contentions raised and after dealing with all aspects of the

matter, inter alia held that:

“……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 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.”

20.From the facts it appears, the prosecution has listed the

details of assets held by the accused at the beginning of the

check period i.e. 1.7.1991 in Annexure-I (Ext.P-2327). The

said Annexure is reproduced hereunder:

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

1,32,009.00

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 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

,, 50,000.00

Page 19

19

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)

,, 1,65,058.50

4. Land in Sy. No. 93/3 to the extent of 3.15 acres(1.36 Hectares) at Pet Basheerbad village in Medchal Tq. in A-P.,

,, 13,254.50

5. Agricultural land measuring 3.43 acres in Cheyyhur village in Sy. No. 366/2,5,6 purchased from M.N. Venkatachala Mudaliar, S/o Natesa Mudaliar, No. 1046/8, Thiruvotriyur Main Road, Kaladipettai, Chennai.

Selvi J. Jayalalitha

17,060.00

6. Land and flat No. 7, R.R. Flats, 3/4 , Antu Street, Santhome, Chennai-4 of Smt N. Sasikala C – Rs. 2,75,000/- S – Rs. 35,750/- F – Rs. 2,780/-

Smt. N. Sasikala

3,13,530.00

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. Venkatasubban,15, Venkatraman Street, Srinivasa Avenue, Chennai-28

M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J. Jayalaitha and Smt. N. Sasikala)

5,70,039.00

8. Shop No. 14, Ground Floor at 602, Anna Salai, Chennai-6 purchased from Mohd. Hanif, No. 7, Gulam Abbas Ali Khan, 1st Street, Thousland Lights, Chennai-6 in the name of M/s

M/s Sasi Enterprises

98,904.00

Page 20

20

Sasi Enterprises C – Rs. 85,000/- S – Rs. 13,045/- 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

,, 2,10,919.00

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

3,60,509.00

11. Shop No. 18 of 189 Sq. ft. in ground floor at Door No. 602, Mount Road together with 54/42656th 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, 3rd Floor, Chennai-1

,, 1,05,409.00

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)

1,57,125.00

13. Vacant site at H.D.Road, in 3rd Dvn, 6th Ward, Haar Nombu Chavadi in Tanjore to the extent of 5100 Sq. ft. in T.S. No.1091

M/s Sasi Enterprises

1,15,315.00

Page 21

21

purchased from K Loganathan, S/o K.N. Kuppusamy of 1279, 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.

,, 2,02,778.00

15. Land and building at Abishekapuram, Ponnagar in Trichy in plot No. 102, 3rd 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

5,85,420.00

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

75,210.00

17. Land and building at Thiru Vi. KAIndustrial 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

5,28,039.00

Page 22

22

18. Maruthi car bearing Reg. No. TMA 2466 (new)

Selvi J. Jayalalitha

60,435.00

19. Contessa car bearing Reg. No. TN-09/0033

,, 2,56,238.00

20. Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. No. TSI 9090

,, 1,76,172.67

21. Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ 7299

,, 1,04,000.00

22. Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. No. TSR 333

,, 2,99,845.00

23. Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ 7200

,, 1,04,000.00

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

13,601.98

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

9,18,210.29

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

5,51,826.94

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

1,40,198.25

28. Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of Mylapore branch

M/s Jaya Publications

7,83,860.97

Page 23

23

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

rep. by Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala

29. F.D. No. 451/1990, dt. 19.6.1990 with Canara Bank of Mylapore

,, 64,520.00

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. Jayalalith

Selvi J. Jayalalitha

2,57,886.25

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 J. Jayalalitha

,, 2,40,835.02

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

,, 5,20,396.45

33. 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

2,29,578.49

34. FD in Kothari Oriental Finance in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha

Selvi J. Jayalalitha

1,00,000.00

35. ,, ,, ,, 36. ,, ,, ,, 37. FD with Sriram Finance in the

name of ,, 3,00,000.00

38. ,, ,, 5,00,000.00 39. ,, ,, 20,00,000.00 40. ,, ,, 7,00,000.00 41. Investment in the form of Equity ,,

Page 24

24

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

,, 4,21,870.00

44. 86 items of jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s VBC Trust on 31.3.1991

,, 17,50,031.00

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

9,38,460.00

46. Silver wear weighing 700 kgs (as per the IT returns filed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha) (value worked out at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per kg.)

Selvi J. Jayalalitha

28,00,000.00

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 1.7.199

,, 10,00,000.00

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.

,, 21,389.00

49. FD of Rs. 5 lakh deposited in Sriram Investments Ltd., deposited on 12.11.1990 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha from her SB Acc.

,, 5,00,000.00

Page 25

25

No. 5158 o BOM, Anna Nagar branch which after subsequent renewals is to mature on 29.1.1998.

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

50,000.00

51. MIDR No. 66/9 with Central Bank of India, Secunderabad deposited on 2.5.1990

Selvi J. Jayalalitha

3,00,000.00

52. Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in SB Acc. No. 38671 of Canara Bank, Kellys in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha

,, 1,80,031.22

Grand Total 2,01,83,956.53

21. The Trial Court also gave the details of the income,

derived by the accused during the check period i.e.1.7.1991 to

30.4.1996, in Annexure-III, (being Ext.P-2329) which is set out

hereunder:

ANNEXURE-III

(Ex.P.2329)

(Income during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996)

Page 26

26

Sl. No

Details of income Amount (Rs.) Exhibits

1. Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of M/s Sasi Enterprises of which the outstanding principal was Rs. 13,55,023/-

25,00,000 P.1258 - 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. 1,23,041/- as interest;

28,00,000 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. 37,184/- as interest;

7,00,000 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. 28,407/- as interest;

5,00,000 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. 8,81,477/- as interest;

75,00,000 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. 17,86,000/- was outstanding besides Rs. 1,95,802/- as interest;

17,86,000 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;

83,00,000 P.1328 - P.1330 P.1008

Page 27

27

8. Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Kodanadu Tea Estate of which the principal of Rs. 375 lakh was outstanding;

3,75,00,000 P.997 to P.1003

9. Loan taken from Can Fin Homes on FD No. 352/1994-95 on 25.8.1995 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha.

75,00,000.00 P.548, 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);

4,52,871.00 P.1377

11. Income by way of interest to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide her Fixed Deposits in FD No. 1000/92 – Rs. 79,890/-; 1398/92 – Rs. 73,233/-; 237/93 – Rs. 54,247/-; 632/93 – Rs. 49,315/- of Canara Bank, Mylapore for Rs. 27 lakh credited in SB 23832 and CA 2018 of Canara bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalaitha;

2,56,685.00 P.1377 P.1382

12. Interest from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd., to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 47740 (53389) & 63848);

60,437.82

13. Interest paid from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd., to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR Nos.48172, 53390 & 64308);

60,434.78

14. from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd., J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR Nos. 53391 & 64280);

50,434.78

15. Interest from Can Finance to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 186/1991-92);

8,76,896.00 P.1377

16. Interest from Can Finance to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 352/1994-95);

4,71,808.00 P.1377

Page 28

28

17. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5006835) for Rs. 30 lakh;

6,53,818.00 P.1382

18. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5007694) for Rs. 15 lakh;

3,09,088.60 P.1382

19. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5015954 for Rs. 15 lakh

2,09,928.50 P.1382

20. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5015955 for Rs. 10 lakh;

1,39,947.80 P.1382

21. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5015956 for Rs. 5 lakh;

84,522.80 P.1382

22. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 71533 for Rs. 5 lakh;

1,27,871.50 P.1382

23. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 21330 for Rs. 5 lakh;

87,960.83 P.1382

24. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5025367 for Rs. 20 lakh;

1,34,977.00 P.1382

25. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 45897 for Rs. 20 lakh;

4,76,023.27 P.1382

26. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 47437 for Rs. 3 lakh;

2,06,237.00 P.1382

27. Interest from Sriram Investments to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 73211 for Rs. 20 lakh;

5,02,207.00 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;

87,024.00 P.1382

Page 29

29

29. Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide SB 5158 of Bank of Madurai, Anna Nagar, Chennai;

47,265.81.00 P.1960

30. Interest paid to Smt. N. Sasikala (vide her SB 22792 of CBI, Secunderabad);

27,304.00 P.936 P.937

31. Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide SB 20614 of CBI, Secunderabad);

3,17,781.00 P.936 P.937

32. Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha from Medium Term Deposit in CBI, Secunderabad (vide NPD 669 - Rs. 27,272.08; 68/33 – Rs. 77,162.40; 60/9 - Rs. 14,874/-; 70/9 – Rs. 42,143/-)

1,61,451.48.00 P.936 P.937

33. Agrl. Income from Grape Garden, Hyderabad in favour of Selvi J. Jayalalitha;

5,78,340.00 P.938

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;

3,42,520.40 P.936

35. Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha through SB 38671 of Canara Bank, Kellys Branch opened on 19.12.1988;

14,446.00 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, Kelly Branch of Selvi J.

82,600.00 P.1961 P.1960

Page 30

30

Jayalalitha

37. Interest from SB Acc. No. 23218 of Canara Bank, Mylapore to N. Sasikala;

1,89,761.00 P.1510

38. Interest of Rs. 29,490/- from FDR No. 718/1992 of Canara Bank, Mylapore to Smt. N. Sasikala for Rs. 18 lakh; Rs. 53,260/- from FDR No. 954/1992; Rs. 48,822/- from FDR No. 1397/1992; Rs. 48,822/- from FDR No. 236/1993; Rs. 44,384/- from FDR No. 633/1993; & Rs. 32,340/- from FDR No. 868/1993;

2,57,118.00 P.1510 P.1519

39. Interest from Can Finance in FDR No. 189/1991-92 for Rs. 25 lakh to N. Sasikala;

10,03,191.00 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);

2,23,000.00 P.937

41. Interest paid to Smt. N. Sasikala through SB 38746 of Canara Bank, Kellys Branch;

3,901.00 P.977

42. Interest from SB 24621 of Canara Bank, Mylapore to V.N. Sudhakaran;

24,323.00 P.1572

43. Interest from FDR No. 1401/1992 of Canara Bank, Mylapore for Rs. 5 lakh to V.N. Sudhakaran;

13,562.00 P.1572

44. Interest from FDR 238/1993 of Canara Bank, Mylapore for Rs. 5 lakh by renewal of FDR 1401/1992;

12,329.00 P.1576

Page 31

31

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;

9,18,910.00 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;

3,00,000.00 P.548

47. Loan obtained by Smt. J. Elavarasi from Royapetta Benefit Fund (RBF Nidhi) Ltd., (vide HML/787, dt. 7.10.1995);

35,00,000.00

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;

6,26,410.00 P.658

49. Interest paid to Smt. J. Elavarasi, guardian of Vivek by SB A/c.No. 25389 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram;

9,763.00 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;

90,807.59 P.126-132

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. 1,22,40,000/-) from 14.12.1994 to 8.4.1996 after deducting

30,40,000.00 P.563, P.564

Page 32

32

payment to SPICOT (Rs. 72 lakh) and payment of Rs. 20 lakh to James Frederick for purchases of shares of INDAG Products Ltd.,

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.,

37,67,358.00 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;

2,33,769.00 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;

3,82,500.00 X-2

56. Interest derived in SB A/c No. 4110 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Master Vivek;

10,213.00 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;

91,000.00

58. Rental income (including rental advance of Rs. 20,000/-) from Flat No. 7, Antu Street, Santhome, Mylapore (RR Flats) of Smt. N. Sasikala;

1,94,000.00

59. Rental income & advance from Shop No. 20 of No. 14, KhadarNavazkhan Rd. (Gem Court),

2,70,900.00

Page 33

33

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, 1st Street, 4th Floor from 12/1994 to 04/1996 (Rs. 25000 x 17) + (Rs. 75000);

4,50,000.00

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)

2,01,000.00

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)

1,44,000.0

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;

1,01,231.00 P.991, P.994

64. Net income from Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, Arumbakkam, Chennai for the period from 8/1993 to 4/1996

14,50,097.60 P.1966

Grand Total 9,34,26,053.56

22. The Trial Court relied upon the oral and documentary

evidence in respect of the said income and also the objections

raised on behalf of the accused and thereafter came to the

Page 34

34

conclusion as follows:

“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.9,34,26,053.56

Less: Item No.55 - Rs. 35,000.00

Less: Item No.60 - Rs. 1,22,750.00

Rs.9,30,68,303.56

Add: Item No.29 - Rs. 4,427.19

Add: Item No.27 - Rs. 1,15,640.00

Add: Item No.48 - Rs. 6,60,064.00

Add: Item No.52 - Rs. 48,35,000.00

Add: Item No.33 (Grape Garden)- Rs. 4,21,660.00

___________________ Total income - Rs.9,91,05,094.75

Thereafter, the Trial Court dealt with the expenditure

incurred between the check period which is specifically stated

in Annexure-IV (Ext.P-2330) which is set out hereunder:

EXPENDITURE INCURRED BETWEEN 1.7.1991 & 30.04.1996

ANNEXURE - IV (Ex.P.2330)

Sl. No.

Details of Expenditure Amount in (Rs)

Exhibits Witnesses

Page 35

35

1 Amount paid towards interest in respect of the loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- 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.1,50,00,000/-)

50,93,921 P.1027 PW.182

2 Repayment of Loan availed by M/s. Sasi Enterprises from Indian Bank, Abirampuram Rs.11,44,977.00 (P) Rs. 6,87,706.00 (I) Rs.18,32,683.00

18,32,683 P.1260 PW.182

3. Payment of interest on loan of Rs.28,00,000/- availed by J Farm Houses from I n d i a n B a n k A b i r a m p u r a m

23,774 P.1212 PW.182

4. Payment of Interest on loan of Rs.7,00,000/- availed by M/s. J S Housing Development from Indian Bank, Abirampuram.

11,887.00 P.1173 PW.182

5. Payment of interest on loan of Rs.5,00,000/- availed by M/s. Jay Real Estate, from Indian Bank, Abirampuram

11,887 P.1163 PW.182

6. Payment of interest on loan of Rs.75,00,000/- availed by M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd.,

11,81,425.16 P.1233 PW.182

7 Payment of interest on loan of Rs.17,86,000/- availed by M/s. Mahasubha Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, from Indian Bank, Abirampuram.

3,84,400.00 P.1356 PW.182

8 Payment of interest on loan of Rs.83,00,000/- availed by M/s. Lex Property Development (P) Ltd., from Indian Bank, Abirampuram.

17,52,069.00 P.1330 PW.182

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)

13,840.00 P.65 PW.20

Page 36

36

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)

14,560.00 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)

1,45,320.00 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)

12,700.00 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)

70,140.00 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)

1,350.00 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

99,295.00 P-55, 56 PW.19

Page 37

37

16 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at 226,735.00 P.48 to 50 & 59 PW.19 PW.20 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

2,250.00 21,085.00 26,735.00

26,735.00 P.48 to 50 & 59

PW.19 PW.20

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)

10,925.00 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.,

29,850.00 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)

1,785.00 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)

4,76,525.00 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.

18,570.00 P-676 PW.117

PW.20

Page 38

38

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.

4,41,569.00 PW.211

23 Amount paid to Five Star Departmental Stores from SB 23218 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala

1,01,315.70 P-823 to 832

PW.154 PW.201

.

24 LIC premium payment made by Tmt. N. Sasikala from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore (26.3.92)

13,960.50 PW.201

25 Payment made towards DD commission from SB 23218 of Canara Bank, Mylapore for purchasing DD for Rs.9,35,000/- 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

9,617.00 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

75,198.12 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

9,950.00 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

4,074.10 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

9,065.00 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

13,450.00 P.1519 P.1539

PW.201 .

Page 39

39

32 Amount paid to (Rajasekaran & Co.) Auditor from CA 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 28.1.93, 28.3.95, 3.11.95

1,26,500.00 P.1519 P.1540

to P.1543

PW.201 .

33 Amount paid to Keerthi from CA 2196 of Canara Bank of Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 11.12.92

6,633.00 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

7,165.00 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

27,497.20 P-1519 PW.201

36 LIC premium paid for March ’95 in Policy No.750405742 of Tmt. N. Sasikala

13,748.60 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

1,02,039.00 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.

410.00 P-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

3,170.00 P-1519 PW.201

40 Amount paid to Abbas from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 2.9.95

23,800.00 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

54,660.00 P-1382 P-1009

PW.178 PW.201

Page 40

40

42 Amount paid to BPL Gallery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 19.9.95

1,28,530.00 P-1382 P-1384

PW.201

43 Amount paid to Purnendupal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95

1,00,000.00 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

25,000.00 P-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.

1,50,000.00 PW.198

46 Amount paid to K. Damodarasamy Naidu, from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha

18,700.00 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

57,250.00 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

1,000.00 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

5,100.00 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.27,000 + 82,800)

1,09,800.00 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

5,95,000.00 P-1382 P-1390 to 1394

PW.201

Page 41

41

52 Amount paid to Tr. K.V. Viswanathan, from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.8.93

20,000.00 P-1382 P-1395

PW.201

53 Amount paid to Tvl. Kapoors from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 30.9.95

1,30,779.40 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)

12,721.00 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

44,264.00 P-678 PW.118

56 Amount paid to Tr. Kishore from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 10.10.95

25,000.00 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

75,000.00 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

37,046.00 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

20,000.00 P-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

5,00,000.00 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

9,517.00 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

1,858.00 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

11,00,000.00 P-1382 P-1284

PW.183 PW.201

Page 42

42

64 Amount paid to Tr. K.A- Panchapakesan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.11.95

10,000.00 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

1,78,279.80 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

2,36,120.00 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

12,075.00 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

12,075.00 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

6,447.00 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)

5,940.00 P-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)

46,000.00 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 15.11.95

35,000.00 P-1382 P-1421

PW.201

Page 43

43

73 Amount paid to A-P.Telecom from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.01.1996

8,915.00 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)

2,77,666.00 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

2,19,566.80 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

12,73,642.00 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

75,352.00 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

10,258.56 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

42,400.00 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

58,463.00 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

13,000.00 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

8,017.25 P-1382 P-1463

PW.201

Page 44

44

83 Amount paid to Tr. D.Swameswara Rao from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.05.95

1,00,000.00 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

2,00,000.00 P-1382 P-1465 P-1466

PW.201

85 Amount paid to Venkateswara Cine from C.A- 2018 on 14.10.1995

14,000.00 Ex.P138 2, P.783

86 Amount paid to Adyar Gate Hotel from C.A- 2018 on 19.09.95

1,75,246.25 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

12,000.00 P-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

12,320.00 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

19,600.00 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

19,300.00 P-1382 PW.201

91 Amount paid to Arasan Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92

16,225.00 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

11,160.00 P-1382 P-1471

PW.201

93 Amount paid to Archana Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92

75,675.00 P-1382 P-679

PW.201

PW.119

Page 45

45

94 Amount paid to Arya Bhavan Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 22.5.92

77,580.00 P-1382 PW.201

95 Amount paid to Welcome Hotel from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.5.92

22,000.00 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

21,250.00 P-1382 PW.201

97 Amount paid to Bombay Milk Bar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 25.5.92

7,500.00 P-1382 PW.201

98 Amount paid to Bombay Sweet Stall from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore on 25.9.92

15,000.00 P-1382 PW.201

99 Amount paid to Central Café from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 30.5.92

48,645.00 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

18,042.00 P-1382 PW.201

102 Amount paid to Ganapathy Vilas from CA 2018 of

Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92

12,996.00 P-1382 PW.201

103 Amount paid to Hotel Akash from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.6.92

18,422.00 P-1382 PW.201

104 Amount paid to Jothi Ananda Bhavan on 4.6.92 from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha

8,840.00 P-1382 PW.201

Page 46

46

105 Amount paid to Lakshmi Vilas from CA 2018 of

Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 4.6.92

1,880.00 P-1382 PW.201

106 Amount paid to Master Bakery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92

9,091.50 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

10,224.00 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

39,000.00 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

21,000.00 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

74,342.25 P-1382

111 Amount paid to New Agarwal from CA 2018 Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92

14,000.00 P-1382

112 Amount paid to New Bombay Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92

15,150.00 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

16,637.40 P-1382

114 Amount paid to Roland Bakery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 18.6.92

13,302.90 P-1382

115 Amount paid to Salem Café from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92

13,520.00 P-1382 P-1480

116 Amount paid to AGK Travels from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95

15,814.00 P-1382 P-1370

PW.201

PW.199

Page 47

47

117 Amount paid to Anchor Cabs from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95

19,211.00 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

47,790.30 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

15,903.00 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

27,502.00 P-1382 PW.201

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

11,861.00 P-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, 22,8.95 and 17.10.95

5,011.00 P-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

575.00 P-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

1,00,008.00 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

1,08,000.00 P-1382 P-1485

PW.201

126 Amount paid to Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 8.9.92

1,00,000.00 P-1382 PW.201

Page 48

48

127 Amount paid to Rama Anchaneya Trust from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 12.5.94

1,00,008.00 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

27,000.00 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

1,00,000.00 P-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

1,00,000.00 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

50,000.00 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

1,00,000.00 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 49,500.00P – 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 & 26.10.95

49,500.00 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

80,000.00 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

76,450.00 P-1382 P-1496

PW.201

Page 49

49

136 Amount paid to Tr. Saminathan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.9.95 and 10.10.95

94,000.00 P-1382 P-1496

PW.201

137 Amount paid to Tamil Nadu Government Fund from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.1.92

1,08,000.00 P-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

1,32,796.00 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

91,157.64 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

7,500.00 P-1381 P-1389

PW.201

141 Amount paid to Vision Hire from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.3.93

2,50,000.00 P-1381 P-1501

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

15,90,726.00 P-1382 P-1502

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-1382 P-1503

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

9,301.00 P-1519 P-1555

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.

2,285.00 P-1519 P-1556 to

P-1565

PW.201

146 Amount paid to Marine Waves from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 27.2.93

8,000.00 P-1519 P-1568

PW.201

Page 50

50

147 Amount paid to SE, MDC from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 24.1.96

14,313.00 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

1,393.95 P-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

1,858.60 P-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.1,52,000 (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.4,36,978/-)

5,88,978.00 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

30,000.00 P-1572 P-1574

152 Amount paid to United India from SB 24621 of Canara Bank,

Mylapore of V.N.Sudhakaran

5,710.00 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

4,500.00 P-1576 P-1590

154 Amount paid to R. Loganathan from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 28.2.94

3,000.00 P-1576 P-1591

Page 51

51

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

32,087.00 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

36,105.00 P-1576

157 Amount paid to Tr. P. Raghur from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 13.8.94

2,500.00 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

4,500.00 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

34,960.00 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)

1,995.00 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

300.00 P-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)

2,103.00 P-1576

163 Amount paid to Tr. Krishna from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 9.11.94

2,500.00 P-1576 P-1604

164 Amount paid to Post Master from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 30.6.96

399.00 P-1576 P-1605

165 Amount paid to upfront from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 27.10.95

3,500.00 P-1576 P-1609

Page 52

52

166 Amount paid to Tr. Anilkumar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi.

2,500.00 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

4,500.00 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

2,500.00 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

1,000.00 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

2,00,000.00 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

2,000.00 P-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

20,000.00 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

12,500.00 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

21,494.00 P-1618 P-1625

PW.201

175 Amount paid to MMSWWB from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 2.6.95

17,305.00 P-1618 PW.201

176 Amounts debited from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi towards cheque book and DD Commission etc., on different dates

1,203.00 P-1618 PW.201

Page 53

53

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.2,88,750.00 Dev. Ch. Rs. 1,500.00 Scrutiny feeRs. 475. 0 0

Rs.2,90,675. 0 0

2,90,675.00 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)

25,445.00 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)

5,63,482.00 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)

8,18,161.00 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)

30,61,549.00 PW.227

182 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1991- 92 Rs.378065.00 (20.11.92) Rs.1000000.00 (1.10.94) Rs.500000.00 (26.12.94) Rs.700000.00 (22.1.94)

25,78,065.00 PW.227

Page 54

54

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)

3,92,488.00 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)

8,88,370.00 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)

2,90,528.00 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)

2,90,528.00 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)

9,24,316.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

188 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1987- 88 during 11/92

34,381.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

189 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1988- 89 during 11/92

89,619.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

190 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1989- 90 during 11/92

2,68,475.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

191 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1990- 91 during 11/92

6,02,757.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

192 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1991- 92 on 23.11.92

7,18,542.00 PW.201

Page 55

55

193 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y.1992- 93 on 23.11.92

13,51,590.00 PW.201

194 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1991-92 during 2/93

2,23,750.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

195 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1992-93 during 2/93

3,00,550.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

196 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1993-94 during 13.3.96

7,62,151.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

197 Wealth Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1991-92 during 2/93

14,240.00 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228

198 Wealth Tax reitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1992-93 during 2/93

1,17,955.00 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

63,355.00 From the SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha during the check period

63,355.00 P-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

1,90,730.00 P-936 PW.164

201 Amount paid to J.R. Rao on 1.2.95 from SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha

76,337.00 P-936 PW.164

202 Amount paid to Thirumala Fertilizers from SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.1.94

3,835.00 P-936 PW.164

203 Tax deducted at source in respect of MIDR 66/9 on 26.3.92

3,332.00 P-936 PW.164

Page 56

56

204 Amount paid towards BPO Commission from CA 1068 of

Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 21.12.94

301.00 P-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

125.00 P-1111 PW.182

206 Amount paid to Temporary OD as interest from CA 1068 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram on 31.12.94

388.00 P-1111 PW.182

207 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu on 12.5.95 from CA 1068 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tr. VN Sudhakaran.

4,410.00 P-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

20,000.00 P-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

1,40,000.00 P-1109 PW.182

210 Amount paid to Tr. Dasan from CA 1171 of Indian

Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi 14.10.95

1,052.00 P-1109 PW.182

211 Amount paid to Tr. Ramadoss from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 14.10.95

5,845.00 P-1109 PW.182

212 Amount paid to Tr. Ramson’s from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 26.10.95

9,963.00 P-1109 PW.182

213 Amount paid to Tr. Vedagiri from CA 1171 of Indian Bank,

Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 3.11.95

20,000.00 P-1109 PW.182

Page 57

57

214 Amount paid to Tr. Veerasamy from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 7.11.95

3,500.00 P-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)

92,025.00 P-1109 PW.182

216 Amount paid to Tmt. Lakshmi from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 4.12.95

591.60 P-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

21,000.00 P-1109 PW.182

218 Amount paid to Supdt. Engineer from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 24.1.96

1,434.00 P-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 )

1,197.00 P-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)

16,170.00 P-1109 PW.182

221 Amount paid to DD Commission and other charges from CA 1171 of 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

6,865.00 P-1109 PW.182

Page 58

58

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

13,072.50 P-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

40,96,565.00 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

12,03,435.00 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.1,11,000/-

ii. Salary for Tr. Vijayan from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1500/- per month for 59 months -Rs.88,500/-

iii. Salary for 6 drivers from 6/91 To 4/96 at Rs.1,500/- per month 16,15,500.00 PW.198

16,15,500.00 PW.198

Page 59

59

For 59 months - Rs.5,31,000/-

iv. Salary for Electrician for 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.1,500/- per month for 59 months. - Rs.88,500/-

v. Salary for two sweepers from 6/91 to 4/96 at Rs.750/- per month for 59 months. - Rs. 88,500/-

vi. Salary for Cook Tr. Selvaraj at Rs.750/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 44,250/-

vii. Salary for Tmt. Rajamma, cook at Rs.500/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 29,500/-

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. 82,600/-

ix. Salary for Dhoby at Rs.3000/- per month for 59 months from 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs.1,77,000/-

x. Milk expenditure 18 Ltrs. Per day At Rs.7.50 per litre for 59 months From 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs.2,38,950/-

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. 59,000/-

xii. Flowers purchased for 59 months For 59 months at Rs.1,300/- per month 6/91 to 4/96 - Rs. 76,700/-

Page 60

60

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.5,21,23,532.00

b. Expenditure incurred towards cost of food, mineral water and thambulam (assessment based on available materials) Rs. 1,14,96,125/-

c. 34 Nos. TITAN Watches purchased on cash payment. Rs.1,34,565.00

d. Amount paid to Tr. Syed Bawker towards stitching charges for wedding dress of Tr. VN Sudhakaran - Rs.1,26,000/-

e. Amount paid for purchase of 100 silver plates (paid by Tmt. N. Sasikala) Rs.4,00,000

f. Postal expenses for dispatch of 56,000 wedding invitations – Rs.2,24,000

6,45,04,222.00 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

12,20,310.00 P-1964 P-1965

PW.205

construction of bunglow structure – Foundation only – Rs. 7,00,000/-

ii Expenditure incurred towards laying HDPE Pipes Rs. 5,20,315/-

Page 61

61

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.

10,82,420.00 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.1,400/- security deposit Rs.1,000/- Electricity consumption charges upto 30.4.96 – Rs.30,210/-

40,690.00 P-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.6,400/- per service connection

25,600.00 P-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

30,000.00 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

9,369.00 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

4,410.00 P-1613 P-1616

PW.201

234 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu Reddy from S.B. A/c. No.25389 Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 12.5.95

4,590.00 P-1613 P-1617

PW.201

Page 62

62

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

7,50,000.00 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

2,27,750.00 P-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

27,529.00 P-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.

2,69,102.00 P-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.12,000)

97,381.00 P-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

1,594.00 P-804 PW.149

Page 63

63

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

1,08,138.00 P-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

58,889.00 P-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. 1,33,766/- ii. M/s. Sastri Manufacturers, SC No.211-05-142 for the period 9/93 to 2/95 (disconnected) – Rs. 1,447/- iii. M/s. Uni Offset Printers SC No.211-05-273 for the period 9/93 to 4/96 – Rs. 1,82,127/-

iv. M/s. Amar Enterprises SC No.211-05-275 for the period 9/93 to 4/96 – Rs. 4,21,093/-

7,38,433.00 P-800 To 803

PW.149

Page 64

64

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

Total

4,63,000.00

11,56,56,833.41

P-1903 P-1924 P-1925 P-1935 P-1903 P-1933 To P- 1935

PW.30 PW.201

245 Vijayasekar Services 44,341.35 246 Thevar Automobiles 9,73,452.00 247 Kumaran Silks 4,84,712.00 248 James Fredrich 30,00,000.00

Grand Total 12,00,59,338.76

It appears that the aforementioned expenditures are

classifiable as follows:

(a) Amounts paid towards interest in respect of the loan.

(b) Amounts paid to Corporation of Madras towards sanction of building plan.

(c) Amounts paid to Corporation, MMWSSB. (d) Amounts paid for the purchase of provisions. (e) Amounts towards LIC premium. (f) Amounts paid towards DD Commission. (g) Amounts paid to telecom and Electricity

Department.

(h) Income Tax and Wealth Tax. (i) Household Expenses. (j) Marriage Expenses. (k) Other outgoings.

23. The Trial Court after analyzing oral and documentary

evidence came to the conclusion that the accused have not

Page 65

65

disputed the loan transactions and as a result whereof it held

that the prosecution has proved Item Nos.1 to 8 of

Annexure-IV. In respect of Item Nos.9 to 21, the Trial Court

after duly considering the evidence, both oral and

documentary, held that the accused did not dispute the

statutory permission obtained by them for constructing new

buildings and addition of the building as noted in Exts.65, 64,

51, 54, 63, 56, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66 and 76,

respectively and therefore, it appeared that the receipts for

such payments and the proceedings maintained by the

concerned municipal authority had been established by the

prosecution. Similarly, the Trial Court held that payments

made with respect to item Nos.23 to 35, 37 to 44, 46, 48 to 54

& 56 to 176 had been proved by the prosecution. The

corresponding documents have already been accepted before

the Court and hence such expenditure has been proved by the

prosecution. With regard to Item Nos.178 to 198, such

expenditures were never disputed on behalf of the accused

before the Court. After analyzing the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and their depositions, it held that item

Page 66

66

Nos.229 & 230 have also been proved by the prosecution.

24. The Trial Court has duly considered the objections raised

on behalf of the accused and rejected the same. Similarly, the

Trial Court has also dealt with other expenditures such as

household expenses (Item No.225 in the Chart) and the

objections raised on such account on the ground of

overlapping entries and it came to the conclusion that the

argument of the learned counsel raising the objections cannot

be accepted. After analyzing the oral and documentary

evidence placed on record and the judgments cited before it,

the Trial Court came to the following conclusion:

“Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that as against the income of Rs.9,91,05,094.75 and expenditure of Rs.8,49,06,833.00 during the check period, A1 acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A2 to A4 and in the names of the business enterprises acquired in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 which she could not satisfactorily account. Hence, acting u/Sec. 248 (2) of 896 Spl.C.C.208/2004 Cr.P.C., A1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act.

Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, A1 to A4 were parties to criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing

Page 67

67

pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 beyond the known source of income of A1. Hence, A1, A2, A3 and A4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act.

Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 to A4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding A1 in the acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income as above. Hence, A2, A3 and A4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.109 of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act.”

25. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel

appearing for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor

on sentence, awarded the following sentence against the

accused:

“For the offence u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of the 1988 Act, A1 Selvi. J. Jayalalitha, D/o. Late. Jayaram, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple 908 Spl.C.C.208/2004 imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.100 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, she shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.

For the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B I.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default to pay the fine, she shall undergo further imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable u/Secs. 109 of I.P.C.,

Page 68

68

R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2 Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan, A3 Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran and A4 Tmt. J. Eavarasi are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years each and to pay fine of Rs.10 crores each. In default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 and A4 shall each undergo further imprisonment for one year.

For the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2, A3 and A4 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 and A4 shall each undergo further imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Period of custody already undergone by the accused shall be given set off u/Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

It is further ordered that, necessary direction shall be issued to the concerned banks to remit the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits and the cash balance standing to the credit of the respective accused in their bank account and the proceeds thereof shall be appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts.

If after adjustment, still the fine falls short, the gold and diamond ornaments seized and produced before the Court (after setting apart 7040 grams of gold with proportionate diamond jewellery), as observed in the body of the judgment shall be sold to RBI or SBI or by public auction to make deficit of fine amount good. The rest of the gold and diamond jewellery shall be confiscated to the Government.

All the immovable properties registered in the names of Lex Property Developments Pvt. Ltd., Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ramaraj Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Signora Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Page 69

69

Riverway Agro Products (P) Ltd., and Indo Doha Chemicals and Phramaceuticals Ltd., which are under attachment pursuant to G.O. Nos. M.S. 120 and 1183, shall be confiscated to the State Government.

Out of the fine amount recovered as above, a sum of Rs.5 crores shall be made over to the State of Karnataka towards reimbursement of the cost of trial conducted in the State of Karnataka. Furnish a free copy of the full judgment to the accused forthwith.”

26.Being aggrieved, appeals were filed by the accused before the

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order

passed by the Court of 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge

at Bangalore. The High Court on its analysis came to the

conclusion that the value of assets at the end of the check

period in respect of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 together along

with the firms/companies involved was Rs.66,44,73,537/-

and accepted the value of the assets as indicated by the

prosecution. The High Court, thereafter applying the principles

laid down in Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of

Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 769 = (1977) 1 SCC 816, on a

calculation of total assets, income & expenditure of accused

Nos.1 to 4, their firms and companies, arrived at the

percentage of disproportionate assets as under:

Page 70

70

PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RUPEES)

TOTAL AMOUNT (IN RUPEES)

Assets as per DVAC

i) Cost of construction: As per DVAC Less: As per records and finding

Total (A)

27,79,88,945 5,10,54,060

22,69,34,885

66,44,73,573

ii) Marriage Expenses: As per DVAC Less: As per finding of this Court

Total (B)

6,45,04,222 28,68,000

6,16,36,222

(A+B) 28,85,71,107 Less: (A+B) 28,85,71,107

TOTAL ASSETS 37,59,02,466

Income of Accused Nos.1 to 4, firms and companies:

Sl. No.

Particulars Amount (In Rupees)

1. Loan as income 18,17,46,000 2. Income from grape Garden 46,71,600 3. Gifts 1,50,00,000 4. Sasi Enterprises 25,00,000 5. Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR 4,00,00,000 6. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. 1,00,00,000 7. Rental Income 3,22,000 8. Income assessed by DVAC 9,34,26,054

TOTAL INCOME 34,76,65,654

DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS:

Page 71

71

Total Assets - Total Income Rs.37,59,02,466 - Rs.34,76,65,654 = Rs.2,82,36,812

Percentage = Disproportionate assets x 100 Income

= Rs.2,82,36,812 x 100 _____________________ Rs.34,76,65,654

= 8.12%

27.The High Court, following the principles laid down in

Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra), held that when there is

disproportionate asset to the extent of 10% or below, the

accused are entitled to acquittal and accordingly the High

Court passed the following order acquitting the accused:

“(A) Criminal Appeal Nos.835/2014, 836/2014, 837/2014 and 838/2014 are allowed.

[i] The Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed

in Spl.C.C.No.208 of 2004, dated 27.9.2014, on the

file of the 36th Additional City Civil & Sessions

Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against

Kum.Jayalalitha & Ors.), Bengaluru, is hereby

set-aside. Appellants-Accused Nos.1 to 4 are

acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

Page 72

72

[ii] The Bail bonds of A1 to A4 are discharged.

(B) The Appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.17/2015, 18/2015, 19/2015, 20/2015, 21/2015 and

22/2015 are allowed in part.

[i] Order of the Trial Court relating to confiscation of

the properties both movable and immovable, is

hereby set aside.”

28.Assailing the judgment and order dated 11.05.2015, passed by

the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, appeals, by special

leave, have been filed before this Court by the State of

Karnataka and Mr. K. Anbazhagan. Although the State of

Tamil Nadu was arrayed as the sole respondent in the appeals

before the High Court, these appeals have been filed by the

State of Karnataka, in view of the decisions of this Court in K.

Anbazhagan Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in

(2015) 6 SCC 86 and (2015) 6 SCC 158, wherein it was held

that it is only the State of Karnataka (being the Transferee

State) which is the sole Prosecuting Agency and was

competent to appoint the Public Prosecutor.

29. We have given a patient hearing to all the parties,

Page 73

73

including the intervenor, in the matter. We have been taken

through various documents and the evidence of the parties.

30. Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned senior

counsel appearing in support of the appeals first contended

that the High Court has calculated the disproportionate assets

by adopting an incorrect method with wrong particulars and

our attention was drawn to Page 997 of the SLP Paper Book,

where in the table consisting of assets and expenditure, the

High Court has reduced the values therein but has inflated the

income and thus inaccurately assessed the disproportionate

assets to be Rs.2,82,36, 812/-. It is pointed out before us that

there are concurrent findings of the two Courts in respect of

the fact that the accused did own disproportionate assets

during the check period and the difference between the two

Courts is only with regard to the quantum. While the Trial

Court held that it is Rs.53,60,49,954/-, the High Court held it

as Rs.2,83,36,812/-. It is also submitted that in calculating

the disproportionate assets, value of assets, expenditure and

income of all the accused has been taken jointly along with

that of firms and companies (34 in number). Both the Courts,

Page 74

74

High Court as well as Trial Court, have recorded concurrent

findings and have taken all the assets, income and

expenditure of all the accused together. It is further pointed

out that the sole source of inflow is of A1, although assets

were standing in the names of other accused or the

firms/companies owned by them. It is further submitted, as

appears from the records, that both the Courts did not accept

the claim to consider the case of A1 and A2 to A4 separately.

Hence, it is submitted that now they cannot claim such a

course to be adopted at this stage before this Court. 31. It is also submitted that both the Courts have rejected

the claim of Namadhu MGR scheme which according to the

accused worked out to more than Rs.14 crores during the

check period and that the finding of the Courts that all

properties purchased by the 6 companies actually belonged to

accused has not been challenged by anybody and therefore it

stands.

32. Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the State of Karnataka contended that if the final

figures arrived by the High Court (appearing at Pages 997-998

of its judgment) are accepted and apparent errors therein

Page 75

75

including calculation and arithmetical errors as also error

apparent on the face of the record are corrected, the

disproportionate assets will be more than Rs.35 crores and

this alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction, according to

him. Mr. Acharya has placed before us a Chart which is as

follows:

Sl. No.

ERROR CORRECTIONS

1. CALCULATION ERROR

The method of calculating D.A. is wrong. If all the findings of the high court is accepted in toto then the amount of D.A. is Rs.14,38,93,645 i.e. 41.3% & not Rs.2,82,36,36,812 i.e. 8.12% as held by the High Court – (The previous two charts have details of the same)

2. ARITHMETIC ERROR

While totalling loans as income at (Pg.939 Vol IV), the High Court has committed an arithmetic error to the tune of 13.50 Crores. If this arithmetic error is alone corrected then the Disproportionate Asset come to Rs.16,32,36,812/- i.e. 76.7% This is fully covered in Pg 1028-1030 – SLP Vol.IV

3. ADMISION OF ACCUSED

Under Expenditure: Cost of Construction : The accused have admitted that the cost of construction incurred is Rs.8,60,59,261 – Pg 2350 Vol IX. However the High Court values the same at Rs.5,10,55,060 – Pg 979 Vol IV, which is Rs.3,50,05,210 lesser than the admitted amount. Under income: Business income of Jaya Publication: The accused have admitted that the income of Jaya Publication was Rs.1,15,94,849/- (As per written submission of A-2 –Extracted in Pg 1034 SLP Vol IV). The High Court calculated

Page 76

76

this at Rs.4 Crores – Pg 946-960 Vol IV, which is Rs.2,84,05,151/- more than the admitted amount.

4. GIFTS AS INCOME Gifts as income is subject matter of SLP Nos.1163-1167 of 2012 – Pg 1032-1033 Present SLP Vol IV. Therefore although Trial Court has held that gifts received cannot be held to be a lawful source of income – Pg 1283-1296 Vol V, the High Court has added 1.5 Crores as income under this head, which is liable to be reduced.

Therefore if the above corrections are carried out, the

disproportionate assets will be :

1. On the basis of finding of High Court - Rs.14,38,93,645 2. On the basis of finding of High Court, correction of the

other mistakes in arithmetic, admissions of accused and

disallowing gifts as income:

1. 14,38,93,645 Omission of Expenses – Corrected 2. 13,50,00,000 Totalling Error – Corrected 3. 3,50,05,210 Admission Reg Valuation of

Construction

4. 2,84,05,151 Admission Reg Business income of Jaya Publication

5. 1,50,00,000 Gift – which is illegal Disproportionate Asset – 35,73,04,006

Income will have to be : 16,92,60,503

Disproportionate Asset (D.A.) = 35,73,04,006/- % of D.A. = 35,73,04,006 x 100 = 211.09%

16,92,60,503

Page 77

77

Hence, he submitted that this process alone is sufficient

to sustain the conviction.

33. Mr. Acharya further contended that the findings of the

High Court regarding the value of assets are patently

erroneous and unsustainable. He submitted that the High

Court has accepted the value given by DVAC except for a

single head i.e., value of additional constructions. The High

Court has accepted the amount of expenditure except for 1

item i.e. marriage expenditure and the High Court has added 7

items towards the income which are patently erroneous. Mr.

Acharya drew our attention to Annexure-III (64 items –

Annexure-III, Pages 1224-1233 of Vol.V) and submitted that

the income includes loan, interest, rental, agricultural income

and fixed deposits. According to the prosecution, the said

amount is Rs.9,34,26,054/- (which would appear at Pages

1224-1233 of Vol.V). According to the Trial Court, the income

would be Rs.9,91,05,094.75/- (appearing at Page 1396 of Vol.

VI). However, the High Court has shown such income as

Rs.34,76,65,654/- (appearing at Pages 997-998 of Vol. IV). It

is submitted that the High Court considered additional income

Page 78

78

under 7 heads and has increased the income to

Rs.34,76,65,654/-.

34. The High Court has shown the value of income from loan

as Rs.24,17,31,274/- which contains error of totalling and the

sum total of these 10 items ought to be Rs.10,67,31,274/-.

Therefore, there is a totalling error of Rs.13,50,00,000/-. He

further contended that these loans as income cannot be taken

into consideration as has been taken by the High Court. Since

the prosecution has already considered such loans as income

which appears at Annexure-III at Page 1228 Vol. V (Items 1-8)

and expenditure at Annexure-IV (Page 1397 of Vol.VI, Items

1-8). He drew our attention to the High Court judgment

regarding 10 loans, which would appear at Page 938-939, Vol.

IV of the SLP Paper Book, which is as under:

1. Ex.P1027 OMTL-Indian Bank, Jaya Publications

Rs.1,50,00,000.00

2. Ex.P1101 Agricultural M.D. Loan, Indian Bank, Guna Bhushani. On request of Guna Bhushani, they changed the loan liability to A2, A3 and A4 since they

Rs.3,75,00,000.00

Page 79

79

became the share holders.

3. Ex.P1114 Indian Bank –A1 Rs.90,00,000.00 4. Ex.P1162 Indian Bank J. Real

Estate Rs.25,00,000.00

5. Ex.P1172 Indian Bank J.S.Housing

Rs.12,46,000.00

6. Ex.P1211 Indian Bank J. Farm House

Rs.50,00,000.00

7. Ex.P1260 Indian Bank- Sasikala Rs.25,00,000.00 8. Ex.P1330 Indian Bank-

V.N.Sudhakaran Rs.1,57,00,000.00

9. Ex.P1354 Ramaraj Agro Mill Ltd Rs.1,65,00,000.00 10 .

Ex.P1357 Indian Bank- Mahalakshmi Kalyanamandapa

Rs.17,85,274.00

Total Rs.24,17,31,274.00

35. Mr. Acharya pointed out that the High Court has wrongly

taken into account the above-mentioned 10 loan amounts,

being the loan from Indian Bank. Regarding the loan of

Rs.1,50,00,000/- by OMTL – Jaya Publication, which is shown

as item No.1 in Annexure-IV Ext.-P 2330, Page 1397 of Vol.VI,

(being expenditure list), he submitted that this amount

cannot be taken into account by the High Court. He also drew

our attention to the deposition made by PW-182 and PW-160

wherefrom it appears that the said loan was repaid. The Trial

Court has dealt with such loan as it is specifically stated that

the said loan was closed on June 25, 1994. Mr. Acharya

therefore submitted that the High Court taking this amount

Page 80

80

again, would amount to a double entry.

36. Regarding MD Loan of Rs.3,75,00,000/- which is shown

as Item No.8 in Annexure III Exh.P-2329, Page 1225 of Vol. V

(income list), it is submitted by Mr. Acharya that this loan has

been discussed by the Trial Court at Page 1237-1239 of Vol. V

while dealing with income and the Trial Court has accepted

the case of the prosecution. The accused at no point of time

have disputed about any loan not being taken into

consideration by the prosecution. Mr. Acharya therefore

submitted that the High Court should not have taken this

amount into consideration as taking this amount again, would

amount to double entry.

37. Mr. Acharya further submitted that the Loan of

Rs.90,00,000/- which has been taken after the check period is

only a credit voucher shown in Exh.P-1114, marked by

PW-182, who has deposed that this loan was taken in August,

1996 i.e. after the check period. He therefore submitted that

this loan could not have been considered by the High Court at

all.

38. Regarding the Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- which is shown as

Page 81

81

Item No.4 in Annexure-III Exh.P-2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V

(Income list) and Item No.5 of Annexure-IV, Exh.P-2330, Page

1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by Mr.

Acharya that this amount has been deposed to by PW-182 and

marked as Exh.P-1161 to 1163 through him. He submitted

that although the Bank had sanctioned Rs.25 lakhs, it had

released only a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The principal amount and

interest has not been paid back by the firm. The Trial Court

has discussed this loan at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing

with income and at Page 1417 of Vol.VI while dealing with

expenditure. Mr. Acharya submitted that this income has been

duly considered and the High Court could not have taken the

amount of Rs.25 lakhs under this head.

39. Regarding the loan of Rs.12,46,000/- J.S. Housing which

is shown as item No.3 in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224

of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item NO.4 in Annexure-IV

Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is

submitted by the learned counsel that this loan has been

deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1171 to 1173

through him. He submitted that although the Bank had

Page 82

82

sanctioned Rs.12.46 lakhs, it had released only a sum of Rs.7

lakhs and the principal amount and interest has not been paid

back by the firm. The Trial Court has discussed this loan at

Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page

1417 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Mr. Acharya,

therefore, submitted that this income has been duly

considered and the High Court could not have taken the

amount of Rs.12.46 lakhs under this head.

40. Regarding the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- J. Farm House

which is shown as item No.2 in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page

1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item No.3 in Annexure-IV

Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is

submitted by the learned counsel that this loan has been

deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1211-1212

through him. He submitted that although the Bank had

sanctioned Rs.50 lakhs, it had released only a sum of Rs.28

lakhs and the principal amount and interest has not been paid

back by the firm. The Trial Court has discussed this loan at

Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page

1416 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Therefore, Mr.

Page 83

83

Acharya submitted, this income has been duly considered and

the High Court could not have taken the amount of Rs.50

lakhs under this head.

41. Regarding the loan of Rs.25,00,000/- by Sasikala which

is shown as item No.1 in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224

of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item No.2 in Annexure-IV

Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is

submitted by the learned counsel that this amount has been

deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1260 through

him. He submitted that the principal amount due under this

account was Rs.13,55,023 and the Trial Court has discussed

this loan at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and

at Page 1416 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure.

Therefore, Mr. Acharya submitted that this income has been

duly considered and the High Court could not have taken the

amount of Rs.25 lakhs under this head.

42. Regarding the loan of Rs.1,57,00,000/- by Sudhakaran

(A3) which is shown as item No.7 in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329,

Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item No.8 in

Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure

Page 84

84

list), it is submitted by Mr. Acharya that this loan has been

taken by Lex Property Development Ltd. and not by

Sudhakaran. It has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked

as Exh.P-1330 through him. He submitted that the principal

amount due under this account was Rs.83,00,000 and the

Trial Court’s discussion on this loan is at Page 1234 of Vol. V

while dealing with income and at Page 1418 of Vol.VI while

dealing with expenditure. Therefore, Mr. Acharya submitted,

this income has been duly considered and the High Court

could not have taken a sum of Rs.1.57 lakhs under this head.

43. Regarding the loan of Rs.1,65,00,000/- by Ramraj Agro

Mills Ltd. it is submitted by the learned counsel that this loan

is not shown as an item in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page

1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) or as an item in Annexure-IV

Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list). It has been

deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1349-1354

through him. Exh.1354 is a statement of account of OCC-19 of

Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd. PW-235 at 145 of Vol. 11 has stated of

his knowledge about Rs.1.65 crores being sanctioned.

However, there is no evidence of disbursement of this loan

Page 85

85

amount. Mr. Acharya submitted that the amount due to the

Bank on this account was Rs.39,10,781/-, hence, the High

Court could not have taken a sum of Rs.1.65 crores under this

head.

44. Regarding the loan of Rs.17,85,274/- by Mahalakshmi

Kalyanamandapa, which is shown as item No.6 in

Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list)

and Item No.7 in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol.

VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by Mr. Acharya that this

has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1357

through him. He submitted that the amount due in this

account was Rs.19,81,802 and the Trial Court’s discussion on

this loan is at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income

and at Page 1417 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure.

Therefore, Mr. Acharya submitted that this income has been

duly considered and the High Court could not have taken a

sum of Rs.17.85 lakhs under this head.

45. Mr. Acharya thus submitted that the detailed discussion

in the preceding paragraphs will clearly disclose that that the

High Court considered these 10 items against the weight of the

Page 86

86

evidence on record and the entire amount of

Rs.24,17,31,274/- which after deduction of Rs.5,99,85,274/-

comes to Rs.18,17,46,000/- is liable to be set aside. He

further contended that the accused have nowhere in their

written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., their

Memorandum of Appeal or their written arguments before the

Trial Court and the High Court, taken any plea of any loan

from nationalized banks being left out of consideration while

calculating the income and expenditure and then arrived at

the value of Rs.9,34,26,054/- (Page 1224, Vo. V) and

Rs.11,56,56,833/- (Page 1397, Vol. VI), respectively.

Therefore, he contended that 10 items valued at

Rs.24,17,31,274/- taken by the High Court at Page 939, has

to be totally excluded since the same amounts to nothing but

double credit. If this error is corrected, than the income has to

be reduced by, according to him, Rs.18,17,46,000/-.

Therefore, from the finding of the total income of

Rs.34,76,65,654/- of the High Court, an amount of

Rs.18,17,46,000/- is liable to be deducted and the total

income would be only Rs.16,59,19,654/- and not

Page 87

87

Rs.34,76,65,654/-. He further contended that from this

amount, if we deduct the income on the basis of admission

and gift treating it as income, then the income will be

Rs.16,59,19,654/- - Rs.2,84,05,151/- (admitted amount) +

Rs.1,50,00,000/- (gifts) = Rs.12,25,14,503/-.

46. Mr. Acharya further contended that significantly the

accused are not pressing for remand of the case to the

appellate Court (High Court). Consequently, the accused

accept all the findings of the High Court. Of course, this Court

will have to correct the calculation mistakes or arithmetic

errors and also errors apparent on the face of the record.

Reacting to the ingenious endeavour on the part of the

respondents to maintain their acquittal by only assailing the

errors committed by the Trial Court, while abstaining from

questioning any finding of the High Court, the learned Public

Prosecutor urged that the choice before the respondents was

two-fold:- i) To treat all assets together as one unit and sustain the

same, subject to this Court modifying the same by

correcting calculations/mathematical errors as also

considering admissions of accused and excluding illegal

Page 88

88

income as pointed out by the appellants at Chart No.6

(pages 18 to 20) which results in the figure of above

Rs.35.00 crores as disproportionate assets; or ii) to assail the findings of the High Court and request for a

remand of the case to the High Court to hear the appeals

filed by them in the presence of the State of Karnataka,

which is the sole prosecuting agency.

Without following one of the above two options, accused

cannot claim confirmation of acquittal by merely pointing out

few infirmities in the order of the Trial Court and without

proper analysis of the evidence on record, he urged.

47. It is further the case of the prosecution that the Accused

Nos.1 to 4 have entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance

of the same, the Accused No.1 (A1) who is a public servant had

come into possession of assets disproportionate to the known

sources of income to the tune of Rs.66.65 crores during the

check period (1991-1996). It is further the case of the

appellants that A2 to A4 have abetted A1 in the commission of

the offence.

48. It is the case of the appellants that when A2 to A4 had

jointed the household of A1, they did not have any worthwhile

Page 89

89

property/asset in their names. They did not have any

independent source of income. Properties were acquired in the

names of newly formed or acquired thirty two

firms/companies and two existing firms, i.e., Jaya

Publications and Sasi Enterprises in which A1 and A2 were

partners. Among these entities, only few were registered as a

company under the Companies Act, 1956 and all others are

firms. In the said firms or companies, A2 or A3 or A4 or all of

them are partners or directors. It is not in dispute that the

said properties were acquired during the check period. It is

further submitted that it is on record that six firms were

registered on a single day, i.e., on 25.01.1994, where partners

were A2, A3 and A4 and ten other firms were registered on

another single day, i.e., on 06.02.1995, where A2, A3 and A4

were the partners and further in Lex Proeprty Development (P)

Ltd., A3 and A4 were the directors, which would be evident

from the deposition of PW3 (D. Thangavalu in Vol.2, Pg.

11-23). It was further pointed out that about 50 bank

accounts were opened in Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch

and Canara Bank, Mylapore in the names of accused and the

Page 90

90

firms/companies, which would be evident from the deposition

of PW-182 (A.R. Arunachalam in Vol.8 – Pages 90-182) and

PW-201 (C.K.R.K. Vidyasagar in Vol.9 – Pages 80-231). It is

also submitted that the accused shared common auditors,

architects and accountants.

49. On the question of abetment and conspiracy, Mr.

Acharya has duly taken us through the Paragraph Nos. 88 to

99 of the judgment and order of the Trial Court appearing at

Page Nos. 1838-2028 in Vol. 7 & 8 and submitted that there

was no source of income of A2 to A4 and further A2 to A4 were

not related to A1. Moreover, A2 to A4 resided with A1.

50. It is submitted that the properties standing in the name

of A3; formation of large number of firms in the names of A2 to

A4; opening of 50 bank accounts and transfer of funds from

one account to another and cash credits into the banks shows

that the origin of the resources is from A1. According to the

prosecution, the other circumstances which disclose the

conspiracy and abetment would appear from the following

facts :- (i) General Power of Attorney was given by A1 to A2; (ii) Constitution of various firms; (iii) Operations of firms from residence of A1;

Page 91

91

(iv) Installation of A2 to A4 in the house of A1; (v) A1 had knowledge of capital investments into Sasi

Enterprises;

(vi) Flow of money from one account to another; (vii) Calling of Sub-registrars to the residence of A1 and

properties were registered.

51. All these acts would come within the purview of the

conspiracy and abetment between A2 to A4 with A1. Mr.

Acharya submitted that all the circumstances mentioned

above establish the abetment and conspiracy. In support of

said contention, the following decisions were cited before us:- 1. Saju Vs. State of Kerala - (2001) 1 SCC 378

2. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors. – AIR 1996 SC 1744 = (1996) 4 SCC 659

3. Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) -(1988) 3 SCC 609

4. Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2003) 3 SCC 641

5. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra – (1970) 1 SCC 696

6. M.G. Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra – AIR 1963 SC 200 = (1963) 2 SCR 405

7. Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala - (2001) 7 SCC 596

52. He further submitted that to prove conspiracy it is not

Page 92

92

possible to have direct evidence. The same has to be proved by

drawing inferences from the proved circumstances. It is

fundamental that the ultimate decision has to be by

considering cumulative effect of all the circumstances taken

together. He also submitted that in the case of conspirators,

each one became an agent of the other and is bound by the

actions of others. So far as A1 and A2 are considered, one is

an agent of other in three ways –  as partners of two firms,  by virtue of power of attorney,  capacity as conspirator.

To support his contention, he submitted that:

 A1 had given specific instruction to follow the directions given by A2 (PW–198 -M. Jayaraman in Vol.9 – Pg 28-58 @ 29).

 Huge unaccounted cash deposits are made to these two accounts from cash originating from No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai.

 It is A2 who has given direction as to which account the huge cash deposits are to be made (PW–198 -M. Jayaraman in Vol.9 – Pg 28-58).

 There are numerous inter account transfers showing that all accounts put together were treated as one account.

 Officials were used to locate and purchase lands at various places like Thirunelveli, Uthukadu, Uthukottoai and other places.

Page 93

93

PW 47 - K. Muthian Vol.2 - Pg.237-245 PW 71 - S. Radhakrishnan Vol.3 – Pg 110-170 PW 159 – Rajagopalan Vol.7 – Pg 19-124

 Acquisition of immovable properties both agricultural as well as urban lands are as per registered sale deeds numbering 146, which have been produced. They were acquired in the name of individuals/ firms or companies. Agricultural lands acquired were of about 3000 acres of fertile lands of which about 900 acres formed a tea estate (Item No.166 – Annexure II, Pg 1588 Vol.VI). These properties were purchased at a cost of about Rs.20 crores.

 In respect of most of the sales it is A2 who had given directions as to the names of which firm/individual the sale was to be registered in (PW 159 – Rajagopalan in Vol 7 – Pg.19-124).

 The amounts were paid from amongst the various accounts of the accused/firms/companies and cash.

 Most of the Sale transactions have taken place below the Guideline value. PW 159 - Rajagopalan Vol.7 – Pg 19-124 PW 221 - R.Kesava Ramanujam Vol.10 Pg162-249 @ 172

 In many transactions, the vendor was not kept aware of the purchaser and the registrations took place through the registrars at the residence of A1. So also vendors were put under duress to sell their properties. Instances of officials also being put under duress were available. Evidence disclosed that A1 was aware of the transactions.

 There were also additional or new constructions made and old buildings were also renovated at huge costs.

Page 94

94

53. Mr. Acharya submitted that the Trial Court has

categorized the assets at Page 1543 in Vol. VI. He furnished

us the chart as follows:-

CHART NO 10-A For convenient d iscuss ion of the i ssues involved in the case , these assets are

categorized by the Trial Court under the fol lowing heads. [Pg l543 Vol. VI]

Nature of assets Item Nos. Value(in Rs.) Value

(in Rs.)

Value

(in Rs.) As per Accused

As Per As Per Trial As Per High in their Written Prosecution Court Court Submission Page

Page 1543 - Page 1837& Page 966-979 Vol

2350 Vol IX

Vol VI 1838 Vol VII IV I Immovable 1 to 173, 175,

292 , 297 , 30 I ,

302(i), 305 (Excluding item Nos.24, 31 , 33 , 64 , 66 , 127, 145,150, 159)

19,77,18164.70/- 20,07,80,246 6,24,09,120 16,19,03,301/-

properties Pg : 978 Vol IV (consideration, Only 97 Sale

cost of Pg 1590 Vol Deeds considered registration) VI

II Cash paid over & 24, 31 , 33 , 64 , 2,53,80,619.00 1,58,30,619 -Nil- NIL

above 66, 127, 145, Pg : 978 Vol IV

consideration 150, 159

III New or additional 174, 176-192, 28,17,40,430.00 22,53,92,344 5,10,54,060 8,60,59,261/- construction buildings

301, 302 (ii) Pg :866-889, 979 Vol IV

IV Gold and Diamond Jewellery 284-290, 295 5,53,02,334.75 2,51,59,144 As per prosecution 979 Vol IV

NIL

V Silver wares

291 48,80,800 20,80,000 As per prosecution 979 Vol IV

NIL

VI F.Ds and shares

258-277, 298, 303, 306

3,42,62,728.0 3,42,62,728 As per prosecution 979 Vol IV

2,30,00,000/-

Page 95

95

VII Cash balance in

bank accounts

Jewellery

193-229, 29 6,

300, 304

97,47,751.32 97,47,751.32 As per prosecution

979 Vol IV

97,47,751.32/-

VIII Vehicles

230-257, 299 1,29,94,033.0 1,29,94,033.0 As per prosecution 979 Vol IV

81,35,106/-

IX Machinery

293, 294 2,24,11,000.0 2,24,11,000.0 As per prosecution 979 Vol IV

94,25,835/-

X Footwear

278 2,00,902.45 Nil -Nil-

Pg 966 Vol IV

NIL

XI Sarees

279-281 92,44,290.00 Nil -Nil-

Pg 967 Vol IV

NIL

XII Wrist watches

282-283 15,90,350.00 15,90,350.00 As per prosecution 979 Vol. IV

NIL

TOTAL 64,42,89,61 55,02,48,215 25,46,52,177 29,82,71,254.32

CHART 10-B VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

PROSECUTION TRIAL COURT HIGHCOURT AS PER ACCUSED

19,77,18164.70/ -

Page 1543 Vol VI

20,07,80,246/- Page 1837 Vol VII

6,24,09,120/- Page 978 Vol IV

16,19,03,301/- Page 2350 Vol IX

Some Important Witnesses Who speak of purchase of property are :

Vendors Sub- Registrars P.W-40 Gangai Amaran (About names of Purchasers being left blank)

-Pg 1639 -Vol VII

P.W 221 Kesava R am an u ja m

Purchaser's name inserted later - Pgs 17-18 of Chief.

Page 96

96

Exh- P 105-110 P.W - 56 Rajaram (500 Acres) -Pg 1643

- Vol VII P.W 159 Thiru Rajagopalan

About going to Poes Garden and effecting various registrations.

P.W-89 Peter G r a i g J o n e s (Kodanadur Tea Estate - 900 Acres)

54. He also drew our attention to the particulars of these

sales, which were furnished before us. The total sale price

under these sale deeds comes to Rs.19,77,18,164/- though

according to the Trial Court the same is Rs.20,07,80,246/-.

The difference is marginal and it can be taken that

immoveable properties worth about Rs.20 (twenty) crores have

been acquired during the check period. He submitted that to

prove these sales, prosecution has examined about 60

Vendors and about 20 Sub-registrars.

55. He further contended that though according to DVAC

there were 21 items, the Trial Court has taken only 18 out of

them and the High Court has taken only 17 there from. Hence

he submitted that the High Court has miscalculated the area

of construction of 17 items as 1668.39 Squares, i.e. 1,66,839

Sq.Ft. instead of 2174.69 Squares, i.e., 2,17,469 sq. ft. which

Page 97

97

is nearly 506.3 Squares, i.e., 50,630 sq. ft. lesser than the

actual area as per the valuation reports. In support of such

contention, he filed a Chart, which is set out hereunder:

CHART 10-F VALUATION OF ALL THE 21 PROPERTIES

THE FOLLOWING CHART DEALS WITH THE 21 PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE SAMPLE 3 PROPERTIES.

SI.No ITEM NOS AS ANNEXU RE -II P-2328

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

PROSE CUTION

WITNE S SES

EXHIBI T NO.

TOTAL CONSTRU CTION IN SQ MTS

VALUATION

1. 192 Building, Borewells with Electrical motors & 5 separate power connections and Pumps located at Sy No.466,461/1 & 467/2 at Cherankulam Village,VOC District belonging to M/s Riverway Agro Products Ltd

87 519 171.00 708,160/-

2. 186 New/Additional Construction in residential building at No.L/66, Anna Nagar, Chennai.

98 641 289.84 24,83,759/-

3. 187 New/Additional Const ruct ion in Bui ld ing a t D o o r

98 642 203 10,92,828/-

Page 98

98

N o . 5 , M u r u g e s a n Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17

4. 178 New/Additional Construction in the residential building at D. No. 3/178C Vettuvankeni, Chennai

98 643 2250.41 1,52,59,076/-

5. 189 New/Additional Construction in residential Building

at No.1, Murphy St., Akkarai, Chennai

98 644 271.8 20,38,959/-

6. 179 New/Additional construct ion in the bui ld ing a t t h e G r a p e G a r d e n F a r m House, in the l imits of Jeedi M e t h a n d P e t p e s h e r a b a d Villages in A.P.

98 645 1009.9 6,40,33,901/-

7. 180 New/Additional

c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e p o s h B a n g a l o w a t S i r u t h a v u r i n Chegai MGR Dist

107 661 1911 5,40,52,298/-

8. 176 New/Additional cons t ruc t i on in Fa rm House B u n g a l o w s a t P a y a n n u r i n Chengai Anna District

107 662 1369.09 1,25,90,261/-

9. 177 New/Additional Construction building at Door No.48, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Industrial

107 663 1986.12 2,13,63,457/-

Page 99

99

Estate, Guindy, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai (M/ s. Anjaneya Pr inters (P) Ltd., Printers)

10. 185 New/Additional Construction in residential building at Door No.21 Padmanabha Street, T. Nagar, Chennai- 17

116 666 344.87 20,43,000/-

11. 182 New/Additional cons t ru c t i on i n bu i l d ing a t 1 4 9 , 1 5 0 o f T T K R o a d , Chennai - 18

116 667 1143.63 29,59,000/-

12. 188 New/Additional Construction in residential building (4 Nos) in the campus at No.1/240, Enjambakkam, in New Mahabalipuram Road .A1

116 668 1985.24 53,11,000/-

13. 183

New/Additional c on s t r u c t i on i n bu i l d ing a t Sea Shell Avenue No.2/1-B-3 Apa r tm en t Sho l i ngana l l o r e Saidapet, Taluk

116 669 1311.39 80,36,868/-

14. 184 New/Additional Const ruct ion in Bui ld ing a t Door No.19, Pattammal Street, Mylapore, Chennai

116 670 107.75 8,00,000/-

15. 181 New/Additional 116 671 3527.5 7,24,98,000/-

Page 100

100

construction in the residential building at D.No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86.

16. 174 New/Additional Construction in bu i ld ing at 5 B & C East Coast Road, Door No.4/130 R a j a N a g a r , N e e l a n k a r a i , Chennai-41(Ref. Doc.No.4752/930fS. R.O. Adyar)Evaluation Report

117 673 1333.83 80,75,000/-

17. 191 New/Additional Construction in Buildings a n d t h e c h a n g e o f r o o f f o r the works she at MF-9, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai-32

117 674 274.69 (14,17,538) 15,45,000/-

 190 New/Additional Const ruct ion in Bui ld ing a t S.No.32/2-4, P lot Nos.S-7, Ganapathy Colony, Tr. Vi-Ka I n d l . E s t a t e , G u i n d y , Chennai-32

117 677 883.55 39,34,000/-

 301 Cost of renovation and additional construction b e t w e e n J u n e 1 9 9 2 a n d 1993,

144 782 109.99 6,83,325/-

Page 101

101

of the building at Plot No.102, ITI Cross, Road, Pon N a g a r , T r i c h y , o w n e d b y Tmt. N. Sasikala (covered by Document No.2256/90 dt. 3- 5 - 9 0 o f S . R . O . T . O . R . B . , Trichy)

 147 Cost of construction of compound wall, twin house, staff quarters for 8 numbers and MD Bungalow in Ramraj Mills Campus

153 822 2560.86 83,41,000/-

21. 146 Cost of construction of labour quarters (5) in ground f loor & (5 ) in f i rst f loor, 10 nos. in Ground Floor and 10 n o s i n f i r s t f l o o r , construction of f irst floor for Guest House, over the existing ground floor and const ruc t i on o f p la t fo rm in Ramra j Agro Mi l l s Campus at Vandampalai.

205 1964 86 1965

31.38 57,19,800/-

TOTAL 23,076.84 29,35,68,982/- 2/-4

Page 102

102

23076.84sq mts = 2483.97 squares. The High court has however considered 17 items instead of 21.Therefore the area of construction of 4 items i.e. item nos 146, 147, 192, and 301 is hereto deducted and the total area of 17 items is equalent to 20,203 sq mts which is = 2174.69 squares i.e 2,17,469 Sq ft.

The high court has miscalculated the area of construction of 17 items as 1668.39 Squares i.e 1,66,839 sq ft instead of 2174.69 Squares i.e 2,17,469 Sq ft which is nearly 506.3 Squares i.e 50,630 Sq ft lesser than the actual area as per the valuation reports.

56. He further submitted that the valuation of the

constructions has been made by qualified PWD engineers.

Even the defence has examined a retired engineer (DW-95).

Detailed valuation reports have been produced and all the

engineers who have valued the buildings after inspection have

been examined. The contention of the defence that Trial Court

has rejected this evidence is not correct. In fact the Trial Court

has accepted the evidence. But having regard to the fact that

in valuing the constructions, there are several imponderables

and taking note of the possibility of marginal error, the Trial

Court has given a discount of 20% which in the

circumstances, is reasonable. Having regard to the superior

quality of marble and granite used as described in the

valuation reports and having regard to the value of various

special items, the ultimate finding of the Trial Court is

Page 103

103

justified, he urged.

57. He further submitted that even the accused have

admitted valuation of buildings at Rs.8,60,59,261/- excluding

one building of Anjaneya Printers. If the value of this

construction of Rs.2,13,63,457/- is added to this sum, the

total will be Rs.10,74,22,718/-. As can be seen from Chart 10

as reproduced above, under other items of assets IV to XII, the

Trial Court has totally excluded the value of Sarees and

footwear. Regarding Gold and Diamond jewellary also after

detailed discussion at Pages 1756 to 1785, Trial Court has

reduced the value from Rs.5,53,02,334/- to Rs.2,51,59,144/-

and Silverwares from Rs.48,80,800/- to Rs.20,80,000/-.

Regarding other items such as Fixed Deposits and cash

balance in bank account, there can be no dispute. Therefore,

the conclusion of the Trial Court regarding value of other

assets is fully justified as per the evidence on record, he

contended.

58. So far expenditure is concerned, the High Court has

accepted the amount of expenditure fixed by DVAC in respect

Page 104

104

of all items except the marriage. The High Court has reduced

the marriage expenditure from Rs.6,45,04,222/- (as per

prosecution) to Rs.28,68,000/-, i.e., a reduction of

Rs.6,16,36,222. According to the prosecution, the total

expenditure is Rs.11,56,56,833/-.

59. He submitted that the main dispute under caption

expenditure is regarding marriage. In support of the

prosecution case as many as 21 witnesses have been

examined as detailed in the chart. Though according to

prosecution expenditure incurred for marriage is

Rs.6,45,04,222/-, the Trial Court on detailed consideration

has fixed the same at Rs.3 Crores. It is thus totally erroneous

to contend that the Trial Court has rejected the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, he pleaded. In fact the Trial Court on a

consideration, not only of the prosecution evidence but also

defence evidence of 23 witnesses, has rightly fixed the amount

of expenditure to the tune of Rs.3 Crores. It is even conceded

that a total expenditure of Rs.2 to 3 Crores has been spent for

the marriage. According to him, the Trial Court has rightly

disbelieved the evidence of DW’s who claimed that the party

Page 105

105

workers have collected funds and have spent for expenses

such as façade, decoration, food etc. It is unbelievable that a

person of the stature of A1, would allow her party workers to

spend on the marriage of her foster son. He elaborated that

though A1 has, in her reply to the notice to the Income Tax

Department, claimed that A2 has spent amounts under

different heads, A2 has failed to account for the same.

60. Mr. Acharya submitted that according to the prosecution

the total income of the accused is Rs.9,34,26,054/- and

according to the Trial Court, the total income is

Rs.9,91,05,094.75/-. However, according to the High Court,

the total income is Rs.34,76,65,654/-. In coming to this

conclusion, the High Court added to the income seven items

such as :

S.No. Description Amount 1. Loans as income 18,17,46,000 2. Income from grape garden 46,71,600 3. Gifts 1,50,00,000 4. Sasi Enterprises 25,00,000 5. Jaya Publications and

Namadhu MGR 4,00,00,000

6. Super Duper TV Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,00,000/- 7. Rental Income 3,22,000/-

Page 106

106

According to Mr. Acharya, there is no lawful source so far

as the Gift is concerned. He further submitted that the Trial

Court has rightly disallowed the claim. The High Court has

erroneously fixed it at Rs.4 crores based on belatedly filed

Income Tax returns, which even if accepted, amounts to only

Rs.1.15 Crores.

61. Therefore, he submitted that if the above is the correct

position, the conclusion of the Trial Court is fully justified.

According to him, the Trial Court has considered every

contention raised by the accused and if some of the

contentions are not urged before the Trial Court, then the

respondent cannot complain before this Court about

non-consideration thereof.

62. He further contended that if the contention of the

appellants that in calculating Disproportionate Assets, the

value of the Assets, Expenditure and Income of all the Accused

have to be taken jointly along with that of firms and

companies (34 in number), as done by both the courts below,

then the explanation offered in the individual chart of A1 and

the combined chart given by A2 to A4 will be of no effect and

Page 107

107

the same do not deserve to be taken note of. The accused have

deliberately given their explanations separately as they cannot

give any satisfactory explanation if the assets are taken jointly.

63.In refutation, learned senior counsel appearing for A1

submitted that the Trial Court wrongly excluded from

consideration the Income Tax Assessment Orders in favour of

the accused by relying upon the judgment of High Court of

Patna in State of Bihar Vs. Lalu Prasad & Anr., (2008)

Crl.L.J. 2433, which, according to him, is clearly inapplicable

since the order passed by the Patna High Court was in the

nature of an interlocutory order. He further stated that while

dealing with the assets of A1 under the head “Additional

Construction”, the Trial Court by an arbitrary method

deducted 20% from the overall cost of construction. Similarly,

in relation to marriage expenditure, the Trial Court

erroneously estimated the cost of construction of a thatched

pandal and arbitrarily came to the conclusion that the

marriage expenditure was to the tune of Rs.3 crores, for which

no basis has been given, according to him. He further

contended that with regard to the possession of gold and

Page 108

108

jewellery, although the Trial Court accepted that A1 had 7040

gms. in 1987-1988, as reflected in the Wealth Tax Assessment

order, it overlooked the other Wealth Tax Assessment orders

for the subsequent years whereby there was an addition of

Rs.2,51,59,144/- in the holdings of A1, which is also contrary

to the evidence on record. He further submitted that the Trial

Court and the prosecution have failed to take into account the

income from Grape Garden, interest income, rental advance,

rental income, wealth tax refund, income from gifts, Partner’s

drawings of A1 from Jaya Publications and income from

Namadhu MGR scheme, etc.

64. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Trial Court,

contrary to the settled law, has required the public servant to

offer an explanation to the properties held by A2 to A4 and the

companies, without any foundational basis or any evidence to

show that those properties in the names of A2 to A4 or

companies were acquired out of the resources of A1 or that

there was any flow of fund from A1 to A2 to A4. The Trial

Court has sought to attribute criminal conspiracy between A1

and A2 to A4 on the sole ground that A1 to A4 were living in

Page 109

109

the same house under a common roof.

65. He further contended that in a disproportionate assets

case, the prosecution has to discharge the initial burden to

prove that the assets of the accused were disproportionate to

the known sources of income. The prosecution must establish

beyond reasonable doubt, the value of the assets possessed by

the accused and it has a further burden to show that the

properties which were standing in the name of third parties,

like A2 to A4 and the companies, were being held benami for

the public servant. Once the prosecution discharges this initial

burden beyond reasonable doubt, the onus then shifts to the

accused to satisfactorily account for the source of such

income. He further contended that for the accused, the

standard of proof is one based on preponderance of

probabilities and it is sufficient for the accused to provide a

plausible explanation that is satisfactory to the Court. In

support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied

upon the following decisions:  V.D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - (1966) 3

SCR 736

Page 110

110

 State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra

Kaidalwar - (1981) 3 SCC 199  Mr. Krishna Reddy Vs. State, Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Hyderabad - (1992) 4 SCC 45  Amba Lal Vs. Union of India - (1961) 1 SCR 933  K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors. - (1991) 3

SCC 655  Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. -

(2012) 1 SCC 10

66.He further contended that in establishing the link between the

alleged benamdar and the public servant, the standard of

proof required is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence of

a clinching nature, which has to be strictly discharged by

adducing legal evidence of a definite character. He further

relied upon the decisions of this Court in Jaydayal Poddar

(deceased) through L.Rs. & Anr. Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazara,

(1974) 1 SCC 3, Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra), Valliammal

(D) by L.Rs. Vs. Subramaniam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 233,

and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S.

Shah, (1996) 4 SCC 490.

67. The learned senior counsel, next dwelt upon the purport

of “income received from any lawful source” and drew our

attention to Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, which reads as

Page 111

111

follows:

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(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.”

68. He further contended that the term “income” which has

been used in Section 13(1)(e), would include all earnings,

sources whereof are not prohibited by law and it is always

open to the accused to prove those other sources of income

which have not been taken into account or brought into

evidence by the prosecution. The term “income”, according to

him, would also include receipts in the form of “gifts” and

“loans” which have been disclosed to and accepted by the

income tax authorities. He further pointed out that the

Page 112

112

concept of ‘known sources of income’ is not confined only to

the source known to the prosecution but every other source of

income which the accused is able to establish during the

course of trial. In support of the said contention, he relied

upon the following decisions of this Court:  C.S.D. Swami Vs. The State - (1960) 1 SCR 461  P. Nallammal & Anr. Vs. State - (1999) 6 SCC 559  Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra)  M. Krishna Reddy (supra)

69. According to the learned senior counsel, income

tax/wealth tax returns and assessment orders, being public

documents, are admissible in evidence. He further submitted

that this Court has also accepted the income tax orders while

deciding the cases under the 1988 Act. This Court has relied

upon the following decisions:  Mohd. Mumtaz Vs. Nandini Satpathy (II) - (1987)

1 SCC 279  State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni - (2000) 6 SCC

338  Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. UOI - (1994) Crl.L.J. 12,

para 8-14  M. Krishna Reddy (supra)  State of A.P. Vs. J. Satyanarayana, JT 2000 (10)

SC 430  DSP, Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran, (2006) 1 SCC

420

Page 113

113

 Kedari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2015) 14 SCC 505

70. On the basis of above, the learned senior counsel

submitted that under the 1988 Act the burden on the accused

is proved by preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case

and same is the degree of proof required under the Income Tax

Act also. Therefore, where the assessee had established the

income and the extent of the expenditure before the Income

Tax authorities, the judicial decision thereunder would be

binding on the prosecution in a case under the 1988 Act.

Hence, he submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court on

this question is wrong.

71.Having regard to the various evaluations relied upon by the

prosecution, as he mentioned that in law, the expert evidence

is an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 46 of the

Evidence Act. An expert is not a witness to a fact. His evidence

therefore must be based on verifiable and reliable data and an

expert witness has to give an opinion with certainty. He relied

on the judgment of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal,

(1999) 7 SCC 280 and other decisions. He further submitted

Page 114

114

that the evidentiary value of prevaricating witnesses is to be

rejected. He relied upon the case of Suraj Mal Vs. State

(1979) 4 SCC 725.

72. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Court

cannot set up a third case which is not the basis of

prosecution case or that of the accused. He further contended

that without making a company an accused, its property

cannot be forfeited. He further contended that A1’s income

and expenditure have been accepted by the Income Tax

authorities for all the five years of the check period. In none of

the assessment years any income is assessed as from an

unexplained source. Same is the position as regards Jaya

Publication and for A2 also, and those orders have been

exhibited in evidence. He further submitted that A1 had no

disproportionate assets but her likely savings were to the

extent of Rs.67,72,128.54. The prosecution has valued all the

assets belonging to A1 to A4 and the 32 firms/companies, in a

sum of Rs.66,65,20,395/-. The value of the assets held by

them before the check period was assessed at

Rs.2,01,83,957/-. The assets acquired during the check period

Page 115

115

is Rs.64,42,89,616/-. The value of the assets acquired by A1

alone as per DVAC is Rs.24,29,40,490/-.

73. However, it is A1’s case that the assets acquired

(including construction) by A1 during check period amounted

to Rs.6,52,34,410.00 for which she had satisfactorily

explained out of her known sources of income. The major

heads of assets and the errors committed by the Trial Court

were highlighted as hereunder: A1 acquired only one property during the entire check

period. It is vide Exhibit P1 for Rs.10,00,000/- shown as item

18 in Annexure-II. She made two constructions, a Farm House

at Jeedimetla Village near Hyderabad and a construction at

31-A Poes Garden and renovated her residential building at 36

Poes Garden.

74. Vis-à-vis new and additional constructions, Mr. L.

Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel (as he then was)

submitted that according to the prosecution the total cost was

Rs.13,65,31,901/- and according to the accused as

determined by the Income Tax authorities it is

Rs.3,62,47,700/-. Hence, he submitted that deduction of

Rs.10,02,84,201/- is required. He further pointed out that

Page 116

116

there are fundamental defects in the prosecution evidence in

relation to the valuation of all the construction because

measurement is not verifiable, age of the building is not given,

there is no basis for calculating the price of non-scheduled

items. As per prosecution’s calculation the cost under the

head new/additional construction in Grape Garden Farm

House is Rs.6,40,33,901/- while as per A1 this cost is

Rs.1,39,62,300/-. Therefore, he submitted that an amount of

Rs.5,00,71,601/- should be deducted.

75. According to the learned senior counsel, the prosecution

has examined PW-98 M. Velayudam, PWD Engineer (Vol.4

Page 148-179) and marked his Report Exh.P-645 (Vol.33 Page

86-112). He submitted that the evidence of PW-98 should be

rejected since there are three major defects in his evidence. He

further pointed out that his report is unreasoned and cannot

be relied upon. The entire evaluation of electrical appliances

by Mr. Udaya Suriyan, Asstt. Electrical Engineer, amounting

to Rs.41,53,653/- (Exh.P-645) is inadmissible in evidence as

this expert has not been examined as a witness. He further

submitted that the defence evidence has not been taken into

Page 117

117

account by the Trial Court. He further contended that the

calculation of the prosecution under the head ‘New/Additional

Construction at residential buildings at 31-A and 36 Poes

Garden’ is Rs.7,24,98,000/- (Trial Court Judgment – Page

1709 of Vol.VII), whereas the valuation as per A1 is

Rs.2,14,35,4000/-. Accordingly, he submitted that an amount

of Rs.5,10,62,600/- is to be deducted from the said amount.

76. He submitted that the prosecution has relied mainly on

the evidence of PW-116 Jayapal, PWD Executive Engineer

(appear at Vol.5 Page 41) and the report prepared by him i.e.

Exh.P-671 (Vol. 35 Page 16-47) to arrive at an erroneous

calculation of Rs.7,24,98,000/-. According to the learned

counsel, there are several infirmities in the report Exh.P-671

as well as deposition of PW-116. He also raised dispute with

regard to the valuation of electrical lay outs being Exh.P-2152

submitted by PW-220. He also relied on the evidence of DW-78

– R. Raviraj, Executive Engineer (Vol.91 Page 212). He further

contended that the total expenditure incurred by A1 towards

construction was accepted by the Income Tax authorities after

deep and pervasive scrutiny. He also submitted that the total

Page 118

118

expenditure incurred by A1 in the entire three constructions

amount to only as under:

Renovation of 36 Poes Garden Rs. 76,74,900/-

Construction at 31-A Poes Garden Rs.1,35,10,500/-

Hyderabad Farm House addition Rs.1,39,62,300/-

Compound Wall for Hyderabad Rs. 11,00,000/-

Farm House ________________

Total Rs.3,62,47,700/- whereas the prosecution has wantonly inflated the

expenditure in a sum of Rs.13,65,31,901/-. Therefore, there

has to be deduction of Rs.10,02,84,201/- from the

Annexure-II which denotes the value of the assets during the

check period.

77. He further submitted that the prosecution has shown the

DVAC valuation of golden jewellery acquired by A1 during the

check period as Item 286, 288, 289, 290 & 291 to

Rs.5,14,19,462.25. The learned senior counsel further pointed

out that the Trial Court’s valuation of gold jewellery acquired

by A1 during the check period is Rs.2,51,59,144/-. With

regard to the gold jewellery possessed by A1, Mr. Rao

submitted that the total jewellery as on 31.3.1991 which was

Page 119

119

21.280.300, was valued at Rs.1,50,56,146/- and there is no

addition to the jewellery in that year. The above figure was

arrived at on the basis of increase in value of gold and as per

report of the registered valuer being Exh.P-860. Therefore, it is

indisputable and as per the prosecution document

above-mentioned, being Exh. P-2180, and also wealth tax

assessment orders and evidence of PW-227 and PW-213, it

would be evident from Exh. P-1016, Vol.57, Page 186-187, the

total gold jewellery owned and possessed by A2 as on

31.3.1991 was 1,912.150 gms. Therefore, the total jewellery

comes to about 23,192.450 gms. It is further stated that A1 in

her capacity as General Secretary of the AIADMK Party, got

3,365.800 gms. of gold Mementos which should be added to

the total holding of A1 and A2. From Exh.P-704, Vol. 36, at

253-292, it would be evident that the total weight of the gold

jewellery seized was 26,902.08 gms. which included

mementoes. Therefore, he submitted that there is insignificant

difference of 343.830 gms. According to him this difference

might have arisen out of faulty weighment. He further

submitted that the valuation of the jewellery filed in the return

Page 120

120

before the wealth tax authorities did not include mementoes.

78. He further pointed out that A1 had succeeded in all the

proceedings before the Income Tax authorities and her case

that the gold jewellery was already possessed by her earlier to

the check period had been accepted by the authorities. Hence,

he submitted that the total jewellery to the extent of

26,558.250 gms. has been accounted for and what remains is

only a balance of around 343.830 gms. which is meager

difference.

79. The learned senior counsel next pointed out that 416

Kgs. of silver was seized from A1 during the check period. The

value of this silver has been taken as Rs.20,80,000/- at the

rate of Rs.5,000/- per Kg as described in Item No.291 of the

DVAC Annexre-II (Vol.1 Page 112). The Trial Court’s finding is

that 416 Kgs of silver is the illegal acquisition of A1 during the

check period and the value of this at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per

kg, is assessed at Rs.20,80,000/-.

80. The High Court has also accepted the said valuation.

The Trial Court, in respect of costly watches, has duly

Page 121

121

accepted and allowed the case of the prosecution while

accepting the valuation report and oral evidence of PW-129

and PW-130. According to the learned senior counsel, PW-130

had been examined to value 91 watches. His report is

Exh.740. He had given the total value of 91 watches at

Rs.6,87,350/-. However, it would be evident from the

testimony of these witnesses that they are not experts as they

have no special proficiency on valuation of watches nor do

they have experience in evaluating watches. He further

submitted that A1 was not required to disclose personal effects

as it is exempted under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.

Hence, the amount of Rs.15,90,350/- is liable to be excluded

from the computation of the assets of A1. He also submitted

that the entire amount with regard to footwear and sarees has

to be excluded from the assets of A1 since the Trial Court has

disbelieved the version of the prosecution.

81. The learned senior counsel next turned to the

expenditure. Annexure-III of DVAC shows that the valuation of

expenditure attributable to A1 to A4 and the companies during

the check period is Rs.11,56,56,833/- and as per the

Page 122

122

prosecution the expenditure attributable to A1 is

Rs.8,98,69,833/-. A1’s case was that the expenditure incurred

by her during the check period was Rs.2,49,28,815/. As per

the Trial Court’s judgment its value is Rs.8,49,06,833/- (Page

1542 Vol.VI) and the findings of the High Court which has

been placed before us is at Pages 889-831. He drew the attention of this Court specifically to the

following particulars with regard to the Marriage of Tr. V.N.

Sudhakaran:

 Prosecution’s Valuation – Rs.6,45,04,222.00  A1’s case – Expenditure incurred by A1 for the marriage –

Rs.28,68,000.00  Value as per Trial Court Judgment – Rs.3,00,00,000

(Page1452-1542 Vol.VI).  Value as per the High Court Judgment – Rs.28,68,000.00

(Pages 889-931)

The Prosecution value of Rs.6,45,04,222.00 was split up by

the prosecution itself in Item 226 of Annexure IV as follows:

a) Expenses towards erection of marriage pandal, over and

above admitted/recorded payments – Rs.5,21,23,532/- b) Expenditure towards cost of food, mineral water and

tamboolam - Rs.1,14,96,125/- c) Cost of 34 titan watches

(disallowed by the Trial Court) – Rs.1,34,565/-

Page 123

123

d) Amount towards stitching wedding dress for A3 Rs.1,26,000/-

e) Amount for purchase of 100 silver Plates (paid by N. Sasikala) - Rs.4,00,000/-

f) Postal expenses for dispatching 56000 wedding invitations: Rs.2,24,000/-

Total Rs.6,45,04,222/-

82. Qua Marriage Pandals, the prosecution relied upon the

evidence of Thangarajan who was examined as PW-181 who

specifically stated that a huge pandal had been erected for the

marriage and the cost of pandal itself was Rs.5,21,23,532/-. It

is submitted that the evidence of PW-181 is unacceptable as it

is merely hearsay, speculative, arbitrary and based on no

verifiable data to reach the said amount. Hence, it is

submitted by the learned counsel that his evidence ought to be

rejected. According to A1, she had spent a sum of

Rs.28,68,000/- which is reflected in the orders of the Income

Tax authorities. The Trial Court has fixed this sum at

Rs.3,00,00,000/- towards the expenditure for marriage.

According to learned senior counsel appearing for A1, the

prosecution has not discharged its burden in respect of the

quantum of expenditure for the marriage as well as the cost

which was borne by A1. According to the learned counsel, the

Page 124

124

prosecution neither could establish the cost of construction of

marriage pandal nor it led any evidence to show that A1

incurred any expenditure. Hence, the amount of Rs.5.21

crores cannot be said to have been established by the

prosecution and hence the entire amount is liable to be

deducted. The prosecution has not proved the entire item 226

in Annexure-II. Hence, the entire amount of Rs.6,45,04,222/-

is liable to be excluded.

83. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Income Tax

Department had accepted the version of A1 that she had

incurred only an expenditure of Rs.29.81 lakhs, all by cheques

except for a sum of Rs.3.1 lakhs. According to him, at the

most, Rs.29,66,552/- is to be added in respect of the

expenditure incurred by A1. According to him, the findings of

the Trial Court cannot be accepted to the tune of Rs.3 crores

towards the expenditure for marriage. On the contrary, the

High Court has rightly accepted the case of the accused.

84. The Trial Court and the High Court have calculated the

combined total income of A1 to A4 and we find that no appeal

has been filed by A1 to A4 in respect thereof. Therefore, we at

Page 125

125

this stage, make it clear that we would adopt the same

yardstick in respect of the combined income of A1 to A4, in

absence of any persuasive reason to the contrary.

85. In re, income from Grape Garden, it appears that that the

difference in estimated Grape Garden income between the

prosecution and A1 is Rs.46,71,660/-. The prosecution has

cited the income from the Grape Garden during the check

period to the extent of Rs.5,78,340/- instead of

Rs.52,50,000/- as computed by A1. While the Trial Court has

concurred with the prosecution, the High Court has accepted

the case of A1 and allowed an addition to the extent of

Rs.46,71,660/- in respect of the income of A1 from Grape

Garden. It is further submitted that the agricultural income of

Rs.52,50,000/- requires to be taken as income available to A1

during the check period. According to the learned senior

counsel, A1 has fully proved the receipt of agricultural income

and the High Court has also accepted this.

86. With regard to the interest income of A1, the prosecution

has allowed the same to the extent of Rs.58,90,925/- instead

of Rs.77,40,135/- as claimed by A1 on the basis of amounts

Page 126

126

declared and assessed in Income Tax Returns/Assessment

orders. The Trial Court has concurred with the prosecution

and disallowed interest income of A1 amounting to

Rs.18,49,210/-.

87. According to A1, the rental income was Rs.2,32,000/- per

annum from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996, at the rate of Rs.4,000/-

per month, in relation to the property in St. Mary’s Road,

Chennai. It is also accepted that the Income Tax return could

not be filed for the year 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993.

The claim of A1 is that the amount of gifts received by

her on the occasion of her 44th birthday was

Rs.2,15,00,012/-(cash and drafts) and Rs.77,52,059/- (foreign

remittance) and this entire amount is to be allowed as income.

He has submitted that the prosecution has admitted the

receipt of the gift, it having been contemporaneously banked,

but the amounts were not taken into account as income or

lawful resource available to A1. The Trial Court has disallowed

it in entirety. However, the High Court accepted the case of A1

and reduced the amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received from

Page 127

127

gift. It is submitted that the said income ought to have been

taken into consideration by the Trial Court.

88.Learned senior counsel further submitted that gift has been

recognized as valid source of income by this Court in its

judicial pronouncements and he relied upon the case of M.

Krishna Reddy (supra) and Kedari Lal (supra). It is further

pointed out that A1 had received an amount of Rs.6,28,569.00

from Sasi Enterprises in her capacity as partner during the

check period which was not repaid by A1 to M/s. Sasi

Enterprises, thereby treating it as her drawings as a partner of

the said firm.

89. It is further pointed out that A1 had received a loan of

Rs.1,53,03,000.00 from A2 and her proprietary firms. Jaya

Publication was started in the year 1988. At the relevant time,

A1 and A2 were the only partners. It was carrying on business

of printing and was running a daily newspaper called

Namadhu MGR. This daily newspaper used to carry all the

announcements of the General Secretary as also all the

AIADMK Party’s news. Jaya Publication apart from its regular

business income had also received money through subscribers

Page 128

128

deposit schemes. It is submitted that with a view to boost the

circulation and the readership of the newspaper, the

subscribers scheme was started one year earlier to the check

period. Under the scheme any person could make a deposit of

Rs.12,000/-, 15,000/- or 18,000/- and the subscribers would

receive 4, 5, or 6 copies daily free of cost, according to the

deposit he made. The deposit was refundable on 15 days

notice of demand.

90. To establish the receipt under the said deposit scheme,

A1 produced Income Tax returns and independent evidence

from subscribers to probabilise and prove receipt of money.

The money received under the scheme from 1990 to 1996 was

deposited in the bank account of Namadhu MGR or in the

account of Jaya Publication. It is submitted that the Income

Tax authorities accepted the said scheme of deposit. According

to the learned senior counsel, there was a scrutiny of the

account of Jaya Publication and Namadhu MGR by an internal

auditor of the prosecution department and a report was filed.

Yet the auditor was not examined nor his report was marked

in evidence. It is submitted that an adverse inference ought to

Page 129

129

be drawn against the prosecution evidence on account of

suppression of the material evidence. It is submitted that the

Trial Court committed glaring errors while dealing with the

scheme deposit claim of Jaya Publication. The learned

counsel submitted that the accused had produced the order of

the Income Tax authorities relating to the scheme deposit

covering the entire check period of 5 years which was

overlooked by the Trial Court. According to him, the drawing

of A1 from Jaya Publication in her capacity as partner of Jaya

Publication, to the extent of Rs.34,92,000/- is proper and

lawful. It is further submitted that A1 received from Jaya

Publication Rs.24,75,000/- and further amount spent by Jaya

Publication on behalf of A1 for construction of residence at 36,

Poes Garden, Chennai, at Rs.76,74,900/-. The evidence was

placed before the Court, being Exh.D-226 and the deposition

of DW-88. Therefore, the total of the above two items in

aggregate comes to Rs.1,01,49,900/-. It is further submitted

that the loan from Can Fin Homes is about Rs.75,00,000/-

which was availed as loan from Can Fin Homes on 29.9.1992.

The loan was also repaid by Jaya Publication on behalf of A1

Page 130

130

on 27.3.1995 and the same was not repaid by A1 to Jaya

Publication, thereby treating it as her drawings as a partner of

Jaya Publication. It is submitted that the entire amount of

Rs.13,89,19,475.00 is also the resource available to A1 and A2

for offering an explanation under the 1988 Act.

91. Referring to the attribution of assets of A2 to A4, six

companies and other firms to A1, the learned senior counsel

contended that the prosecution has included the properties

acquired by the following companies to the account of A1 and

the value of all the properties has been included in the total

assets.

S.No. NAME OF THE COMPANY DATE OF INCORPORATION

1. Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd. 25.09.1990 2. Meadow Agro Mills Ltd. 11.10.1990 3. Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd. 28.05.1986 4. Riverway Agro Pvt. Ltd. 22.10.1990 5. Indo Doha Chemicals and

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 02.01.1990

6. Signora Business Enterprises Ltd. 22.10.1990

The properties held by all the above companies have been

computed in Annexure-II by the prosecution in a sum of

Rs.4,70,24,439/-.

92. According to the learned senior counsel, the companies

assets required to be excluded. He urged that A1 was neither

Page 131

131

a shareholder nor a director or associate of these six

companies. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no

justification to attribute the properties of the companies to A1.

For these reasons, he submitted that the property of the

company cannot be included in the holding of A1 requiring her

to give an explanation. Hence, it is submitted that all the

properties acquired by and constructed by the said companies

are liable to be excluded totally from consideration and thus a

total amount of Rs.4,70,24,439/- is liable to be excluded.

93. The learned senior counsel submitted that conspiracy,

though can be inferred from circumstances, in this case, the

mere fact that A1 to A4 were residing in the house belonging

to A1 cannot be a circumstance to prove conspiracy.

According to him, A1 and A2 were partners in two partnership

firms and such partnership connection cannot be an

incriminating circumstance. According to him, A1 to A4 have

purchased properties with their own efforts, with the money

earned or mobilized by them. Accordingly, it is submitted that

the prosecution has not established any circumstance from

which an inference of conspiracy can be drawn. There is no

Page 132

132

circumstance proved in this case by the prosecution from

which a conclusion can be drawn that there was meeting of

minds of A1 to A4 with a view to enable A1 to commit an

offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. He further

submitted that during the check period, starting of a firm by a

non-public servant could never be a circumstance by itself to

infer conspiracy. Hence, it is submitted that there is no direct

or indirect evidence in the form of proved circumstance to infer

conspiracy. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment of the

High Court should be affirmed.

94. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the abstract

of Annexures-I to VII are assets relating to A2 to A4, firms &

companies and he drew our attention to the said Annexures.

According to him, the properties acquired by A2 to A4, firms &

companies prior to the check period as per DVAC, would

appear from the following chart:

ANNEXURE -I Properties acquired by Accused No.2, Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises prior to check period

according to DVAC which is not disputed

TMT. N. SASIKALA

Description of the Property Reference of

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Annexure No.

Item No in

Page 133

133

Document – Sale deeds Rs.

Annexure I

Land and flat No.7, R.R. Flats,

3/4 Antu Street, Santhome, Chennai-4 of Tmt.N.Sasikala

17.04.1989 Sale deed

Tmt.N.Sasikala 3,13,530 1 6

Land and Building at Abishekapuram Village, Ponnagar, Trichy in Plot No.102, 3rd Cross Road, New Ward, No.K, Block No.30, T.S.No.107, totally measuring 3525 Sq Ft purchased from MIRASI of 22A, William Road, contonment Trichy,

30-12-1988 Sale Deed Tmt. N. Sasikala 5,85,420 I 15

Cash Balance as on 1-7-1991 in Canara Bank Kellys Branch SB 38746 Opened on 30/12/1988 in the Name of Tmt. N. Sasikala

30-12-1988 Tmt. N. Sasikala 13,601 I 24

Cash Balance as on 1-7-1991 in Canara Bank Mylapore SB 23218 Opened on 23/5/1990 in the Name of Tmt. N. Sasikala

07-01-1991 Tmt. N. Sasikala 1,40,198 1 27

62 items of Jewels claimed to be of Tmt. N. Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust

As per evaluation report of M/s.VBC

Trust

Tmt. N. Sasikala 9,38,460 1 45

TOTAL 19,91,209

JAYA PUBLICATION

Description of the Property

Reference of

Document – Sale deeds

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Annexure No.

Item No in

Annexure 1

Building at Door No.19, Pattammal Street, Chennai Plot No.83, R.S.No.4087 Extent 1897 Sq ft

18.06.1989 Sale deed

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha

and Tmt. N. Sasikala)

5,70,039 I 7

Page 134

134

purchased from V.H. Ssubramanian S/o.H.Venkatesubban, 15 Venkatraman Street, Srinivasa Avenue, Chennai-28.

Land and Building Thiru Vi KA Industrial Estate Guindy in S.No,55, 56 Block No.V1 extent 5658 sq.ft shed No.C-8 Adyar village

08.12, 1990 Sale deed

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha

and Tmt. N. Sasikala)

,

5,28,039 I 17

Cash balance as on 1.7.91 CA No 1952 Canara Bank , Mylapore

Account opened

on 23.10.89 Namadhu MGR 5,51,826 I 26

Cash Balance as on 1-7-1991 in Canara Bank Mylapore CA 2047 opened on 26-9-90 on transfer from Kellys Branch in the Name of Selvi J. Jayalitha and Tmt.N.Sasikala

07-01-1991 M/s Jaya Publications

( Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala)

7,83,861 1 28

Fixed Deposit No,451/90 dated 19,6,1990 with Canara Bank, Mylapore

FDR dt 19.06.1990

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha

and Tmt. N. Sasikala) 64,520 1 29

TOTAL 24,98,285

SASI ENTERPRISES

Description of the Property Reference of Document - Sale deeds

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Annexu re No.

Item No in

Annexu re I

Shop No.14 Ground Floor at 602, Anna Salai Chennai - 6

07-05-1989 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

98,904 I 8

Undivided share of Land only at Door No. 14 Khadar Navaz

Khan road, Nungambakkam at R.S.No.58/51 to the extent of 68/12000 undivided share in 11 grounds and 736 sq.ft. of land

21-9-1989 Sale deed

M/s, Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

2,10,919 I

9

Land and building at Tanjore 19-04-1990 M/s. Sasi Enterprises - 1,57,125 I 12

Page 135

135

S.No 1091 extent of 2400 sq.ft. Sale deed Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt, N. Sasikala

Vacant site at Blake H D Road Tanjore Town 3rd division 6th Ward Mahar Nombu chavadi extent 5100 sq.ft. in T,S.No. 1091

19-04-1990 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

1,15,315 I 13

Vacant site at Ward No.6 in Manar Nombu Chavadi extent 8970 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 1091 Tanjore Town

19-04-1990 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

2,02,778 I 14

Dry Land to the extent of 3.23 Acres in S,No.402-2 of Sundarakottai Village, Mannargudi Taluk Tanjore distr.

07-12-1990 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N.

Sasikala

75,210 1 16

TSR 333 (Swaraj Mazda Van) 01-12-1989

Date of registration

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

2,99,845 1 22

Cash Balance as on 01/7/1991 in Canara Bank, Mylapore CA 2061

Opened on 21/3/1991 in the name of Sasi Enterprises in

which Both Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N Sasikara are partners

07-01-1991

M/s. Sasi Enterprises- Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

2,29,578 I 33

Amount paid of 72/12000 on share

of land in 11 and 1736 sq.ft in b/s at 14, gems court Khadhar Navaz

Con Road, Nungambakkam paid by Ch, dated 23.4.90 of CB which was registered as document No.641/93 of S R Thousand Lights, Dated 28/7/1993

28-7-1993

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi

Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

50,000 1 50

TOTAL 14,39,674

GRAND TOTAL Rs. 59,29,168

95. He further submitted that properties acquired by A2 to

Page 136

136

A4, firms & companies prior to the check period were not

taken into account by DVAC and he filed a chart in respect

thereof, which is hereunder:-

96.

A1

ANNEXU RE-I

PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY ACCUSED NO.2 PRIOR TO CHECK PERIOD NOT TAKEN

INTO ACCOUNT BY DVAC

S . N o .

Description of property Value

Exhibits and Evidence relied by

Accused

1 As per Balance Sheet for the Assessment year 1991- 1992 ending on 31.3.1991 the Cash Balance Available with Accused No.2

4,35,622

DW 88 (Vol No.92, Page 105-176) Ex-D-287 (VolNo.157, Page 1-5)

The properties value of A2, Jaya Publication, Sasi Enterprises in Annexure — I, According to DVAC was

Cash balance available on hand as on 1.7.1991 and the advances paid lying pending adjustment as on 1.7.1991 As per Ex.P-2191 the amount available as on 31.3.1991 by A2 is Rs.4,35,622/- which was not taken into Account by DVAC

Hence the balance available on hand as on 1.7.1991 has to be treated as a Source/Income available to A2 during check period and considered in Annexure III

Hence the Assets value of A2 prior to check period should be taken into Account as

Rs. 59,29,168.00

Rs. 4,35,622.60

Rs.4,35,622.60

Rs.63,64,790.60

Page 137

137

96. He further submitted that properties acquired by A2 to

A4, firms & companies at the end of the check period

according to DVAC would appear from the following Chart :

ANNEXURE -II - PART -A Properties acquired by Accused No.2-4 & others at the end of check period according

to DVAC Entity Wise Summary Amount Rs. At Page reference

Mrs.N.Sasikala 4,35,62,372

Jaya Publications 4,07,74,157

Sasi Enterprises 2,80,05,857

Green Fam House 1,77,53,017

Jay Farm House 1,42,84,079

JJ Leasing and Maintenance 1,838

Jay Real Estate 44,37,036

JS Housing Development 41,35,497

Jaya Contractors and Builders 10,98,087

Kodanad Tea Estate 7,60,00,000

Sakthi Constructions 1,02,490

Lakshmi Constructions 1,02,490

Gopal Promoters 1,02,490

V.N.Sudhagaran - Individual 1,19,89,961

J.Elavarasi 6,04,07,252

J.Vivek - Son and daughter of Mrs.J.Elavarasi 10,20,823

Son and daughter of Mrs.J.Elavarasi 38,421

Mahasubha lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam 58,78,776

Jaya Finance P limited 1,760

Anjaneya Printers Private limited 6,16,91,574

Page 138

138

Super Duper TV Private limited 41,22,377

GRAND TOTAL 37,55,10,354

Since companies (Signora business enterprise, Meadow Agro Farms, Ramraj Agro Mills, Riverway Agro Mills, Lex Property Development, Indo Doha Pharmaceuticals) are separate legal entities and they are not accused herein. Hence their properties are liable to be excluded. Their assets acquired by them are not attributable to any of the accused as there is no evidence that these assets were acquired with the funds provided by the Accused.

ANNEXURE - Il Properties acquired by Accused No.2 during check period according to DVAC

TMT. N. SASIKALA - Accused No.2

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure II

Land and Flot No.7 R.R.Flats, 3/4 Anthu Street, Santhome, Chennai-4 of Tmt.N.Sasikala (Doc no.575/89, dt 17.4.1989 of SRO, Mylapore)

17-04-1989 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala 3,13,530 II 7

Land and building at Abishekapuram Village, Pon Nagar, Trichy (in plot No. 102, 3rd Cross Road, New Ward No.K, Block No.30, T.S.No.107) to the extent of 3525 Sq.ft Tmt.N.SasikalaW/o. M.Natarajan (Doc No.2256/90, dt.3.5.90 of ORB, Thanjavur) PW 144 & DW 88

03-05-1990 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex P-782 (Pg. 128. 129,. Vol. 39) and D-287 - IT return (1991 -92) Pg. I - 5 of Vol. 157)

5,85,420 II 15 (also listed as 301)

Land and Building to the extent of 25035 sq.ft. in S.No.93,94 and 95 of Mannargudi village Haridranadhi west street - PW 138 & PW -99

22-8-1991 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-646, Pg. 113 -124 of Vol. 33 & P- 1510 (SB A/c 23218 opened on 23,05.90) (Pg. 235 - 248, vol. 61)

6,78,000 I I 19

Land and Building at Door No. 16 IppaBabi (Radhika Nagar) Anjaiah Garden Boosaredddey Guda Road, Secundarabad Contonment, S.No.49 and 50 Land Extent 222.92 sq. mt. Building area 2200 sq.ft.PW -

25-3-1992 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-1510, Pg. 235 -248 of Vol. 61 & Ex-P 935, Pg. 235 - 242 Vol. 55 Ex-P-1513 & 1514, Pg. 253 - 254 & 255 -256 of Vol. 61. - DD challans for payment to Jaspal

5,57,761 I I 22

Page 139

139

163 - SRO - Srinivasa Rao Cost of acquisition of shares of M/s. Anjeneya Printers (P) Limited at No. 48 Inner Ring Road, Ekkattuthangal, on 1-9-93 ( Towards transfer of shares of Rs. 64,05,000/- machinery cost of Rs, 20,16,000 from Tr. Naresh Shroff - PW 15

01-09-1993

Sale deed

Tr.V.N. Sudhakkaran and Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex- P-41, Pg. 107-112 of Vol. 14 & Ex- P-I519, Pg. 263 - 276 of Vol. 61 (CA • 2196

84,21,000 II

33 (Value

of Machineries costing

Rs.20,16,000/- to be deleted)

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.No.198/180 F of Velagaburam Village - PW 32 to 39

28-10--1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex • P-83, Pg. 160 - 171 of vol. 21

37,410 II

34 PW - 31 Ratnavelu

PW • 32 –Babu PW -39-Venu-S.R.O PW - 47 - Muthaiah

1.42 acres of dry Land in S,No.198/180 F3, 198/1598 of Velanapuram Village - PW 37 & PW 39

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt, N. Sasikala Ex - P-91, Pg. 242 - 252 of Vol. 21

12,060 II

35 PW - 31 - Ramavelu

PW - 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW -47 • Muthaiah

1.42 acres of dry Land in S.No.198/180/F 12 198/161 A 198/160A 198/159 D2, 198/158 B2 198/157 BI of Velakkapuram Village - PW 33 & PW 39

28-10-1993 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-84, Pg. 172 - 179 of Vol. 21

12,060 II

3 6 PW • 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 – Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW -47 - Muthaiah

1.42 Acres of dry land in S.No. I98/180 FII, 179 A 163A.162A, 161B, 157 B2, 156.8, 155 81 of Velakkapuram Village - PW 31, PW 39 & PW 47 - Read PW 47

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-92, Pg. 1 - 12 of Vol. 22 12,060 II

3 7 PW • 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 – Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW -47 - Muthaiah

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.N0.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 31 & PW 39

28-10-1993 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex • P-81, Pg, 127 • 134 of Vol. 21 37,385 II

38 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

1,42 Acres of dry Land in S,No.198 of Velagapuram Village • PW 31, PW 34 & PW 39

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-85, Pg. 180 - 186 of Vol. 21

12,060 II

39 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW-47 - Muthaiah

1.42 Acres In S.No 198 of velagapuram village - PW 39, PW 31 & PW 35

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P•93, Pg. 13 - 26 of Vol. 22

12,060 I I

40 PW - 31 • Ratnavelu

PW - 32 - Babu PW -39-Venu-S.R.0 PW -47 - Muthaiah

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.N0.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 31, PW 34 & PW 39

28-10-1993 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex • P-86, Pg. 187 - 200 of Vol. 21 37,381 Il

41 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.N0.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 31, PW 38 & PW 39

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-90, Pg. 231 - 241 of Vol. 21

37,385 II 42 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu

Page 140

140

PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.N0.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 31, PW 35 & PW 39

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex- P-87, Pg. 201 - 209 of Vol. 21

37,385 II

43 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

1.42 Acres of dry Land in S.No.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 31, PW 39 & PW 42

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-94, Pg. 27 - 37 of Vol. 22

12,060 II

44 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.N0.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 31, PW 36 & PW 39

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex- P-88, Pg. 210 • 220 of Vol. 21

37,410 II

45 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 – Muthaiah

4.41 Acres of dry Land in S.N0.198 of Velagapuram Village - PW 37 & PW 39

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex • P-89, Pg. 221 - 230 of Vol. 21

37,410 II

46 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

1.42 Acres of dry Land in S.No.198 of Velagapuram village - PW 31 & PW 39

28-10-1993 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-95, Pg. 38 - 49 of Vol. 22

12,060 II

47 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

41 cents of dry land in S.No. 198 of Velagapuram village - PW 31

28-10-1993

Sale deed

Tint. N. Sasikala Ex - P-82, Pg. 135 - 159 of vol. 21

3,498 II

48 PW - 31 - Ratnavelu

PW • 32 • Babu PW-39-Venu-S.R.0 PW - 47 - Muthaiah

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 - PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P•96, Pg. 50. 55 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed Ex-P-1519, Pg.263-276 of Vol. 61 - CA 2196, Ex-P-1528, Pg. 287-289 of Vol. 61 -DD challan & Ex-P1899, Pg. 49 - 50 of Vol. 63 - cheque copy

1,95,800 II 95 D-251 to 257 DW-93

3.52 acres in Doc. No.391/1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,392/8 9,10,11 in Payyanoor village - PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tint. N. Sasikala Ex – P-97, Pg. 56 - 61 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed

2,86,520 II 96

D-25I to 257 DW-93 5.28 Acres in S.No.384/I, 3, 404/1, 381/3,4,5,6,7,10,11 in Payyanoor Village - PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-98, Pg. 62 - 67 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed

2,54,670 II 97 D-25I to 257 DW-93

0.40 acres in S.No.383 in Payyanoor Village - PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex – P-99, Pg. 68 - 71 of Vol. 22 -Sale deed

1,94,012 II 98 D-251 to 257 DW-93

0.40 acres in S.No.383 in Payyanoor Village - PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-I00, Pg. 72 - 76 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed

2,04,012 II 99 D•251 to 257 DW-93

2.76 acres in S.No.403/1 in Payyanoor Village - PW 40 & PW

10-11-1994 Tmt. N. SasikalaEx - P-101, Pg. 77 - 80 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed

1,76,910 II 100 D-251 to 257 DW-93

Page 141

141

159 Sale deed 4.23 Acres in S.No.379/2 and 379/3 of Payyanoor Village – PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex • P-102, Pg. 81 - 85 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed

1,91,248 II 101 D-251 to 257 DW-93

0.51 acres in S.No. 381/9,392/1 and 392/2 in Payyanoor Village - PW 40 & PW 159

10-11-1994

Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex - P-103, Pg. 86 - 91 of Vol. 22 - Sale deed

2,14,810 II 102 D-251 to 257 DW- 93

Cost of Transfer of 6,14,000 shares of M/s.Ramraj Agro at Vendampalai at the rate of Rs.3/- per share from Gandhi and others (6,18,000 shares minus 4000 shares) – PW 501

27-11-1994 M/s. Ramraj Agro Mills. Ex- P-1519, Pg. 263-276 of Vol. 61 – CA 2196 DD Challan dt. 20.12.1994

18,42,000 II 127

One sixth undivided shares of land in 5 grounds and 11333sq.ft. in s.no.3334/1a in Mylapore Iuz Avenue - PW 43 & PW 159

21-3-1995 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-105, Pg. 97. 103 - Sale deed, Ex-P1519, Pg. 263-276 of Vol. 61 - CA 2196 Payment dated 21.03.1995 with Rs.7.50 lacs + Rs.1.50 Lacs

10,87,196 II

155

Cost of acqusition of Luz avenue property other than the consideration covered by document Nos.241/95 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 Indian Bank Abiramapuram - PW 43, PW 44 and PW 45

PW-43 denied of

having received by cash

No document and already argued 76,00,000 II 159

2.03 acres in S.N0.385/12.385/13 385/14 in Payanoor Village - PW 41 & PW 159

19-7-1995 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-1510, Pg. 235 - 248 of Vol. 61 -*(SB A/c 23218 opened on 23.05.90) Ex-P-1518, Pg. 261-262 of Vol. 61 - DD paid; Ex-P-1631, Pg. 52-53 of Vol. 62 -Cheque paid; Ex-P104, Pg. 92-96 of Vol.22

3,44,195 II 170

2.34 acres in S.No. 385/7, 8, 9 386/1a, I b, lc. ld,386/2 in Payanoor Village - PW 41 & PW 159

19-7-1995 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-912-Sale deed (Pg. 142 - 147 of Vol.55)

3,91,655 Il 171

0.90 acres in S.No.386/15, 385/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 10 Payanoor Village - PW 41 & PW 159

19-7-1995 Sale deed

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-913-Sale deed (Pg. 148 -153 of Vol. 55)

3,21,030 II

172 (Totally Rs.10,56,880/- incl. stamp duty & regn fees for items 170-172)

New/Additional Construction in Farm House Bangalows at Payyanur in Chengai Anna Dist - PW 107

Evaluation Report

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-662, Pg. 31 - 87 of Vol. 34 - which is

1,25,90,261 II 176

cash Balance as on 30/4/1996 of ca 1071 of IB Apiramapuram opened on 11/3/1994 - PW 182

30-4-1996

Tmt. N Sasikala Fresh Mushroom Proprietrix - Ex-P-1117, Pg. 233 -240 of Vol. 58

771 II 195

Cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in CB Mylapore CA 2277 Opened in 10-11-93 - PW 201

30-4-1996 M/s. Metal King sole Prop. N.Sasikala - Ex-P. 2081, Pg. 216-252 of Vol. 63

2,900 II 201

Page 142

142

Cash Balance as on 30.04-96 in CB Mylapore CA 2196 opened on 1-12-92 - PW 201

30-4-1996 Tmt. N. Sasikala - Ex-P-1519, Pg. 263-276 of Vol. 61 1,889 II 202

Cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in CB Mylapore SB 23218 Opened on 23-5-90 - PW 201

30-4-1996 Tmt. N. Sasikala - ExP-1510, Pg. 235-245 of Vol. 61 1,095 II 204

cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in CB Guindy in CA 1245 Opened on 2-1.95 in the name of Metal king - PW 201

30-4-1996

M/s. Metal King sole Prop. N.sasikala – Ex-D-281, P. 142-176 of Vol. 156

3,17232 II 205

Cash Balance as on 30-04-1996 in CB Mylapore CA 2133 Opened on 3-2-92 - PW 201

30-4-1996 Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-2031, Pg. 156•183 of Vol. 64 561 II 212

Cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in CBI SB 23792 secundarbad opened on 29-1-93 • PW 164

30-4-1996 Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-937, Pg. 255-256 of Vol. 155 2,34,000 II 229

TN - 01 - F - 9090 Tata Searra car - PW 57 & PW 66 18-08-1992

Tmt. N. Sasikal Ex-P-228 & P-229, Pg. 13 & 14, Vol. 25; Ex-P-264, Pg. 85 of Vol. 25 - Registration Ex-P-1510, Pg. 235 - 245 of Vol. 61- SB A/c 23218 - Canara bank

3,88,376 Il 241

TN – 09 H 3559 TATA Searra car - PW 57 & PW 69 26-03-1996

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-231, Pg. 18 of Vol. 25 5,11,118 II 243

Tn 09 H 3496 TATA Searra car - PW 57 & PW 69

25-03-1996

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-230, Pg. 16 of Vol. 25 & P-232, Pg. 20 of Vol. 25 Ex-P-1519, Pg. 263-276 of Vol. 61 payment dt 04,04.96 for Rs.10,60,790/- for Items 243 & 244

5,11,118 II 244

TN 09 - E 9036 ( Maruthi car) – PW 58 & PW 69 19-12.1994

M/s. Metal King sole Prop. N.Sasikala ExP-236, Pg. 28 of Vol. 25 & P-286, Pg. 110 of Vol. 25

2,22,485 II 253

TN 09 B 6966 Bajaj Tempo Omni Bus - PW 59 & PW 69 19.04-1991

M/s. Metal King sole Prop. N.Sasikala ExP-242, Pg. 40 of Vol. 25 & P-288, Pg..112 of Vol . 25 .

2,03,979 II 254

TN 09 B 6975 (Bajaj Tempo van) - PW 59 & PW 69 19-04-1991

M/s. Metal King sole Prop. N.Sasikala Ex-P-241, Pg. 38-39 of Vol. 25 & P-287, Pg. 111 of Vol. 25

2,03,979 II 257

62 items of Jewels claimed to be of Tmt. N. Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 31.3.1991 - PW 179

As per evaluation report of

M/s, VBC Trust on 31-3-1991

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-1014, Pg. 181-183 of Vol. 57 & P.1015, Pg. 184 -185 of Vol. 57 (Before the check period) 9,38,460 II 285

34 items of Jewels purporting to be Tmt. Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 16-1-1992 - PW 179

Evaluation Report dated

16-1.1992

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-1016, Pg. 186-188 of Vol. 57 (Before the check period ) 17,54,868 II 287

Machinery subsequently purchased Evaluation M/s. Metal King sole Prop. 7,69,000 II 293

Page 143

143

for M/s. Metal King - PW 115 Report N.Sasikala - Ex-P-665 Cash Balance as on 30-04-1996 in SB 38746 of CB Kellys opened on 30-12 88 in the Name of Tmt. N. Sasikala - PW 208

30-4-1996 Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-975 to P-977 17,502 II 300

Cost of renovation and additional construction between June 1992 and 1993 of the building at Plot No. 102 III Cross Road, Pon Nagar, Trichy owned by Tmt.N. Sasikala (Covered by document NO. 2256/90/ dt. 3/5/90 S R O I O R B TRICHY) - PW 144

31-3-1993

Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex- P-781 & P-782 (No additional construction hence to be fully deleted)

6,83,325 II 301

TOTAL 4,35,62,372

JAYA PUBLICATION

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No. In Annexure

II

Land and Building at Door No.I9, Pattammal Street, Chennai Plot No.83, R.S.No.4087, extent 1897 Sq.Ft M/s. Jaya Publications Partners Selvi.J.Jayaalithaa & N.Sasikala (Doc No.1024/89, dt.18-6-89 of SRO, Mylapore

08-06-1989

Sale deed

M/s. Jaya Publications Prior to check period 5,70,039 II 6

Land and building at Thiru Vi-Ka lndustrial Estate, Guindy, in S.No.55, 56, Block No.6, extent 5658 Sq. ft., shed No.C-8, Adyar Village M/s. Jaya Publications (Doc No.4640/90 dt.8.12.1990 of SRO, Adyar

08-12-1990

Sale deed

M/s. Jaya Publications Prior to check period 5,28,039 II 17

4664.60 sq.ft, together with building in T,S.No.4345, S.No.33/3pt, 32/4pt in St. Thomas mount village Plot No, s - 7 Block No, 6 Thiru vi ka Industrial Estate Guindy - PW 3 (to read pg3 S.No.10)

26-9-1991 Sale deed

M/s Jaya Publications Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1020 - CA 792 Indian Bank - Ex-P-1023 - Copy of BPO for Rs.10L Ex-P-1903-CA 2047-Canara Bank Ex-P-1930 -Copy of DD for Rs.2.60 Lacs

15,05,428 II 20

Tansi (Foundary) Land and Building to the extent of 55 grounds and 2143 sq.ft i.e 12462.172 sq.ft. in S.No.86,87,88,89,91,92,and 93 part of alandur hamlet of adayar village , Thiru.vi.ka Industrial Estate Gunidy - PW 4, PW 3 and PW 126 (for seizure)

02-06-1992 Sale deed

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1028 - CA 792 Indian Bank - Rs.1.50 Crores loan

- Ex-P-1026- Copy of BPO for Rs.28.3L Ex-P-1903-CA 2047 - Canara Bank Ex-P-1027 -Stat of OMTL -Ind Bank and

2,13,68,152 I I 23

Page 144

144

Ex-P-6

Undivided share of land to the extent of 880/72000 in 10 grounds and 640 sq.ft. at Door No. 98/99 ( old No. 381 of Northern row of Luz Church Road, Mylapore R.S. No. 1639/5 - PW 30 and PW 159

27-06-1994 Sale deed

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1903 - CA 2047 - Canara Bank Ex-P-1933 & 1934 - Payment details and Ex-P-79 & 80

2,26,130 II 83

4564 sq.ft. of site and building in T.S.No. 2 and T.S.No.18 Block No. 22 which is called No,l Parameswari Nagar , Urur Village- PW 23, PW 159 & PW 201

15-11-1994 Sale deed

M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex- P-79 & P-80 including stamp chgs Ex-P-1926 & 1927 - DD copy and Ex-P1020 - CA -792 of JP with Indian bank

34,20,160 II 104

New additional construction in Building at door No. 19 Pattammal St. Mylapore Chennai - PW 116

Evaluation Report

M/s Jaya Publications (Explained that the value of shed is Rs.6,42,290/- and hence balance of Rs.1,57,710/- to be excluded)

Ex-P-670 - Report

8,00,000 II 184

New / additional construction in Building at S.No.32/2-4 Plot No. S-7 Ganapathy colony Thiruvika Industrial estate Guindy Chennai 32 - PW 117

Evaluation Report

M/s Jaya Publications (Explained that the value of building constructed is Rs.32,94,834/- and hence balance of Rs.6,39.166/- to be excluded) Ex-P-677 - Report

39,34,000 II 190

Cash Balance as on 30.04-96 in CB Mylapore CA 2047 Opened 26-09-90 (On transfer from Kellys Branch) - PW 201

30-4-1996

M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1903-CA 2047 Canara Bank

20,79,885 II 203

TN -01-0009 Tata Estate Car - PW57 & PW 66

29-07-1992

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1903-CA 2047 Canara Bank . Ex-P 226 (Invoice) & P.263 (Registration)

4,06,106 II 234

TN - 01 N - 9999 Swaraj Mazda Van - PW 60 and PW 66

21-11-1991 M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) - To be excluded Ex-P-245 (Invoice) & P.262

3,85,520 ll 236

Page 145

145

(Registration)

TN - 01 - Q 0099 Tata Mobile van - PW 57 and PW 66 21-12-1994

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1903 - CA 2047 Canara Bank Ex-P- 224 (Invoice)

2,81,169 II 238

TN - 04 E 0099 Mahindra Armada Jeep - PW 62 and PW 67 29-04.1993

M/s Jaya Publications ( Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) - To be excluded

Ex-P-1903 - CA 2047- Canara Bank Ex-P-251 (Invoice) Ex-P-252 (Receipt) & P266 (Registration)

3,30,250 II 239

TN 07 D 2342 - Bajaj Van - Khivraj Automobiles - PW 64 & PW 68 16-02-1995

M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) - To be excluded

Ex-P-1635 - CA 1952 - Canara Bank Ex-P-256 (Invoice) Ex-P-257 (Receipt) & P. 269 (Registration)

52,271 II 250

TN 09 B 6565 ( Mercedes Benz car Imported) - As explained by PW 69

04-06-1993

M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1903 - CA 2047-Canara Bank P-279 (Registration) DW-88 Ex-D-220

9,15,000 II 256

Fixed Deposit in Canara Bank, Mylapore in the name of Jaya Publications - PW 201

19-9-1994 M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1921 – FDR copy

1,49,544 II 259

Fixed deposit in Canara Bank, Mysore Branch in the name of Jaya Publications - PW 201

19-9-1994 M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-I922 – FDR copy

71,218 II 261

Ashok leyland Panther Luxury coach bearing registration No. TN-09 F 2575 purchased in the name of M/s. Jaya Publication P limited (Chassis Rs. 699178 - cost

18-4-1995 M/s Jaya Publications (Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala) Ex-P-1903 - CA 2047 Canara Bank Ex-P255 (Invoice) Ex-P-258

32,40,278 I I 299

Page 146

146

of Body Building Rs.2541000) –

PW 63, PW 65 and PW 201

(Registration) Ex-P-I936 to 1938- Payment to Vendor Bharat Industries

Cash balance as on 30.4.96 CA No 1952 Canara Bank, Mylapore –

PW 201 30-4-1996

Namadhu MGR = Ex-P-1635-CA 1952-Canara Bank 5,10,968

II

304

TOTAL 4,07,74,157

SASI ENTERPRISES

Description of the Property Reference of

Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure

II

Shop No.14, Ground Floor at 602, Anna Salai, Chennai-6 (Parsn Manere)

M/s.Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.399/89 dt.5-7-89 of SRO, Thousandlights)

05-07-1989 (Prior to the check period) Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

98,904 II 8

Undivided share of land only at Door No.14, Kather Navaz Khan road, Nungambakkam, in Block No.12, R.S.No.58/5 to the extent of 68/12000 undivided share in 11 Grounds 736 Sq.ft with a Shop No. 9 M/s. Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.526/89 dt.21-9-89 of Jt. S.R.II, Thousandlights) • PW 113 for rent (Mohsin Bijapuri)

20-09-1989 (Prior to the check period) Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises

Partners Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala E x P-769 (sale deed)X-19 - Rental agreement

2,10,919 II 9

Land and Building in Tanjore, Mahamoombu Chavadi S.No.1091 exent of 2400 Sq.ft

M/s. Sasi Enterprises, Partners: J.Jayalalithaa , N.Sasikala

(Doc No.455/90 dt.I9-4-90 of ORB,Thanjavur

19-04-1990 (Prior to the

check period)

Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises -Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala 1,57,125 II 12

Page 147

147

Vacant site at Blake H.D. Road, Tanjore Town, 3rd Division, 6th Ward, Mahar Nombu Chavadi to the extent of 5100 Sq Ft in T.S.No.1091

M/s. Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.456/90 dt.I9-4-90 of ORB, Thanjavur

19-04-1990 (Prior to the check period) Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

1,15,315 II 13

Vacant site at Blake H.D. Road,Tanjore Town, Mahar Nombu Chavadi, extent 8970 Sq.ft. in T.S.No.1019

M/s. Sasi Enterprises,

(Doc No.457/90 dt 19-04-1990 of ORB, Thanjavur)

19-04-1990 (Prior to the check period) Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

2,02,778 II 14

Dry land to the extent of 3.23 Acres in S.No.402/2 Sundarakottai Village, Tanjavur M/s. Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.563/90 dt.12-7-90)

12-07-1990 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala 75,210 II 16

Land and Building at New Door No. 14, Kadhar Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam Block 12, 87/12000 undivided share of land in 11 ground 1736 sq. ft. and 523 sq.ft. building in R.S. No. 58 and New R.S.No. 58/5 in Nungambakkam Village - PW 137 - Mr.Tajudeen

19-2-1992 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises -

Partners –Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. S a s i k a l a E x - P - 1940-CA -2061 of SE with Canara bank Ex-P-770 - Sale deed

2,98,144 II

21 (Rs.50,000/- paid on 23.4.90 i.e. prior to

check period) - See

Tansi (Enamellled wires) Land and Building at Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, 0.63 acres of land and 495 sq.ft. in R C C Roof 1155 sq.ft. in ACC sheet roof in S.No.89 of Alandur village Hamlet of Adayar, Block No. 12, (Tansi Enamalled Wires) - PW 3 (refer to Page 5)

10-07-1992 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P- 1940 - CA -2061 of SE with Canara bank

90,17,089 I I 25

Land and Building to the extent of 1 ground and 1475 sq.ft. in R.S.No. 3581 part in Mylapore Village Door No. 18 East Abiramapuram 1111

22-01-1993 Sale deed

MIs. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N.Sasikala

Ex-P-1940 - CA -2061 of SE with Canara bank Ex-P-23 - Sale deed Ex-P-1519 - CA -2196 of

49,02,105 II 26

Page 148

148

street - PW 4 (Refer to Page 2 - Ramachandran) NS with Canara Bank

72/12000 share of 11 grounds 1736 sq.ft. in R.S.No.58/5 e 14, Gems Court , Kather Navaz Khan road, Nungambakkam - PW 137

28-7-1993 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex- P-1940 - CA -2061 of SE with Canara bank Ex-P-768 - Sale deed dt 30.6.93

160,572 II 32 (Rs.50,000/- paid on 23.4.90 i.e. prior to

check period)

4380 sq.ft. land with 520 sq.ft. house In S.No. 588/2A, 2 B in Thiruvenkada Nagar Colony - PW 17 - Mrs.Sundari Shankar; PW 159 (Rajagopalan) & PW 161 (Ramesh)

26-09-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Sasi enterprises Ex-P-46

Ex-P- 1940 - CA -2061 of SE with Canara Bank

2,65,000 I I 91

(Rs.52,205/- excess amount to be deleted)

4380 sq.ft. land with 520 sq.ft. house In S.No. 588/2A, 2 B in Thiruvenkadu Nagar colony - excess amount paid to seller Tmt. Sundari Shankar over and above document value

26-09-1994 Sale deed M/s. Sasi enterprises 3,10,000 II

92 (No evidence adduced

by prosecution so Rs.3,10,000/- to be

deleted)

New/additional construction in Building at 5-A B, and C East Coast Road, Door No.4/130 Raja Nagar, Neelankarai Chennai -41 ( Ref Doc. No. 4752/93 SRO Adayar)- Already explained

Evaluation Report

M/s. Sasi enterprises (Amount to be accepted is Rs.40,35,981/-) 80,75,000 II

174 (The balance amount of Rs.40,39,019/- to be

excluded)

Land in S.No. 94 of Neelankarai Village with an extent of 111976 sq.ft. of land (Plot No. 5 a, b and c) - PW 50 (S.R.0)

1993

M/s. Sasi Enterprises -Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N,

Sasikala Ex-P-133 -Ex-P-1940 - CA -2061

of SE with Canara Bank

5,72,910 II 175

New Additional construction in Building and the change of roof for the works shed at MF 9 Guindy Industrial Estate Chennai -32 - Already explained

Evaluation Report

M/s. Sasi enterprises (Amount to be accepted is Rs.4,76,525/-)

14,17,538 II 191

(The balance amount of Rs.9,41,013/- to be

excluded)

Cash Balance as on 30/04/96 in CB, Mylapore CA 2061 Opened on 21/3/91 - PW 201

30-4-1996

M/s. Sasi Enterprises- Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-1940 - CA -2061 of SE with Canara Bank

4,59,976 I I 214

Cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CA 30-4-1996 M/s. Sasi Enterprises - 1,02,490 II 221

Page 149

149

1044 of IB Abiramapuram opened on 15/12/93 in the - PW 182

Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P-1255 -CA -1044 of SE with Canara Bank

TSR 333 (Swaraj) Mazda Van ***12/1/1989

12-01-1989 Before check

period

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalalithaa and Tmt.N.Sasikala

2,99,845 II 242

Tn 01 W 1233 Tempo Traveller 19-01-1994

M/s. Sasi Enterprises -Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala Ex-P- 1940 - CA -2061 of SE with Canara Bank Ex-P-238 (Invoice) Ex-P-265 (Registration)

4,24,268 II 245

M/s. Sasi Enterprises- Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala

TN 07 H 0009 ( Tata sumo) 21-12-1994 Ex-P-1940-CA-2061 of 3,15,537 II 246 SE with Canara Bank Ex-P-233 (Invoice)

M/s. Sasi Enterprises - Partners Selvi Jayalaitha and Tmt. N.

Tn 09 E 9207 ( Maruthi Esteem car) 26-12-1994

Sasikala Ex-D-270-Pg 1561-Ex-P-237 (Invoice)- Ex-P-280 (Registration)

5,25,132 II 247

TOTAL 2,80,05,857

GREEN FARM HOUSE

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure II

16.75 cents in S.No.1/If and old R.S.No. 1/1c4 of Sholinganallore Village - PW 16 - (Jagadeesh A Raja)

03-09-1994 sale deed

Tr.VN.Sudhakaran (Partner in Green Farm House) Ex-P-43 to 45 - Sale agreement & POA Ex-P-1189 - CA No.I058 of Indian Bank

125 I I 69

6.75 cents on 8.3.1994 - PW 16 - 189/1994 dt M/s. Green Farm

570200 II 70

Page 150

150

(Jagadeesh A Raja) 9-3-1994

Sale deed

House Ex-P-1189 - CA No.1058 of Indian Bank. Rs.235000/- is to be admitted

, , Cash portion of

Rs.335000/- to be excluded

16.50 cents in S.No.1/1f and old R.S.No. 1/1c4 of Sholinganallore Village - PW 16 - (Jagadeesh A Raja)

09-03-1994

Sale deed

Tr.VN.Sudhakaran ( Partner in Green Farm House) 125 II 71

Actual consideration paid to Tmt. Gayathri chandran W/o K.T. Chandaravadanam, 22, Bazullah Road Chennai -17 By DD Rs. 530400/- and by cash Rs. 335000/- on 8/3/1994 - - PW 16 . (Jagadeesh A Raja)

09-03-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Green Farm House

Ex-P-I189 - CA No .I058 of Indian Bank. Rs.539400/- is to be admitted 8,65,400 II

72 Cash portion of

Rs.335200/- to be excluded

16.75 cents in R.S.No.1/1f old R.S.No. 1/1c4 at Sholinganallore Village - PW 16 - (Jagadeesh A Raja)

09-03-1994 Sale deed M/s. Green Farm house 125 II 73

Actual consideration paid to K.T

Chandravadanan 22, Bazullah Road, Chennai -17 by DD Rs. 235200/- on 8/3/94 and cash Rs.335000/- on 10/4/1994 - PW 16 - (Jagadeesh A Raja)

08-03-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Green Farm House Ex-

P-1189 - CA No.1058 of Indian Bank. Rs.235200/- is to be admitted

5,70,200 II

74 Cash portion of

Rs.335200/- to be excluded

34 cents together with 26 coconut trees in S.No. 165/88 in Vettuvankani Village - PW 159 (Rajagopal) & Owner Mrs.Shanti ' Subramaniam & Others - Not examined

16-6-94 Sale deed

M/s. Green Farm House Ex-P- 1189 - CA

No.1058 of Indian Bank. Ex-P-906 to 908 - Sale deed

Ex-P- 1196 to 1198 - Bank transfer challan

1,21,000 I I 80

0.34 Acres together with 26 coconut trees in S.No.165/78 in Vettuvankani Village - PW 159 (Rajagopal) & Owner Mrs.Shanti Subramaniam & Others - Not examined

16-6-94 Sale deed

M/s. Green Farm House Ex- P-1189-CA No.1058 of Indian Bank. Ex-P-906 to 908 - Sale

deed Ex-P-1196 to 1198 – Bank Transfer Challan

1,21,040 II 81

0.34 Acres together with 26 coconut trees in S.No.165/9a in Vettuvankanni Village - PW 159 (Rajagopal) & Owner Mrs.Shanti Subramaniam & Others - Not examined

16-6-94 Sale deed

M/s. Green Farm House Ex-

P-1189 - CA No.1058 of Indian Bank. Ex-P-906 to 908.- Sale deed Ex-P- 1196 to 1198 – Bank Transfer Challan

1,21,040 II

1

82

Page 151

151

37 cents in S.No.165/98 in Vettuvankeni Enjabakkam village

27-09-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Green Farm House Ex-

P-1189- CA No.1058 of Indian Bank.Ex-P- 125 - Sale deed

1,24,540 II 93

New/additional construction in the Residential Building at D.No. 3/l/8c - Vettuvankeni Chennai

As per Evaluation

Report

M/s. Green Farm House

Amount accepted = Rs.1,02,47,286/-

1,52,59,076 II

178 Balance portion of

Rs.50,11,790/- to be excluded

Cash Balance as on 30/04/1996 in CA 1058 of 1B Abiramapuram Opened on 27/1/94

30-4-1996 M/s. Green Farm House

Ex-P-1189-CA No.1058 of Indian Bank.

146 II 219

TOTAL 1,77,53,017

J FARM HOUSE

Description of the Property Reference

of

Document

Stands in the Name

Of

Value of the

property Rs.

Ann exu

re No.

Item No in Annexure

II

1.29 acres ub S.No.18/4a1 of Enjambakkam Village - PW 25 - Bhandari .P.B - to read chief

25-2-1994 Sale deed

M/s. J. Farm Houses Ex-P-73

Ex-P-1207 - CA No.1054 of Indian Bank.

6,49,770 II 68

50 cents in S.No.2/1b, 3a in Solinganallur Village - PW 24 - Daniliwala.T.K.

12-12-1994

Sale deed

M/s. J. Farm Houses Ex-P-72 - POA Ex-P-1207-CA

No.1054 of Indian Bank. Ex.

P-909 sale deed 09.12.1994

2,86,441

II 110

New additional construction in Building at Sea Shell Avenue No.2/1-B-3 apartment Sholinganallore Saidapet Taluik - As explained

As per Evaluation

Report

M/s. J. Farm Houses Ex-P-72 - POA Ex-P-1207 - CA No.1054 of Indian Bank.Ex. P-909 Sale deed 09.12.1994

Value admitted is Rs.48,10,670/-

80,36,868 II

183 (Value to be excluded

is Rs.32,26,198/-)

New additional construction in residential building (4 Nos) in the campus at No.1/240 Enjabakkam in New Mahabalipuram Road - As explained

As per Evaluation

Report

M/s. J. Farm Houses Value admitted is Rs.29,82,392/- 53,11,000 Il 188

(Value to be excluded

is Rs.23,28,608/-)

Page 152

152

TOTAL 1,42,84,079

JJ LEASING AND MAINTENANCE

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure II

Cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CA 1059 1B Abiramapuram opened on 27-1-94 in the name of

30-4-1996 M/s. J.Jay Leasing and Maintanance Ex-P-1136 - CA No.1059 of Indian Bank

1,838

II 217

TOTAL 1,838

JAY REAL ESTATE

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure

II

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 St - PW 6 (Mr.Gopalsamy)

19-07-1994

Sale deed

M/s. Jay Real Estate Ex-P-29- Sale deed Ex-P-1160 - CA No.1050 of Indian Bank

33,44,040 II 84

New additional construction in Building in door No. 5 Murugesan Street T Nagar, Chennai 17

As per Evaluation

Report

M/s. Jay Real Estate Value admitted is Rs.5,47,102/-

10,92,828 II

187 (Value to be excluded

is Rs.5,45,726/-)

Cash Balance as on 30/4/96 CA 1050 of IB Abirampram opened on 27/1/94

30-4-1996 M/s. Jay Real Estate Ex-P-1160-CA No.I050 of Indian Bank

168 II

215

TOTAL 44,37,036

J.S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Land and Building in Plot No.40 and 41 with a built up area of 900 sq.ft. both in the Ground and first Floors (Land extent 5 grounds) of

10-8-94 Sale deed

M/s. J.S. Housing Development Ex-P-1170 - CA No.1062 of Indian Bank

9,95,670 II

Page 153

153

SolinganaIllur Village in S.No.1/1c5 which is now known as No.1. Murphy street, Akkari Village - PW -26 - Kama! Batcha - to read

85

One sixth undivided share of land in five grounds and 1133 sq.ft. in S.No. 3334/Luz Av enue Mylapore

21-3-1995 Sale deed

M/s. J.S. Housing Development Ex-P-1170 - CANo.1062 of Indian Bank 10,87,196 I I 156

New/ additional construction in residential Building at No. I Murphy Street, Akkarai Chennai

Evaluation Report Sale

deed

M/s. J.S. Housing Development

Value admitted is Rs.13,3I,185/-

20,38,959 II 189

(Value to be excluded is

Rs.7,07,774/-)

Cash Balance as on 30/04/96 in CA 1062 of IB Abiramapuram in

30-4-1996 M/s. J S Housing Corporation

Ex-P-1170-CA No.1062 of Indian Bank

13,672 II 218

TOTAL 41,35,497

JAYA CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACTORS AND BUILDERS)

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure II

I/6th undivided shares of land in 5 grounds and 1133 sq.ft. in S.No.3334/1a of Luz Avenue

21-3-1995 Sale deed

M/s. Jaya Contractors and Builders Ex-P-110 - Sales deed Ex-P-1049-CA No.1049 of Indian Bank

10,87,196 II 158

Cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CA 1049 of IB Abiramapuram Opened on 27/1/94

30-4-1996 M/s. Jaya contractors and Builders Ex-P-1049 - CA No.1049 of Indian Bank

10,891 II 220

TOTAL 10,98,087

KODANAD TEA ESTATE – PURCHASE

Kodanad tea estate and tea factory extent two acres at kthogiri, Nilgris district acquired on an unregistered

05-05-1995 Reconstituti

on

Tmt. N.Sasikala, Tmt. J. Elavarasi, and.V.N. Sudhakaran Ex-P-520 &

7,60,00,000 II 166

Page 154

154

reconstitution of partnership deed dt. 5/6/1995 payment through six cheques dated 5 /5 /1995 - PW 177 ( Ind ian Bank - Mr .Shanmugasundaram)

deed P-523

TOTAL 7,60,00,000

SAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS

Description of the Property

Reference of

Document Stands in the Name of

Value of the Property

Rs.

Ann exur

e No.

Item No in Annexure II

Cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CA 1149 of 1B Abiramapuram opened on 23/3/93

30/4/1996 M.s. Sakthi Constructions Ex-P-2016 - CA No.1149 of Indian Bank

1,02,490 I I 222

TOTAL 1,02,490

M/S LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTION

Description of the Property Reference of Document Stands in the Name

of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure II

cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CA 1140 of IB Abirampuram Opened on 23/3/95

30-4-1996 M/s. Lakshmi constructions Ex- P-1980 - CA No.1149 of Indian Bank

1,02,490 II 224

TOTAL 1,02,490

GOPAL PROMOTERS

Description of the Property

Reference of

Document Stands in the Name of

Value of the property Rs.

Ann exur

e No.

Item No in Annexure II

cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CA 1146 opened on 23/3/95

30-4-1996 M/s. Gopal Promoters Ex-P-1974 - CA No.1146 of Indian Bank

1,02,490 II 223

. TOTAL 1,02,490

GRAND TOTAL 23,03,59,410

Page 155

155

TR.V.N.SUDHAKARAN - Accused No.3

Description of the Property Reference of Document Stands in the Name

of Value of the property Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure

II

11 acres 83 cents in S.No.345/38. 3A, 2 5B, 5F, 5d, 5f, 5c, 344/1, 2.402/4, 401/1, 355/1, in Siruthavoor Village

02-08-1994 Sale deed

Tr. VN.Sudhakaran

2,33,770 II 60

10 acres 86 cents in S.No,392/1,

391,392,380,381/3,393,409/3,398, 406,399,400,406 in Siruthavoor Village

02-08-1994 Sale deed

Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 2,11,325 II 62

7 Acres 44 cents in S.No.339/1a,

341/1,342/3a,2a, 281,282,338/1a,3, 342/3b,4a, 235/3,4,2, 234/1,2 in Siruthavur Village

02-05-1994 Sale deed Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 1,45,891 II 65

Amount Paid over and above the cost in document No.43/94 dated 5/2/94, S R North Madras to the seller Tr. Gopinath

02-05-1994 Sale deed

Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 4,85,000 II 66

3.30 Acres in S.No.403/3, 401/2 in Siruthavur Village

24-5-1994 Sale deed

Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 93,475 II 79

One sixth undivided share of land in 5 ground and 1133 sq.ft. in S.No.3334/a of Luz Avenue

21-3-1995 Sale deed

Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 10,87,196 II 153

Expenditure towards acquistion of Indo-Doho Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. at Cuddalore (1) Tr. Ayyadurai promotor of Indo-Doho Pharmaceuticals Rs.35,45,000/-

(2) To interface capital Market shares 24,05,000/-

(3) to Ind Bank-22,41,000/-

Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 86,91,000 Il 173

Cash Balance as on 30-4-96 in CA 1068 of IB Abiramapuram opened on 30-3-1994

30-4-1996 Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 1,32,221 II 197

Cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in Cb, Mylapore CA 2220 Opened on

30-4-1996 Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 47,453 II 206

Page 156

156

7-4-1993 in the name of

Cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in CB Mylapore SB 24621 opened on 25-2-92

30-4-1996 Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 61,430 II 208

TN 09 E 9027 (Ashok Leyand Cargo vehicle) 19-12-1994 Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 5,05,009 II 248

TN 01 09 f 3744 (Tarx Jeep) 29-05-1995 Tr. VN.Sudhakaran 2,96,191 II 249

TOTAL 1,19,89,961

TMT. J. ELAVARASI - Accused No.4

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name

of

Value of the property

Rs.

An nex u re

No.

Item No in Annexure

II

Amount Paid to TNHB towards allotment of plot No. L-66 (old No. 524 N) Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40

09-02-1992 Sale deed

Tmt..J. Elavarasi 2,35,813 II 24

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 Nellankarai Village

31-12-1993 Sale deed

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 9,60,520 II 50

10 Acres and 41 cents in R.S.No.346/1B, 346/1c,348/2a2a, 348/2a2b, 348/2a2c,346/2, 344/1A,

347/2c,342/18c,342/184,342/185, 345/1.346/1k,349/2B,351/183, 348/3a, 348/3c,380,345/1,345/1a,

346/11,349/2a,349/4c3,350/2a1, 351/282,344/1,346/1d,346/1e, 346/2,379/2,346/2a,350/2a 2, 344/1B, 348/3B, 348/2B

31-1-1994 Sale deed

°

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 2,33,770 II 57

11 acres and 28 cents S.No.42/2 in Karungullpallam and S.No.383 to 386 and 393 in Siruthavoor Village

02-08-1994 Sale deed

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 2,27,026 II 61

10.78 Acres in S.No.379.381, 382, 342, in Sriuthavoor Village

02-08-1994 Sale deed

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 2,02,251 II 63

Amount paid towards the cost of 08-02-1994 Tmt. J. Elavarasi 4,65,000 II 64

Page 157

157

acquisition of 10.78 acres over and above the document value doc No. 42/94 dated 8/2/1994 of SRO North Madras

Sale deed

one sixth undivided shares of land in five grounds and 1133 sq.ft. in S.No. 3334/1a in Mylapore Luz Avenue (Chennai -4)

21-3-1995 Sale deed

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 10,87,196 II 154

New additional construction in the posh Bangalow at Siruthavr in Chengai Mgr Dist

Evaluation Report

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 5,40,52,298 II 180

New Additional construction in residential building at No.1/66 Anna Nagar Chennai

Evaluation Report

Tmt. J. Elavarasi 24,83,759 II 186

Cash Balance as on 30/4/1996 in Ca 1171 of indian Bank Abiramapuram opened in 28/3/95

30-4-1996 Tmt. J. Elavarasi 3,40,527 II 199

Cash Balance as on 30-4-96 In CB Mylapore in CA 2219 opened on 7-4-93

30-4-1996 Tmt. J. Elavarasi 1,18,198 Il 210

Cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in CB Mylapore SB 25389 opened on 23/1/93

30-4-1996 Tmt. J. Elavarasi 894 II 211

TOTAL 6,04,07,252

J.VIVEK MINOR - Son and daughter of Accused No.4

1.50 Acres in S.No.392/1.2 in Sirthavur village

21-09-2014 Sale deed

P. Vivek ( minor) Represented by his mother and natural guardian Tmt. J. Elavarasi No.7 East Beach Road, Neelankarai, Chennai 41

44,210 II 56

3 acres 51 cents in S.No.43/2 in Karunkuzhipallam village

15-09-2014 Sale deed

J. Vivek (minor) Represented by his mother and natural guardian Tmt. J. Elavarasi No.7 East beach

1,58,310 II 87

Page 158

158

Road, Neelankarai, Chennai- 41

4 Acres 52 cents in S.No.46 in Karunkuzhipallam Village

15-09-2014 Sale deed

J. Vivek ( minor) Represented by his mother and natural guardian Tmt. J. Elavarasi No.7 East beach Road, Neelankarai, Chennai 41

2,03,510 II 88

4 Acres 15 cents in S.No.45 in Karunkuzhipallam Village

15-09-2014 Sale deed

J. Vivek (minor) Represented bY his mother and natural guardian Tmt. J. Elavarasi No.7 East beach Road , Neelankarai, Chennai 41

1,86,356 II 89

4 Acres 15 cents in Karunkuzhipallam Village

15-09-2014 Sale deed

J, Vivek (minor) Represented by his mother and natural guardian Tmt. - J. Elavarasi No.7 East Beach Road, Neelankarai, Chennai 41

1,86,226 II 90

cash Balance as on 30/4/96 in the SB 4110 of Indian Bank Abiramapuram opened on 12/9/94 in the name of Master J. Vivek, s/o. J. Elavarasi

30-04-1996

J. Vivek ( minor) Represented by his mother and natural guardian Tmt. J.

Elavarasi No.7 East

Beach Road , Neelankarai, Chennai 41

2,42,211 II 193

TOTAL 10,20,823

Page 159

159

SON AND DAUGHTER OF J ELAVARASI

Amount deposited in the name of Master Vivek Selvi Snakila and Selvi Krishnapriya son and daughter of Tmt. J. Elavarasi during October 1993 in Indian Bank ( On receipts of terminal benefits of their father Tr. V. Jayaraman)

Bank Records son and daugher of

TMT. J. Elavarasi

38,421 II 306

TOTAL 38,421

MAHA SUBBULAKSHMI KALYANA MANDAPAM

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name

of

Value of the property

Rs.

An nex u re

No.

Item No in Annexure

II

Cost of acquistion of Maha Suba Lakshmi Kalyana Mandabam, Chennai 106

19-7-1993

Maha Subbulakshmi

Kalyana Mandapam

38,51,000 II 31

3197 Sq. ft / ts No. 115/P, 117/P in Arumbakkam Village 31-10-1994

and 04-04-1995 Sale deed

Maha Subbulakshmi

Kalyana Mandapam

8,55,150 II 103

3197 Sq. ft / ts No. 115/P, 117/P in Arumbakkam Village

31.10.1994 and

04-04-1995 Sale deed

Maha Subbulakshmi

Kalyana Mandapam

8,55,150 II

162

Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in CA No.I 689 Canara Bank, Anna Nagar

Account opened on 1-12-1993

Maha Subbulakshmi

Kalyana Mandapam

3,17,476 II 207

TOTAL 58,78,776

GRAND TOTAL 6,73,45,272

M/S JAYA FINANCE P LTD

Cash Balance as on 30-4-96 in CA 1179 of Indian Bank

30-4-1996 M/s. Jaya 1,760 209

Page 160

160

Abiramapuram opened on 5/5/95 in

Finance (P) Ltd

TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL 4,60,24,439

ANNEXURE - II Properties acquired by Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., at the end of check period according to DVAC

I/5th Share of I ground and 1086 Sq.ft. together with a super structure in S.No.301, 4725/16 in 21, Padmanaban Streetm T Nagar New T S No. 8025/1 Block No. 107

17-1-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

3,19,230 II 51

1/5th Share of 1 ground and 1086 Sq.ft. together with a super structure in S.No.30 I , 4725/16 in 21, Padmanaban Streetm T Nagar New T S No. 8025/1 Block No. 107

17-1-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

3,19,230 II 52

1/5th Share of 1 ground and 1086 Sq.ft. together with a super structure in S.No.301, 4725/16 in 21, Padmanaban Streetm T Nagar New T S No.8025/1 Block No. 107

17-1-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

3,19,230 Il 53

1/5th Share of 1 ground and 1086 Sq.ft. together with a super structure in S.No.301, 4725/16 in 21, Padmanaban Streetm T Nagar New T S No.8025/1 Block No. 107

17-1-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

3,19,230 Il 54

1/5th Share of 1 ground and 1086 Sq.ft. together with a super structure in S.No.301, 4725/16 in 21, Padmanaban Streetm T Nagar New T S No.8025/1 Block No. 107

17-1-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd 319,230 II 55

4293 sq.ft. together with a building (2000 sq.ft. Ground Floor 2600 sq.ft. first floor ) in S.No.6794 which is called No. 68, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar Ms. 17

30-12-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

43,56,142 II 122

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 Ms. 17

30-12-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

59,96,346 II 123

1/6th undivided shares of land in 5 grounds and 1133 sq.ft. in S.No.3334/Ia of Luz Avenue

21-3-1995 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd 10,87,196 II 157

New/additional construction As per M/s. Anjaneya 2,13,63,457 II 177

Page 161

161

Building at door No.48 Jawharlal Nehru Road, Industrical estate Guindy Ekkatuthangal Chennai

Evaluation Report ** Printers P Ltd

new additional construction in residential building at door no. 21 Padbanabha Street T Nagar Chennai - 17

Evaluation Report

M/s. Anjaneya Printers 20,43,000 II 185

Cash Balance as on 30-04-96 in CB. Mylapore in CA 2250 Opened on 29-07-93

30-4-1996 M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

10,75,336 II 213

TN 09 H 3595 ( Swaraj Mazda Van) 26-03-1996

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd

5,56,999 II 251

TN 09 H 3541 ( Swaraj Mazda Van) 26-03-1996

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd 5,56,999 II 252

TN 09 H 3586 ( Swaraj Mazda Van) 25-3-1996

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd 5,56,999 II 255

Machinery subsequently purchased for M/s.

As per Evaluation Report **

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd 2,16,42,000 II 294

A developed plot bearing No. 6 to an extent of 1.12 acres in Industrial estate Thirumuzhi in the name of M/s. Anjaneya Printer P Ltd on 20/4/1994 at a cost of Rs. 819000/- and a service charges of Rs. 40950 collected by Sidco vide receipt No. 120128 dated

05-06-1994 Sale deed

M/s. Anjaneya Printers P Ltd 8,60,950 II 297

TOTAL 6,16,91,574

SUPER DUPER TV PRIVATE LIMITED

Description of the Property Reference

of Document

Stands in the Name

of

Value of the property

Rs.

Ann exu re

No.

Item No in Annexure

II

Cash Balance as on 30.04-96 in CA 1152 at IB Abiramapuram opened on 25/1/95

30-4-1996 M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd

5,46,577 II 216

Fixed deposit in IB, Abiramapuram in the name of 20-04-1995

M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd

5,00.000 II 260

Fixed deposit in IB, Abiramapuram in the name of 25-3-1995

M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd

5,00,000 II 262

Fixed deposit in IB, Abiramapuram in the name of 25-3-1995

M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd

5,00,000 II 263

Fixed deposit in IB, Abiramapuram in the name of 25-3-1995

M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd

5,00,000 II 264

Page 162

162

A shed allotted By SIDCO in Electronics complex, Guindy on 15/4/1995 in favour

15-04-1995 M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd

15,75,800 II 292

TOTAL 41,22,377

97. He also drew our attention to a chart filed by him on

disputed items in Annexure II relating to A2 to A4, firms &

companies, its value as well as its ownership, which is given

hereunder:-

Part B- Disputed Items in Annexure II relating to its value as well as its ownership.. ANNEXURE -II

Items shown in

Annexur e - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

6 Land and Building at Door No.19, Pattammal Street, Chennai Plot No.83,

R.S.No.4087, extent 1897 Sq.Ft M/s. Jaya Publications Partners -Selvi.J.Jayaalithaa & N.Sasikala (Doc

No. 1024/89, dt.18-6-89 of SRO, Mylapore

5,70,039 Shown in Annexure - I,

Item -6

Acquired prior to check period. Hence, whole amount to be excluded

7. Land and Flat No.7 R.R.Flats, 3/4 Antu Street, Santhome, Chennai-4 of

Tmt.N.Sasikala (Doc no.575/89, dt 17.4.1989 of SRO, Mylapore)

3,13,530

Ex.P-2327 Shown in Annexure - I,

Item -7 (Vol No.79, Page 65-77)

Acquired prior to check period. Hence, whole amount to be excluded

8 Shop No.14, Ground Floor at 602, Anna Salai, Chennai-6 (Parsn Manere)

M/s.Sasi Enterprises (Doc No.399/89 dt.5-7-89 of SRO,

Thousandlights)

98,904 Shown in Annexure - I,

Item -8

Acquired prior to check period. Hence, whole amount to be excluded

9 Undivided share of land only at Door No.14, Kather Navaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, in Block No.12,

R.S.No.58/5 to the extent of 68/12000 undivided share in 11

Grounds 736 Sq.ft with a Shop No.9 -M/s.Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.526/89 dt.21-9-89 of Jt. S.R.II, Thousandlights)

2,10,919 Shown in Annexure - I,

Item -9

Acquired prior to check period. Hence, whole amount to be excluded

12 Land and Building in Tanjore, 1,57,125 Acquired prior to check

Grand Total 37,55,10,354

Page 163

163

Maharnoombu Chavadi S.No.I091 extent of 2400 Sq.ft

M/s. Sasi Enterprises, Partners: J.Jayalalithaa, N.Sasikala

(Doc No.455/90 dt.I9-4-90 of ORB,Thanjavur)

Shown in Annexure - L Item -12 period. Hence, whole

amount to be excluded

Items shown in

Annexur e - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

. Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits reliedupon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

13 Vacant site at Blake HD. Road,Tanjore Town, 3rd Division, 6th Ward, Mahar Nombu Chavadi to the

extent of 5100 Sq Ft in T.S.No.1091 M/s. Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.456/90 dt.19-4-90 of ORB, Thanjavur

1,15,315 Shown in Annexure - I. Item -13

Acquired prior to check period. Hence, whole amount to be

excluded

14 Vacant site at Blake H.D. Road,Tanjore Town, Mahar Nombu

Chavadi, extent 8970 Sq.ft. in T.S.No.I019

M/s. Sasi Enterprises, . (Doc No.457/90 dt 19-04-1990 of ORB,

Thanjavur)

2 , 0 2 , 7 7 8 Shown in Annexure - I, Item -14

Acquired prior to check period. Hence whole amount to be

excluded

15 Land and building at Abishekapuram Village, Pon Nagar, Trichy (in plot

No.102, 3rd Cross Road, New Ward No.K, Block No.30, T.S.No. 107) to the

extent of 3525 Sq.ft Tmt.N.Sasikala W/o. M.Natarajan

(Doc No.2256/90, dt.3.5.90 of ORB, Thanjavur)

5,85,420 Shown in Annexure - 1, Item -15

Acquired prior to check period. Hence whole amount to be

excluded

16 Dry land to the extent of 3.23 Acres in S.No.402/2 Sundarakottai Village,

Tanjavur M/s. Sasi Enterprises

(Doc No.563/90 dt.12-7-90)

75,210 Shown in Annexure - I, Item -16

Acquired prior to check period. Hence whole amount to be

excluded

17 Land and building at Thiru Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, in S.No.55, 56,

Block No.6, extent 5658 Sq.ft, Shed No.C-8,Adyar Village - M/s. Jaya

Publications (Doc No.4640/90 dt.8.12.1990 of SRO,

Adyar

5,28,039 Shown in Annexure - I, Item -17

Acquired prior to check period. Hence whole amount to be

excluded

Page 164

164

Items show n in Anne xure -

II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC

Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits

31

Cost of acquistion of Maha Suba Lakshmi Kalyana

Mandabam, Chennai 106 38,51,000

Ex-P-40 (Vol No.14, pg. 105-106)

PW-I0 (Vol No. 2, pg. 54-59)

Value to be considered is Rs.10,00,000/

and hence Rs.28,51,000/- is to be excluded.

Ex-D-379 (Vol No. 164, pg. 21 - 24)

Exhibit not considered

33

Cost of acquisition of shares by M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P)

Limited at No. 48 Inner Ring Road, Ekkattuthangal, on 1-9-93

(Towards transfer of shares of Rs. 64,05,000/- machinery cost of Rs. 20,16,000/- from Tr.Naresh

Shroff

84,21,000

MOU dated 01.09.1993 - Ex- P-4I, Vol. 14 of Pg. 107-112) at

page 108

PW-I5 (Vol No.2 page 77-83)

at page 79

Since the cost of machinery purchased by Anjaneya Printers Pvt Ltd is shown as Rs.20,16,000/- has been included in item 294 of Annexure II in Vol No.1 page 113, the said amount has to be excluded here and only Rs.64,05,000/- (shares purchased by A-2 ) is to be considered. Hence the value of Rs.20,16,000/- is to be excluded.

Ex.D-236, Ex.D-237 &

ExD-238, Pg. 121, 122 & 123 of Vol.

153 Ex-D-276 Page 117 Vol No.156 and Ex-P-1519

(bank statement), Pg. 263-276 of Vol. 61 (CA No.2196 - CB) Ex-P-2088

(Vol No.64, page 265)

64 Amount paid towards the cost of acquisition of 10.78 acres

over and above the document value doc no. 42/94 dated 8/2/1994 of S RO North

Madras

4,65,000 Ex.P-139 (Vol.

No. 22, pg. 233-240)

PW-51 (Vol. No. 3, pg. 1-17 at page 12)

Cash payment of Rs. 4,65,000/-is denied and

liable to be excluded.

66 Amount Paid over and above

the cost in document No.43/94 dated 5/2/94, S R 0 North Madras to the seller

Tr. Gopinath

4,85,000 Ex.P-124 (Vol.

No. 22, pg. 165-171)

PW-46 (Vol.No. 2, pg. 228 - 236)

"Admits in cross the consideration

shown in Deed is correct"

Since it is said as cash payment.

The whole amount of Rs.4,85,000/- is to be

excluded.

Items shown

in Annexu

re - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC

Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied

upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW’s

70

Actual consideration paid to Tr. Jagadesh A.Raja S/o. Alagu

Raja, 22, Bazulah Road, Chennai-17 by DD Rs.2,35,200/- and by cash Rs.3,35,000/- on

8.3.1994 for purchase of 6.75 cents 5,70,200

Ex.P-30, 31 and 32 - PoA

Ex.P-43 – Sale agreement (Vol.No.14)

Ex.CI, Pg.78 -79, Vol

PW- 16 (Vol No. 2,Pg.

84-92) at page 86

2,35,200 (Cash payment of Rs.3,35,000/- denied) In the income tax returns of the vendors in Ex-C2 itself shows that the sale consideration was only Rs.235200/-. His income tax returns belies his oral

Page 165

165

covered in Doc No.189/book4 of 1994 dated 9:3.1994 of SRO Adyar (owned by Green Farm

House)

81, Ex.C2, Pg. 80 -81,

Vol. 81. evidence of receipt of cash. Hence the value of Rs.3,35,000/- is to be excluded.

72

Actual consideration paid to Tmt. Gayathri Chandran W/o K.T.

Chandaravadanam, 22, Bazullah Road Chennai -17 By DD

Rs.530400/- and by cash Rs. 335000/- on 8/3/1994 (Owned by

Green Farm House)

8,65,400

Ex.P-44 - Sale agreement (Vol No.14,

page124-128, @ page 126)

PW-I6 (Vol No. 2,Pg.84 -

92) at page 86

5,30,400 (Cash payment of Rs.3,35,000/-

denied). No evidence to show cash payment Hence the value of Rs.3,35,000/- is to be

excluded.

74

Actual consideration paid to K.T Chandravadanan 22, Bazullah Road, Chennai -17 by DD Rs. 235200/- on 8/3/94 and cash

Rs.335000/- on 10/4/1994 (Owned by Green Farm House)

5,70,200

Ex.P-45 - Sale agreement (Vol No.14,

page129-133, @page 129)

PW-16 (Vol No

2,Pg. 84 - 92) at page

86

2,35,200 (Cash payment of Rs.3,35,000/-

denied). No evidence to show cash payment. Hence the value of Rs.3,35,000/- is to be

excluded.

91 & 92

4380 sq.ft. land with 520 sq.ft. house In S.No. 588/2A, 2B in Thiruvenkadu Nagar colony -

excess amount paid to seller Tmt. Sundari Shankar over and above

document value (Sasi Enterprises)

Point No.91 - Rs.2,65,00 0/- Point No.92 - Rs. 3,10,000/-

Ex-P-46 (Vol No. 14,

page 134 -137)

Ex-P-17 (Vol No.13)

Rs 190000 stamp

duty Rs.20,800/- and registration

charges Rs.1995/-

PW-17 (Vol No.2, page 93-

95) PW161

(Ramesh)

Ex-P-17 (Vol. No. 13, pg 235-236) i.e. Sale deed shows Rs.190000/- as consideration and Rs.20800/- as stamp charges. Registration charges Rs.1995/- and Rs.37,200/- compounding fees totall ing to Rs.2,49,995/-. Hence Rs.265000/- shown by DVAC is wrong. Therefore Rs.15,005/- is to be excluded. The entire cash payment of Rs.3,10,000/ in Item No.92 also to be excluded as there is no evidence. Hence the sum of both item No. 91 & 92 i.e. Rs.3,25,005/- is to be excluded.

Items shown in Annex ure - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW’s Exhibits DW's

127

Cost of Transfer of 6,14,000 shares of M/s.Ramraj Agro at Vendampalai at the rate of Rs.3/- per share from Gandhi and others (6,18,000 shares minus 4000 shares) (Mrs. N.Sasikala)

18,42,000

Vol No.61 page 290 Ex-P- 1529- DD payment of Rs.3.60 Lacs dated 20.12.94 by Chq No.8213 PW 52 Ex-P-2244, Page No, 330 of Vol. No.75

Value of shares as per Defence is as below :- Total Value of Shares-Rs.I8,42,000 Less:- Value of 3,60,000 shares @ Rs.3/- per share owned and relating to A-2 to A-4 - Rs.10,80,000/- Balance = Rs.7,62,000/- which needs to be excluded. Payments made through bank statement of A-2 to A-4 are Ex-P-1529 (Vol. No. 61, pg 290-291)- DD payment of Rs.3.60 Lacs, Ex-P. 2245 payment by A4 - page No..27 of Vol. No.76 (Vol No. 76, pg. 1- 365) - Share transfer certificate+ Rs.360000/- payment in Vol. No.62 at page 36- Ex-P1618, Ex-P.1111 - Payment by A3 -Ex-P2245 page 156 of Vol. 76 - (Vol No. 58, pg. 221-222) & Ex. P. 1113 - Cheque paid by A3 -(Vol. 58, Pg. 225 - 226) respectively. Hence the value of Rs.7,62,000/- is to be excluded.

159 Cost of acqusition of Luz Avenue property other than the consideration covered by document Nos.24I/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 indian

76,00,000 Ex-P-105 to 110 (Sale deed) (Vol. No.22, page 97-136) and Ex-P- 111 toEx-P121 (challans)

PW-43 (Vol No. 2, Pg. 204 - 214, cross on 29.1.2003)

1/6th share of Luz Church in the name of Mrs.N.Sasikala, JS Housing and Development, Anjaneya Printers Private Ltd, Jaya Contractors and Builders, V.N.Sudhagaran & J.Elavarassi respectively. The entire amount of Rs.76,00,000/- stated to be

Page 166

166

Bank Abiramapuram (Mrs.N.Sasikala)- Ex-P-105

(Vol No.22, page 137-149)

given in cash is to be excluded.

168 168 40,197

A-2 purchased item in S.No34 to 48 shown in Annexure II during the check period for Rs3,49,683/- as per DVAC. The very same items are sold by A-2 to Meadow Agro Farms Private Limited for Rs.2,90,000I- and the same are shown again as Item No. 168 and 169 of Annexure –II.

Page 167

167

Items shown

in Annex ure - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits

169 169 40,197

These items 168 and 169 are required to be deleted from

Annexure-IL Only the value of the items S.No.34 to 48 are to be

retained and item No. 168 & 169 amounting to Rs.80,394/- is to be

deleted from Annexure II. 173 Expenditure towards

acquisition of Indo-Doha Chemicals and

Pharmaceuticals Ltd at Cuddalore (I) Tr. Ayyadurai

promotor of Indo Doha Pharmaceuticals Rs.35,45,000/-

(2) To interface capital Market shares 24,05,000/-

(3) to Ind Bank - 27,41,000/-

86,91,000 PW-84 (Vol No. 4, pg. 32-42, at page 38) Further cross will go to show no cash payment of Rs.5,00,000/-

Value as per defense is Rs.81,91,000/-

Hence the disputed value of Rs.5,00,000/- which has been

alleged to be paid in cash is to be excluded.

Ref Re-exam Page 41, Vol.

174

New/additional construction in Building at 5- A, B, and C East Coast Neelankarai Chennai -41

(Ref Doc. No. 4752/93 SRO Adayar)

(Sasi Enterprises)

80,75,000

Ex.P-673 (Vol No. 35,

page 70-171)

PW-I17 (Vol. No 5,

Pg.86 , cross

108-109, recalled 116)

See DW-75 (Vol. No. 91,

Pgs. 181)

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is Rs.40,39,019/-) and hence

balance of Rs.40,35,981/- is to be excluded.

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168 @

163, Vol. 157)

NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIAL

COURT

tems shown

in Annexu

re -II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC

Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2. Trial Court findings

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

176

New/Additional Construction in Farm House Bangalows at

Payyanur in Chengai Anna Dist

(Mrs.N.Sasikala)

1,25,90,261

Ex.P-96 to Ex.P-103 (Vol. 22-Pg.50 - 55; 56 - 61;62 - 67;

68 - 71; 72 - 76; 77-80; 81-85 & 86-91)

Ex.P-662 (Vol. No. 34,

Pg. 31-87)

PW-107, Vol. 4, Pg. 217-253, at page 221)

The property was purchased with building and no new

construction has been carried out during check period.

Hence the whole amount of Rs.1,25,90,261 is to be

excluded.

Ex.D-251 (Pg. 3 to 9, Vol.-156)

to Ex.D-257 (Pg. 19 to 20, Vol -156) Ex-D-254

(Page No.14 & 15, Vol No.156)

NOT CONSIDERED

DW-83 (Vol No. 92, pg. 23-35) DW-93 (Vol No. 92 Pg. 212-217) DW-95 Vol. No.92-Page 224 DISCARDS EXHIBITS IN PG 1695 OF VOL NO.V11

Para 78.2, pg. 1689-1696 of VII. Trial Court agrees contention of the the prosecution the cost of construction yet granted 20% overall cost. p r o se cu t i o n cost of be

Page 168

168

177

. New/additional construction

Building at door No.48 Jawharlal Nehru Road, Industrial Estate

Guindy Ekkatuthangal Chennai

(Shastry Nuts Plates) 2,13,63,457

Ex.P-663 (Vol.No 34 pg 88-104) and

Ex-P- 41 (MOU) (Vol.

No. 14, pg. 107 -112)

PW-107, Vol. 4, Pg. 217-253)

Since the property is not owned by Anjeneya Printers

and as it is owned by Shastry Nuts Plates. Hence the whole amount of Rs.2,13,63,457/- is

liable to be excluded.

Ex.D-239 to Ex.D-243 (Pg.

124-132; 133-134;135-137;

138-140 & 141, Vol No. 153)

Ex-D-277 , Pg. 118-129 @ page

125, Vol. 156 - (Return) P&L acct for rent

paid

DW-89 (Vol. No. 92 ,

Pg. 203-211)

Para 78.3, Pg.1696-1701 of

Trial Court agrees

prosecution has not cost of construction yet granted

20% reduction in the overall cost. Hence the prosecution towards cost of

178

New/additional construction in the Residential Building at D.No. 3/1/8c - Vettuvankeni Chennai

(Green Farm House)

1,52,59,076

Ex.P-643 (Vol.No. 33, pg. 28-63)

REFERRED BUT NOT

CONSIDERE D

Pg 1701 OF VOL NO.VI I

PW-98 (Vol. No. 4,

Pg. 148-179) at

page 151

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is

Rs.1,02,47,286/-) and hence balance of Rs.50,11,7901- to

be excluded

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168, Vol.

157)

DW-95 (Vol. No. 92,

Pg.223 - 230) DW-76

(Vol No.91, Pg. 191-204)

Para 78.4, Pg. 1701-1705 of

VII. Trial Court agrees

contention of the

the prosecution

cost of construction yet granted

20%

H e n ce th e p r o se cu t i o n

evidence towards cost of

construction is liable to be

rejected in its entirety.

Items shown

in Annex ure - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2. Trial Court findings

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

180 New additional construction in

the posh Bangalow at Siruthavur in Chengai Mgr Dist

5,40,52,298

Ex.P-66I (Vol.

No. 34, pg. 1-30)

PW-I07 (Vol. No. 4, pg. 217 -253) PW-220 (Vol. No.10, pg. 132 , 161) at page 133

(Amount to be accepted is Rs.1,25,06,305/-) and hence

balance of Rs.4,15,45,993/- is to be excluded

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168, Vol.

157)

DW-95 (Vol. No. 92, pg. 223-230) DW-83 (Vol. No. 92, Pg . 25-35)

Para 78.6, Pg. 1707-1709 of VII. Trial Court agrees contention of the accused prosecution has not proved the cost of 20% Hence the towards is entirety. unreliable.

183

New additional construction in Building at sea shell avenue No.2/1 - B -3 apartment Sholinganallore

Saidapet Taluk (J Farm House)

80,36,868

Ex-P-669 (Vol.

No. 34, pg. 181-230 )

PW-116 (Vol

No. 5, pg 34-85) at page 39

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is Rs.48,10,670/-) and hence

balance of Rs.32,26,198/- to be excluded

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168 at page 157, Vol. 157) NOT CONSIDERED

DW-95 (Vol No.92,

Pg. 223-230) DW-79

(Pg. 222-237, Vol. 91)

Para 78.9, Pg. 1720-1722, VII.

the contention

proved the cost of yet granted 20%

prosecut ion

liable to 184 New additional construction in

Building at door No. 19 Pattammal St. Mylapore,

Chennai (Jaya Publication)

8,00,000 Ex.P-670 (Vol

No. 35, pg. 1-15)

PW-116 (Vol.

No. 5, Pg. 34-85) at

page 40

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is Rs.6,42,290/-) and hence

balance of Rs.1,57,710/- to be excluded

Ex.D-226 (Pg. 185 - 186,

Vol. 114) at page 186

DW-88 (Pg. 105-176, Vol No.92) at page 109

Para 78.10, Pg. 1723- 1727 VII. Trial Court agrees contention of the prosecution

Page 169

169

cost of' 20% Hence the prosecut ion evidence towards cost of construction is liable to be rejected in its entirety.

Items shown

in Annex ure - II

Description of the item in Annexure II Value

According to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied

upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by

Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

185

New additional construction in residential building at door No. 21Padmanabha Street, T Nagar, Chennai – 17 (Anjaneya Printers)

20,43,000 Ex.P-666

(Vol. No. 34, pg 113-139)

PW-116 (Vol. No.

5, Pg. 34-85) at page 36

Without prejudice : (Amount spent for construction to be

accepted is Rs.19,05,868/-) and

hence balance of Rs.1,37,132/- to be

excluded

Ex.D-277 (Pg. 118-129 at page 128, Vol. 156) Value of property including land value is Rs.3502018/- NOT CONSIDERED

DW-79 (Pg. 222-237,

Vol. No. 91, at

page 224) DW-88

(Pg. 105-176,

Vol.No. 92 at page 127)

Para 78.11, Pg. 1727-1729

VI I . Tria l Cour t

contention of

t h e prosecution has not proved

cost of construction yet

reduction in the

the prosecution evidence towards

of construction is liable

in its entirety. 186

New Additional construction in residential building at No.1/66 Anna Nagar Chennai Item No.24 of Annexure II, page 45 of Vol. No.1

24,83,759

Ex.P-641 (Vol.No. 33,

pg. 3-17)

PW-98 (Vol. No.

4, Pg. 148-179 at page 148,

149 & 150)

Value to be considered is Rs.13,85,361/-. . Hence the sum of Rs. I0,98,398/-is to be excluded.

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168,

Vol. 157)

DW-76 (Vol. No. 91, 204, pg. 191-204 at page 193-195) DW-95 (Vol. No. 92, pg. 223 to 230)

Para 78.12, Pg. 1729- 1730 VI I . Tria l Cour t contention of the prosecution construction yet granted 20% in the overall cost. p r ose cu t i on ev id en ce t o wa rd s co s t o f co n s t ru c t i on i s be rejected questions under 313 Cr PC.

187

New additional construction

in Building in door No. 5 Murugesan Street T Nagar,

Chennai 17 (J. Real Estate)

10,92,828

Ex.P-642 (Vol

No.33, pg.

18-27)

PW-98 (Vol. No.

4, pg. 148-

179, at page

152 & 153)

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted

is Rs.5,47,102/-) and hence

balance of Rs.5,45,726/- to

be excluded

Ex.D-306

(Pg. 122-168,

Vol. 157) NOT

CONSIDERED

DW-95 (Vol. No. 92,

Pg. 223 - 230)

DW-76 (Pg. 191- 204, Vol. No. 91, at

page 191 & 192)

Para 78.13, Pg. 1730 - 1731 VI I . Tria l Cour t contention of t h e prosecution has not proved cost of construction yet reduction in the the prosecution evidence towards of construction is liable in its entirety.

Page 170

170

Items shown

in Annex ure - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's

Exhibits DW's

188

New additional construction in

residential building ( 4 Nos) in the campus at No.1/240

Enjabakkam in New Mahabalipuram road

(J. Farm House)

53,11,000

Ex-P-668 (Vol.No. 34,

Pg. 151-180)

PW-116 (Vol. No. 5, pg. 34- 85 at

page 37)

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is Rs. 29,82392/-) a n d h e n c e b a l a n c e o f Rs.23,28,608/- to be excluded

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168,

Vol.157) NOT

CONSIDERED

DW-95 (Vol. No.92, Pg.223-230)

DW-92 (Vol. No 92,

Pg.203-211, at page

203 & 204) DW-79

(Vol No. 91, Pg.222-237, at

Page 228 & 229)

Para 78.14, Pg. 1731 - 1732

V I I . Tr ia l Cour t

contention of

t h e prosecution has not proved

cost of construction yet

reduction in the

the prosecution evidence towards

of construction is liable

its entirety.

189 New/ additional construction

in residential Building at No. I

Murphy Street, Akkarai Chennai

(J.S. Housing Development) 20,38,959 Ex-P-644

(Vol No. 33, pg. 64-85)

PW-98 (Vol. No. 4, Pg.148-179,

at page 152-153)

- Without prejudice :

(Amount to be accepted is

Rs.13,31,185/-) and hence balance of

Rs.7,07,774/- to be excluded

Ex.D-306 (Pg. 122-168,Vol. 157) NOT CONSIDERED

DW-95 (Vol. No. 92, Pg.223-230)

DW-76 (pg. 191-204, Vol. No. 91, at

page 197) DW-92 (Pg.

203-211, Vol. No. 92, at page

204 & 208)

Para 78.15, Pg. 1732 - 1733

VI I . Tria l Cour t

contention of

prosecution has not proved

construction yet

in the

prosecution evidence towards

construction is liable

its entirety. 190

New / additional construction in Building at S.No.32/2-4 Plot No. S-7 Ganapathy

Colony Thiruvika Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai 32

(Jaya Publication)

39,34,000

Ex-P-677 (Vol. No. 35,

pg. 277- 320)

PW-117 (Vol. No.5, pg. 86-117, at page 94, 103 & 104)

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is

Rs.32,94,834/-) and hence balance of

Rs.6,39,166/- to be excluded

Ex.D-226 (Pg. 185-186,

Vol. 114, at page 186) NOT CONSIDERED

DW-88 (Vol. NO. 92 Page No. 105-176 at Page 109)

Para 78.16, Pg. 1733-1735

V I I . Tr ia l Cour t

contention of

t h e prosecution has not proved

cost of construction yet

reduction in the

the prosecution evidence towards

of construction is liable

in its entirety.

Itemsshown in Anne xure -

II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According to DVA C

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC

Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by

Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

Page 171

171

191 New Additional construction in

Building and the change of roof for the works shed at

MF 9 Guindy Industrial Estate Chennai -32 (Sasi Enterprises)

14,17,538 Ex-P-674

(Vol. No 35,

pg. 172-225)

PW-I17 (Vol. No.5, pg. 86-117, at

page 102, 109 &

110)

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is Rs.4,76,525/-) and

hence balance of Rs.9,41,013/- to be excluded

Ex.D-272 (Vol. 156, Pg.

103-112, at page 108,)

NOT CONSIDERED

DW-88 (Pg.

105-176, Vol. No. 92, at

page 108) DW-75 (Vol.

No.9I, Pg. 180-191, at page 183

184)

242 TSR 333 Swaraj Mazda

Van 2,99,845 Shown in Annexure - I,

Item 22

(Acquired prior to check period. Hence whole amount of Rs.2,99,845/-is to be

excluded)

249 (TN-01-09-F-3744)

(Trax Jeep) 2,96,191

PW-59 (Vol. No. 3, pg. 57-61, at page 58) (Does not admit payment) PW-69 (Vol. No. 3, pg. 100-107, at page 102)

Since no amount was paid towards purchase of vehicle the whole amount of Rs. 2,96,191/- is to

be excluded.

254

TN 09 B 6966 (Metal King)

2,03,979

Ex.P-242 (Vol No. 25, pg. 40 - 42) Ex.P-288

(Vol No. 25, pg. 115)

PW-59 (Vol No. 3,

Pg.57) See PW-69 (Vol No. 3, Pg 100-107, at page 103)

As per Ex.P-288 the vehicle was purchased by AIADMK on 19.4.1991 prior to check period. The said vehicle was purchased

as second hand by Accused No. 1 on 12.5.1992 and from Accused No.1, the said vehicle was

purchased by Metal King on 22.3.1995. Hence value assigned by prosecution for second hand vehicle is not justified and hence the full value

of Rs.203,979/- is to be deleted

Items shown in

Annexur e - II

Description of the item in Annexure II

Value According to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied

upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No.2.

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

256

TN 09 B 6565 (Mercedes Benz car Imported)

(Jaya Publication) 9,15,000

Ex-P-279 (Vol. No.25,

pg. 103) Ex-P-1903

(Vol. No. 63, pg. 57-105, pages 74 -

Rs.600000 & page 75 for Rs.76000

entry)

PW-69 (Vol. No. 3, pg.100-107,

at page 102)

Without prejudice : (Amount to be accepted is

Rs.6,76,000/- ) and hence balance amount of Rs.2,39,000/- is to be

excluded Ex-P-1903-Bank statement of JP

D-220 - IT Return (Pg. 79-97, at page

94 Vol No. 114) NOT CONSIDERED

DW-88 ( Vol No.92, page

Nos 105-176, at page 108)

NOT CONSIDERE

D

257 TN 09 B 6975(Bajaj Tempo van) (Metal King)

2,03,979 Ex-P-241 (Vol.

No. 25, pg. 39-40)

Ex-P-287 (Vol.No. 25,

PW-59 (Vol. No.3, pg.57-61, at page 58) PW-69

As per Ex.P-241, The vehicle vas purchased by

AIADMK on 18.4.1991 prior to check period. The said vehicle was purchased as second hand by Metal

King. Vehicle not transferred as alleged by prosecution hence not

Page 172

172

pg. 114)

(Vol. No.3, pg. 100-107,

at page 103)

justified & full amount of Rs.203,979/- is to be

excluded.

Vehicle valuation :- 1. Rs.129,403.35

2. Proved by Accused

259 Fixed Deposit in Canara Bank, Mylapore in the name of Jaya Publications - PW 201

1,49,544 Ex-P-1921 Vol. No. 63, Pg. 120-121)

PW 201 Page

142, Vol. No.9

As per the exhibit the amount is a renewal of the fixed deposit placed prior to the check period and hence full amount of Rs.1,49,544/- is to

be excluded

261 Fixed deposit in Canara Bank, Mysore Branch in the name of Jaya publications - PW 201

71,218 Ex-P-1922

(Vol..No. 63, pg. 122-123)

PW 201 Page 142, Vol No.9

As per the exhibit the amount is a renewal of the fixed deposit placed

prior to the check period and hence full amount of Rs.71,218/-

is to be excluded

Page 173

173

Items shown in

Annexur e - II

Description of the item in

Annexure II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC

Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused No-2.

Exhibits PW’s Exhibits DW's

285

62 items of Jewels claimed to be of Tmt. N. Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 31.3.1991 -

9,38,460

Ex-P-1014 (Vol. No. 57, pg. 181-183),

Ex-P-1015 (Vol. No. 57, pg. 184-185),

Ex-P-2208 (Vol. No. 69, pg. 164-187)

Ex-P-2209 (Vol. No. 69, pg. 188-189)

PW-179 (Vol. No. 7,

pg.253-272) PW-227 (Vol. No. 11, pg.40- 56, at page 49

& 50)

Acquired prior to check period, Hence the whole amount of Rs.9,38,460/- is

to be excluded.

287 . 34 items of Jewels purporting to be of Tmt. Sasikala as evaluated by M/s. VBC Trust on 16-1-1992

17,54,868

Ex-P-1016 (Vol. No. 57, pg. 186-188)

Ex-P-2208 (Vol. No. 69, pg. 164-187),

Ex-P-2209 (Vol. No. 69, pg. 188-189)

PW-l79 (Vol. No. 7, pg. 253- 272)

Acquired prior to check period Hence the whole amount of Rs.17,54,868/- is

to be excluded.

293

Machinery subsequently purchased for M/s. Metal

King 7,69,000

Ex-P-665 (Vol. No. 34, pg. 111-112)

PW-115 (Vol. No. 5, Pg. 18-33

(He mentioned it as Scrap

Value) also at Pg. 26 of Vol.

5.

Machineries are stated to be as scrap (no value for the same). Hence the

whole amount of Rs.7,69,000/- is to be excluded.

294 (Part of item

No.33)

Machinery subsequently purchased for

M/s. Anjaneya Printers 2,16,42,000

Ex-P-664 (Vol. No. 34, pg.105-110) Ex-P-2088 (Vol. No.64,

page 265) - relates to cheques

to 3 parties

PW-115 (Vol.

No. 5, pg. 18-33)

Value of machinery as per defense is Rs.94,25,835/- and DVAC has shown

a portion of the machinery as S.No.223 & S.No.224 of Annexure IV totaling to Rs.53,00,000/-. Hence the

defense is accountable to explain for a sum of Rs.94,25,835/- only. Hence the difference of Rs.1,22,16,165 is to be

excluded

Ex.D-236 to D-238 (Pg. 121;

122 & 123, Vol no. 153)

Ex-D-276 (Pg. 117, Vol. No. 156) Ex-D-277 (Pg. 118-129, Vol. No. 156 at page 128)

DW-89 (Pg. 177-187,

Vol. No. 92, at page 178)

(Pg. 105-176,

Vol. No. 92,

page 127)

Items shown

in Annexu

re - II

Descript ion of the item in Annexure - II

Value According

to DVAC

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by DVAC Value as per defence

Evidence and Exhibits relied upon by Accused

No.2. Trial Court findings

Exhibits PW's Exhibits DW's

299

Ashok leyland Panther Luxury coach bearing registration No. TN - 09 F 2575 purchased in the name of M/s. Jaya Publication P limited (Chassis Rs. 699178* cost of Body Building Rs.2541000)

32,40,278

Ex-P-253 (Vol.No.25, pg. 62-63) Ex-P-254

(Vol. No. 25, pg. 64-65) Ex-P-255

(Vol. No. 25, pg. 66-67)

P W-63 (Vol. No.3,

pg. 74-78)

(Amount to be accepted is Rs.32,39,178/-) and hence

balance of Rs.1,100/- is to be excluded

Ex.D-226 (Pg.

185-186, Vol. No.

114, at page 186 - under

fixed assets)

DW-88 (Vol. No.92, page

Nos. 105-176, at page 109)

Para 83.6, Pg. 1811-1812 of

301 Cost of renovation and additional construction between June 1992 and

1993 of the building at Plot No. 102

III Cross Road, Pon Nagar,

6,83,325 Ex.P-781 (Vol. No.39, pg. 126-127) and Ex-P-782 (Vol. No. 39, pg. 128-129)

PW-144 (Vol.

No.6, pg. 147-152) recalled

see Pg. 152

Purchased with building prior to the check period. No new construction Purchased prior to check period Annexure I, Item No.15, Vol. No. I

Para 78.18, Pg. 1736-1738 Vol . V I I . with the contention of a c c u s e d t h a t t h e prosecution has not proved

Page 174

174

Trichy owned by Tmt. N. Sasikala (Covered

by document No. 2256/90 dt. 3/5/90 S R 0 I 0 R B

TRICHY)

of Vol. 6. (page 42). Hence building value of Rs.6,83,325/- is to be excluded.

cost of construction yet 20% reduction in the cos t . Hence the evidence towards construction is liable rejected in its entirety. Trial Court puts at Rs.39,34,000/- page 1736

TOTAL 13,11,02,559

Page 175

175

98. Mr. Naphade submitted that there are 306 items, which

would appear in Annexure II, out of which 175 items relate to

properties of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, Jaya Publications and Sasi

Enterprises. Out of the 32 entities which have been referred

in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution, 17 of them are

alleged to have properties, 4 of the said 17 companies and/or

firms have only cash balances and 2 entities, which are not

included in the 32 entities are (i) Mahasubbulakshmi Kalyana

Mandabam and (ii) Jaya Finance. Out of 32 entities, 15 are

not shown to have any assets in Annexure II. A2 is concerned

with the properties shown in respect of herself, Jaya

Publications, Sasi Enterprises as also Anjaneya Printers

Private Limited, Green Farm House, J Farm House, Jay Real

Estate, Jaya Contractors and Builders, J.S. Housing

Development, J.J. Leasing and Maintenance, Lakshmi

Constructions, Gopal Promoters, Sakthi Constructions,

Kodanad Tea Estate and Jaya Finance Private Limited. A3 is

concerned with the properties shown in respect of himself as

also Super Duper TV (P) Limited. A4 is concerned with the

properties shown in respect of herself, J.Vivek Minor Son,

Daughter and Son of A4 and also Mahasubbulakshmi Kalyana

Page 176

176

Mandabam. The total 10 items, which has been stated by the

prosecution in Annexure II is liable for exclusion since

purchase have been made prior to check period. Hence a sum

of Rs.28,57,279/- needs to be excluded from Annexure II.

99. Mr. Naphade further submitted with regard to Item No.31-

Cost of acquisition of Mahasubhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam,

Chennai amounting to Rs.38,51,000/- that it is a partnership

firm of which the original partners were one Selvaraj and his

family members, who did appear before the Court as PW10

and he deposed that for the purpose of construction, the said

firm borrowed Rs.19 Lakhs from Central Bank of India and

such loan was duly repaid from the income of the said

Mandapam. A3 approached him in the year 1993 and it was

agreed that the original partners will retire and A3, A4 and one

Sreethaladevi would be inducted as partners. He has stated

that A3 paid a sum of Rs.38,51,000/- by Demand Drafts. He

relied upon a letter of the bank dated 12.11.1996, which was

marked as Exh. P-40 before the Court.

100. It is further submitted that the letter does not indicate

that any amount is paid by A3, A4 or the said Sreethaladevi.

Page 177

177

The prosecution has clearly attempted to manipulate the

evidence to show that A3, A4 and Sreethaladevi paid a sum of

Rs.38,51,000/-. In the absence of any evidence of any

payment of Rs.38,51,000/- the case of the prosecution must

be discarded. However, defence led evidence through DW88

and has proved the partnership deed (Exh.D-379) showing the

original partners retiring and A3, A4 and Sreethaladevi being

inducted as partners. It would be evident from the said deed

that an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs only has been paid to the

outgoing partners. It is submitted that the Trial Court added

the whole amount of Rs.38,51,000/- as assets of the accused.

Although A3 admits only a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs under this

item, the balance of Rs.28,51,000/- is liable to be excluded.

101. He further pointed out that the shares by M/s. Anjaneya

Printers (P) Limited at No. 48 Inner Ring Road,

Ekkattuthangal, on 01.09.1993 were acquired after making

payment of Rs.64,05,000/-against all the shares and the

machinery at Rs.20,16,000/- from Tr. Naresh Shroff and

thereby totalling Rs.84,21,000/-. The version of the

prosecution, according to Mr. Naphade proceeds on the

assumption that the accused have not only acquired shares of

Page 178

178

Shastri Nuts but also the assets of Shastri Nuts and on that

premise prosecution has valued the machineries at

Rs.20,16,000/-. The evidence of PW15 clearly shows that A2

acquired shares of Shastri Nuts from PW15 and his family

members. Mr. Naphade stated that the MOU dated 01.09.1993

would show only the value of the shares, i.e., Rs.64,05,000/-

has been paid and further the accused have not purchased the

assets of Shastri Nuts. According to Mr. Naphade, the amount

of Rs.20,16,000/- is liable to be excluded.

102. Mr. Naphade further pointed out that Item No.64 of

Annexure-II is a disputed item. According to him, the cash

payment shown in respect of this item towards acquisition of

10.78 acres of land in Siruthavur Village, over and above the

value shown in the sale deed dated 19.1.1994 Exh.D-139, and

alleged cash payment was not accepted by the Trial Court

which would appear at Pages 167-169 in para 77.4 Vol.7. The

Trial Court at Pages 167-169 accepted the defence case in

respect thereof. He further submitted that the cash payment

shown in respect of the amount paid over and above the cost

in document No.43/94 dated 5th February, 1994 to the seller

also should be deleted since the Trial Court accepted the case

Page 179

179

of the defence. With respect to the disputed items being Srl. Nos.70, 72

and 74 shown in Annexure-II, it is submitted that although

the Trial Court accepted the contention raised by the defence,

but it did not give full benefit in respect of all the three items

but granted relief only in respect of Item No.72 in the sum of

Rs.3,35,000/- being cash payment as alleged. However, Mr.

Naphade submitted that in respect of Item Nos.70 and 74, a

further sum of Rs.6,70,000/- is also liable to be excluded.

103. He further pointed out that the disputed items being Srl.

Nos.91 and 92 to Annexure-II, concerning Rs.2,65,000/- and

Rs.3,10,000/-, a sum of Rs.3,25,005/- has to be excluded.

Similarly, in respect of the disputed item No.127 of

Annexure-II relating to the cost of transfer of 6,14,000 shares

of M/s. Ramraj Agro at Vendampalai at the rate of Rs.3/- per

share from Gandhi and others to A2, A3 and A4, it is

submitted that A2, A3 and A4 did not have shares valued at

Rs.18,42,000/- as alleged by DVAC. The Trial Court

mechanically accepted the case of the prosecution without

considering the case of the defence. Hence, he submitted that

an amount of Rs.7,62,000/- is to be reduced from the alleged

Page 180

180

assets of A2 to A4.

104. As regards the disputed item at Srl. No.159 of

Annexure-II, relating to cost of acquisition of Luz Avenue

property, it is submitted by Mr. Naphade that as alleged by the

prosecution, payment of Rs.76,00,000/- had been made by

way of cash over and above the sale consideration recited in

the document. According to the defence, no amount was paid

except the consideration amount recited in the sale deed. He

further pointed out that the Trial Court disbelieved the case of

the prosecution in respect of the disputed items at Srl. Nos.

168 & 169 to Annexure-II. It is submitted that A2 had

purchased items at Srl. Nos.34 to 48 of Annexure-II during

the check period for Rs.3,49,683/- as per DVAC and the very

same items were sold by A2 to Meadow Agro Pvt. Ltd. for

Rs.2,90,000/- and the same are shown again as Items

Nos.168 & 169 of Annexure-II. Therefore, these should be

deleted due to duplication.

105. As regards disputed Item being Srl. No.173 of

Annexure-II, relating to expenditure towards acquisition of

Indo – Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. at

Cuddalore, it is the case of the prosecution that a sum of Rs.5

Page 181

181

lakhs has been paid as cash over and above the sum of

Rs.30,45,000/- as consideration for the purchase of shares

and the prosecution has produced Exh. P-510 (Page 25

Vol.31), which is an agreement by which A3 purchased shares

from Mr. Ayyathurai (PW-84), M. Khader Mohammed and K.

Samudra Pandian. Qua this, it is submitted that the

agreement does not specify the sale consideration. PW-84 in

its deposition had stated that A3 paid Rs.30,45,000/- by way

of five cheques and a further amount of Rs.5 lakhs was being

paid to him in cash and the Trial Court wrongly accepted the

case of the prosecution, acting on the evidence of PW-84.

106. With regard to the disputed Item being Srl. No.174 of

Annexure-II, relating to New/Additional Construction in the

building at 5-AB and C East Coast Road, Door No.4/130, Raja

Nagar, Neelankarai, Chennai, it is submitted that DVAC had

valued this asset at Rs.80,75,000/- which was accepted by the

Trial Court. However, it is stated that during the check period

the said construction was not undertaken and further the said

valuation is unscientific and unacceptable. Mr. Naphade

submitted that the valuation of marbles and granites as

testified by the prosecution witness were inflated. According to

Page 182

182

him, DW-95 had evaluated this property for a sum of

Rs.40,35,981/- (Exh.D-306, Page 122 at Page 163 of Vol.157).

According to him, the Trial Court failed to give any credit to

the evaluation, but allowed an overall reduction of 20% on the

value of total construction and hence, he submitted that the

balance sum should be excluded. He further submitted that

with regard to the disputed Item being Srl. No.176 of

Annexure-II, relating to New/Additional Construction in Farm

House Bungalows at Payyanur in Chengai Anna District, a

sum of Rs.1,25,90,261/- had been invested, as alleged by the

DVAC, by A2 in the farm house bungalow by way of additional

constructions. According to the learned senior counsel, no

amount was invested for additional construction, as it is the

definite case of the accused that no improvement or additional

construction was made after purchase. However, the

prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PW-40, PW-107

and PW-220 and Exh.P-96 to Exh.P-103 which are sale deeds

and Exh.P-662 is a valuation report of PW-107. He further

submitted that in support of the above contention, the defence

relied on Exh.D-251 to Exh.D-257 and according to them, the

said building was existing even prior to the sale. According to

Page 183

183

him, no positive evidence has been adduced by the

prosecution to prove the additional construction during the

check period or its value. The Trial Court still accepted 80% of

the alleged value of the said construction which should have

been omitted.

107. Similarly, with respect of the New/Additional

construction of Building at Door No.48, Jawaharlal Nehru

Road, Industrial Estate, Guindy Ekkatuthangal, Chennai,

(Shastry Nuts Plates) being item at Srl. No.177 of Annexure-II,

at Rs.2,13,63,457/-, Mr. Naphade submitted that the DVAC

and the Trial Court have assumed that the said additional

construction was undertaken by Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd.

where A2 and A3 are directors. According to the defence, this

construction is not undertaken by Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd.

and it belongs to Sastri Nuts Plates Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.

and Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. is only a tenant. It is further

submitted that except the evidence of PW-15 and Exh.P-41,

there is no other evidence which would indicate that any of the

accused had purchased the assets of the Sastri Nuts Plates.

According to him, though the Trial Court agreed with the

contention of the accused that the prosecution has not proved

Page 184

184

the cost of construction, it yet granted 20% reduction in the

overall cost. Hence, such overall cost should be excluded in its

entirety.

108. Regarding the disputed item being Srl. No.178 of

Annexure-II, relating to New/Additional Construction in the

Residential Building at D.No.3/1/8C – Vettuvankeni, Chennai,

it is submitted that the DVAC and the Trial Court found that

this new additional construction was valued at

Rs.1,52,59,076/-. He submitted that no evidence is available

to show that the said construction was made during the check

period. It is further submitted that aside the evidence of

PW-98, no other evidence was placed before the Court to show

that the construction was made during the check period.

Accordingly, the said amount is liable to be excluded entirely

as well.

109. About disputed item being Srl. No.180 of Annexure-II,

relating to New Additional Construction in the Posh Bungalow

at Siruthavur Village in Changai MGR District, which

attributes a sum of Rs.5,40,52,298/- to A4 as the cost of

construction during the check period and is based on the

report which was exhibited as Exh.P-661, produced by

Page 185

185

PW-107 who claims to be the valuer, Mr. Naphade submitted

that since his evidence was not put to A4 in Section 313

Cr.P.C. examination, therefore, this valuation cannot be

accepted. Hence, the said cost of construction should have

been rejected by the Trial Court.

110. With regard to the disputed item being Srl. No.183 of

Annexure-II, relating to New Additional Construction in

Building at Sea Shell Avenue, No.2/1-B-3 Apartment

Sholinganallore Saidapet Taluk, it is submitted that DVAC

found that this new construction was put up at the cost of

Rs.80,36,868/- and the Trial Court examined the valuer

PW-116 and marked the valuation report as Exh.P-669.

According to Mr. Naphade, the said valuation report cannot be

accepted as according to him, the values of special items were

inflated.

111. With regard to the disputed item being Srl. No.184 of

Annexure-II, relating to New Additional Construction in

Building at Door No.19, Pattammal St. Mylapore, Chennai –

Jaya Publication, it is submitted that the prosecution witness

PW-116 stated that the value for this construction was

estimated at Rs.8,00,000/-. However, the same was not

Page 186

186

accepted as its value as per the balance sheet of Jaya

Publications for the year ended 31.03.1996 is shown as

Rs.6,42,290/-. Hence, the balance amount is liable to be

excluded.

112. With regard to the disputed item being Srl. No.185 of

Annexure-II, relating to New Additional Construction in the

residential building at Door No.21, Padmanabha Street, T.

Nagar, Chennai, it is submitted that the said construction was

undertaken by M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd., according to

the prosecution, to the tune of Rs.20,43,000/- and the

prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-116 and the report

prepared being Exh.P-666 and according to Mr. Naphade,

there is no positive evidence to prove that the construction

was undertaken during the check period. According to Mr.

Naphade, only an amount of Rs.19,05,568/- was proved by

DW-88 in respect of such cost and therefore, the balance

amount is liable to be excluded.

113. With regard to the disputed item being Srl. No.186 of

Annexure-II, relating to New Additional Construction in

residential building at No.1/66, Anna Nagar, Chennai, at the

cost of Rs.24,83,759/-, it is submitted that the prosecution

Page 187

187

relied on Exh.P-641 being the report of valuation proved by

PW-98 (Pages 148 to 179, Vol.IV). According to Mr. Naphade,

the said evidence cannot be considered at all as the same has

not been put to A4 – the owner of the property in her

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He further submitted

that the evidence of PW-98 cannot be exhibited since he being

a Civil Engineer, is not competent to give valuation of electrical

items.

114. With regard to the disputed item being Srl. No.187 of

Annexure-II, relating to New Additional Construction in

building in Door No.5, Murugesan Street, T. Nagar,

Chennai-17, at the cost of Rs.10,92,828/-, it is submitted

that PW-98 had deposed in respect of the said construction.

However, Mr. Naphade submitted that the cost of said

construction as per DW-95 would work out to Rs.5,47,103/-.

Hence, he submitted that the balance should be discarded.

115. With regard to disputed item being Srl. No.188 of

Annexure-II, relating to New Additional Construction in

residential building (4 Nos.) in the campus at No.1/240,

Enjambakkam in New Mahalipuram Road, at the cost of

Rs.53,11,000/-, it is submitted that the DVAC alleged and the

Page 188

188

Trial Court found that the said new additional construction

had been put up but it has not been proved that the said

construction was made during the check period as no evidence

was adduced in this regard. The defence also examined DW-95

to show that value of special items were inflated and according

to him the cost of construction would work out to

Rs.29,82,392/-. Hence, the balance of Rs.5,45,725/- is liable

to be excluded.

116. With regard to disputed items, being at Srl. Nos.189,

190, 191, 242, 249, 254, 256, 257, 259, 261, 285, 287, 293,

294 & 301, Mr. Naphade submitted that although the

Valuation Reports and the amounts, marked and exhibited

before the Court, have been accepted by the Trial Court,

according to him those values are inflated and most of the

amounts should be much less than the amounts taken into

account by the Trial Court. Hence, he submitted that the Trial

Court did not correctly assess the evidence and the documents

placed before it and according to him the inflated part of the

amounts should have been discarded.

117. Mr. Naphade further contended that the income shown

Page 189

189

in assessment year 1992-1993 by A2 during the check period,

including the foreign remittance, has not been taken into

account by the prosecution and the Trial Court ought to have

included this in the income of A2. He further contended that

the income from agricultural operation and by way of gift for

A2 for the assessment year 1992-1993 has not been included

in the income of A2 and the Income Tax authorities having

accepted the same, the DVAC and the Trial Court have

erroneously omitted to include such income in the income of

A2. The income of A2 shown in the assessment year

1993-1994 to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- has not been

accepted by the DVAC and the Trial Court. Similarly, DVAC

and the Trial Court did not give due credit for the income

shown in the assessment year 1994-1995 of A2 which was to

the tune of Rs.24,99,005/-. It is further contended that the

two loans of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.45,00,000/- availed by A2

for herself and for her proprietary concern Metal King, on

10.1.1996 from Housing and Real Estate Development Pvt.

Ltd., Chennai and on 6.1.1996 & 5.3.1996, from Housing,

Real Estate and Development Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, respectively,

were not given due credit by the DVAC and the Trial Court.

Page 190

190

He therefore submitted that these loan amounts should have

been included in the income of A2.

118. Further the learned senior counsel pleaded that the Trial

Court failed to consider an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- which

A2 had received as an advance from Bharani Beach Resorts

Pvt. Ltd., paid by cheque by the said company. According to

Mr. Naphade that amount should have been included in the

income of A2. However, these documents with many others

though seized during the investigation and filed in the Court

were not exhibited and were kept as unmarked documents.

119. A2 further received an advance of Rs.52,00,000/- from

M/s. Riverway Agro Products (P) Ltd. on 18.2.1995 which was

reflected in the balance-sheet of the said company for the year

ending on 31.3.1996 (Exh.D-192) and it is submitted that a

notice was issued to M/s. Riverway by the Income Tax

authorities and an order was passed on 30.3.2000 in which it

is stated that M/s. Riverway got share application money from

different persons who have necessary resources to make such

contribution. But the Trial Court disallowed this amount on

the ground that the said transaction was hit by Section

Page 191

191

269-SS of the Income Tax Act. Hence, he submitted that

credit should have been granted by the Trial Court in respect

of the said amount.

120. He further submitted that the advance received by A2

from M/s. Meadow Agro Farms (P) Ltd., by way of cheque,

being a loan from the said company but the Trial Court did not

accept the said amount on the ground that it was hit by

Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act. He further pointed out

that as a partner of different firms (9 Nos), A2 received a sum

of Rs.2,20,00,000/-, Rs.25 lakhs from each establishments

excepting Vigneshwara Builders in which case it was Rs.20

lakhs, aggregating to Rs.2,20,00,000/-. These payments are

reflected in the bank accounts of both A2 and also the

respective establishments. Without any justification, those

amounts were not accepted by the Trial Court as income of A2.

121. As per Exh. P-910 and P-911, A2 had sold her properties

during the check period to M/s. Meadow Agro Farms and an

amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was received by her as sale

consideration. The Trial Court did not give any credit to the

said amount as the income of A2. It is further submitted that

the cash in hand with A2 being Rs.4,35,622/- was also not

Page 192

192

taken into account by the Trial Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Sasi

Enterprises availed a loan from Housing Real Estate and

Development (P) Ltd. to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs on 20.2.1996.

The Trial Court without considering the bank statement and

the payments made by cheque, failed to accept the said loan

transaction on the ground that the accused have not produced

any acceptable evidence in proof of availing the loan from the

said Housing Real Estate and Development (P) Ltd. company.

Sasi Enterprises further availed a loan on 18.10.1995 to the

tune of Rs.2 lakhs from M/s. Lex Properties Pvt. Ltd. which

was borne out by the Exh.P-1255, Bank Statement of Sasi

Enterprises. This amount has not been taken into account by

the DVAC and the Trial Court.

122. Sasi Enterprises had received a contribution of Rs.75

lakhs on 29.9.1992 from A1 which she had availed from

CANFIN Homes Ltd. as loan against FD of Rs.1 crore.

Therefore, Sasi Enterprises had an income of Rs.75 lakhs as

capital contribution by A1 during the check period which has

been ignored and overlooked by DVAC and the Trial Court

without any justification. The learned counsel submitted that

Page 193

193

this amount is also to be included as income of the firm

during the check period. Mr. Naphade further submitted that

the Trial Court without approving the transaction in question,

held the circumstance to infer conspiracy. He further pointed

out that during 1992-1993, M. Ramachandran, Nagammal

and Subramanian owed amounts to Sasi Enterprises to the

tune of Rs.16,91,000/- which duly came to the coffers of Sasi

Enterprises during 1992-1993, but this amount was not

accepted by the Trial Court. Thus, the said amount has to be

added in the income of said firm, according to Mr. Naphade.

123. It is further submitted that Sasi Enterprises had rental

income during the assessment years 1992-1993 to 1996-1997.

These rental incomes have been disclosed to the Income Tax

authorities in their returns which were duly accepted by them.

Thus Sasi Enterprises had rental income to the tune of

Rs.16,47,800/- during the check period of five years which

was ignored by the Trial Court. It is also submitted that Sasi

Enterprises had agricultural income also during the said

assessment years, to the tune of Rs.9,72,550/- which was also

not taken into consideration by the Trial Court on the ground

that no proof was produced by Sasi Enterprises. During the

Page 194

194

assessment year 1994-1995, Sasi Enterprises sold some

capital assets for Rs.10,20,000/- which was rejected by the

Trial Court. Similarly, the income of Sasi Enterprises from

business operation to the tune of Rs.2,39,701/- was not

accepted by the Trial Court. The sale of building materials to

the tune of Rs.6 lakhs was also not accepted by the Trial

Court as the income of Sasi Enterprises. It is also stated that

during the assessment year 1995-1996, Sasi Enterprises had

received an advance of Rs.23,80,000/- towards sale of its

property at Neelankarai which was not accepted by the Trial

Court.

124. Mr. Naphade further asserted that M/s. Jaya

Publications had made profits during the assessment year

1992-1993 to 1996-1997, to the tune of Rs.1,15,94,849/- as

is borne out by the income tax returns accepted by the Income

Tax authorities. According to him, the said amount should

have been added in the income of Jaya Publications, but the

Trial Court rejected the same mainly on the ground that the

supporting documents relied upon were Income Tax

proceedings.

125. He underlined that Jaya Publications used to publish a

Page 195

195

newspaper by name ‘Namadhu MGR’ and a separate account

was maintained for running of the said newspaper. To boost

the subscription of ‘Namadhu MGR’, deposits were received

from the subscribers. In this scheme, a total amount of

Rs.14,10,35,000/- was received by Jaya Publications from

1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996 during the check period. According to

Mr. Naphade, the said amount should have been added to the

income of Jaya Publications as the same was accepted by the

Income Tax authorities after detailed scrutiny. But DVAC and

the Trial Court did not give any credit to the said income.

126. Qua M/s. J. Farm House, in which A2, A3 and A4 were

partners, it is submitted that it had availed a loan of Rs.25

lakhs from M/s. Housing Real Estate and Development (P)

Ltd. during the financial year 1995-1996 which was

acknowledged by the said company. This amount was

available as income of the said company during the check

period. No credit thereto has been given by the Trial Court.

Mr. Naphade submitted that this amount should have been

included as income of the company. Similarly, M/s. Green

Farm House in which A2, A3 and A4 were partners, availed a

loan of Rs.25 lakhs on 20.10.1995 from M/s. Housing Real

Page 196

196

Estate and Development (P) Ltd., during the financial year

1995-1996. It is submitted that this amount was available as

income of the said M/s. Green Farm House during the check

period but no credit has been given in respect of the same and

the Trial Court completely ignored this fact. Thus, this amount

must be included in the income of the company, according to

Mr. Naphade.

127. It is submitted that prior to the incorporation of M/s.

Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd., the business was conducted in the

name of M/s. Super Duper TV by A3 as the Proprietor and

subsequently it was registered as a company and the business

of the proprietary concern continued even after its formation.

It held a current account in Indian Bank, Abhirampuram

Branch. During investigation, a zerox copy of statement of the

said account for the period 12.8.1994 to 23.8.1995 was seized

but the same was not marked as exhibit, because it did not

bear the signature as required under Bankers’ Books Evidence

Act, 1891. Mr. Naphade submitted that the said proprietary

concern had received certain amounts from different

companies which ought to have been taken into consideration

but the same has been discarded by the Trial Court. He

Page 197

197

further contended that there are certain other amounts which

have not been taken into account by DVAC. According to him,

out of the total income generated by A2 to A4, related firms

and companies, further amounts were transferred to partners

which needs to be deducted from the sums available to them.

Hence, according to him, a sum of Rs.4,30,14,469/- should

have been excluded by the Trial Court in order to avoid double

entry. He further contended that the disputed items should

have been deleted from Annexure-IV related to A2 to A4, their

firms and companies.

128. Mr. Naphade submitted that according to DVAC an

expenditure of Rs.50,93,921/- was incurred by Jaya

Publications towards the interest payable to Indian Bank in

respect of loan obtained from the said bank. According to him

this item cannot be taken as an additional item in the

Expenditure Column in Annexure-IV. According to him the

prosecution is trying to mislead the Court as on the one hand,

it does not show that the net profit of Jaya Publications is

derived after debiting the interest amount and on the other, it

is showing the payment of interest as an item of expenditure,

thereby subjecting the accused to double jeopardy.

Page 198

198

129. Similarly, he tried to explain the expenditure of

Rs.11,81,425.16 which was incurred by Anjaneya Printers

towards the interest payable to Indian Bank in respect of loan

obtained from the said bank. The defence case is that the said

amount of Rs.11,81,425.16 cannot be taken as additional item

in the Expenditure Column. According to him, the prosecution

has failed to establish the payment of interest. The

documentary evidence produced by the prosecution does not

indicate that the said amount was paid to the bank during the

check period. The defence submitted that during 1993-1994 to

1995-1996, the total interest paid in the aforesaid three years,

aggregated to Rs.24,25,685/- and the net profit for the said

period came to Rs.53,50,215/-. According to him, the Trial

Court has totally ignored the defence evidence and came to its

conclusions. He has urged that the Trial Court wrongly did

not give any weight to the evidence produced by the defence

and has failed to give credit in favour of the accused. He

further contended that the Trial Court is totally wrong and has

come to conclusion disregarding the evidence produced before

the Court on behalf of accused Nos.2 to 4.

Page 199

199

130. In the backdrop of the vast canvas of factual and

statistical plenitude, expedient it would be, before embarking

on the invigilation of the evidence adduced oral and

documentary and the scrutiny of the appreciation thereof by

the Trial Court and the High Court, to recapitulate the

quintessential soul of the competing legal postulations based

thereon even to some extent at the cost of repetition.

131. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel representing

the State of Karnataka has emphatically urged that the

impugned decision is afflicted by a host of errors apparent on

the face of record rendering it unsustainable in law and on

facts. According to him, the High Court had totally

misconceived the scope and nature of audit of the findings

recorded by the Trial Court and in the process has totally

misled itself to err on fundamental principles, thus vitiating its

findings to the core. Whereas the approach of the Trial Court

was noticeably exhaustive and dialectical in its analysis of the

evidence oral and documentary, the High Court in reversing

the conviction recorded by the Trial Court did not record any

persuasive finding to justify the same, thus rendering its

decision unworthy of acceptance. The High Court reversed the

Page 200

200

conviction on a wholly purported and superficial treatment of

the materials on record and on an apparent wrong

interpretation of the law applicable. Mr. Dave was severely

critical of the High Court in what according to him was visibly

a laconical assessment of the evidence without any application

to the various factual aspects brought out by different

witnesses and the documents adduced by the prosecution. He

asserted that the view point of the High Court throughout

appeared to extend the benefit of the decision in

Krishnanand Agnihotri, (supra), to the

respondents-accused. The learned senior counsel urged that

the High Court not only wrongly reduced the cost of

constructions and the marriage expenses, it as well wrongly

totalled the income derived from loans and thereby on an

apparent erroneous application of the formula to work out the

percentage of disproportionate assets, accorded the benefit of

Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra) to the respondents and

acquitted them of the charges. Apart from the fact that the

High Court having accepted Rs.66,44,73,573/- as the value of

the assets as cited by the prosecution, it could not have

deducted the marriage expenses therefrom, as is conceptually

Page 201

201

impermissible, he contended that had the uncalled for

reduction in the value of assets and the marriage expenses not

been effected, the percentage of disproportionate assets would

have been in the vicinity of approximately 76.75%. Mr. Dave

was particularly scathing about the purported analysis of the

evidence pertaining to the valuation of the income, assets and

expenditure and contended that the findings arrived at on the

basis thereof being patently perverse are liable to be set aside.

As the materials on record did conspicuously demonstrate that

the assets acquired by the respondents during the check

period were grossly disproportionate to their known source of

income, it was their burden, primarily though of A1, being a

public servant at the relevant point of time, to satisfactorily

account therefor, more particularly in the face of the charge

under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act read with Section 109

and 120B IPC. Mr. Dave argued that having regard to the

evidence available on records, it is hyaline clear that A1 being

a public servant at the relevant time could not have disclosed

the assets involved to be her own and therefore did collaborate

with A2, A3 and A4 and on the basis of their conspiracy and

abetment distributed the same amongst themselves as well as

Page 202

202

the firms/companies of which they were partners or Directors

as the case may be. As the “sources of income” contemplated

in Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act denotes “lawful source of

income” and as is known to the prosecution, it was the

obligation of the respondents-accused in the facts of the case

to satisfactorily account for the visibly disproportionate assets

at their disposal and they having miserably failed to do so, the

High Court fell in grave error in recording their acquittal, he

maintained. In doing so, the High Court while heavily relying

mostly on the delayed income tax returns and the orders

passed therein was severely flawed in its approach, and

thereby also blatantly disregarded the law to the contrary as

proclaimed by this Court, he asserted. Mr. Dave urged that not

only the belated income tax returns, as the evidence divulged,

were self-serving in nature qua the respondents and that too

sans the required probative value vis-a-vis the charges

levelled, those were even otherwise not binding on the Trial

Court and therefore the unreserved reliance thereon by the

High Court has rendered its adjudication incurably faulty. He

insisted that the High Court in evaluating the evidence on

record did totally misconstrue the letter and spirit of the 1988

Page 203

203

Act as well as the long standing precedential expositions with

regard thereto, thus rendering its findings, irreversibly illegal

and indefensible. According to Mr. Dave, the conclusions

recorded by the Trial Court, following a painstaking and

laborious appraisal of the materials on record are unassailable

in merit and content and therefore there was no justification

at all to overturn the same by resorting to a casual and

purported review thereof by the High Court. The learned senior

counsel has asserted that having regard to the stringent

predication of the law on corruption and the proof of the

charges against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt,

their conviction as recorded by the Trial Court ought to be

restored in toto.

132. Mr. Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor for the State of

Karnataka while conveying his general endorsement of the

above referred submissions, elaborated on the various factual

aspects bearing on the charge and the evidence adduced in

respect thereof. He reiterated that the High Court in

quantifying the income had wrongly included Rs.13.5 crores

and reduced as well the value of the assets and the marriage

expenses and on the basis of such wrong figures held against

Page 204

204

the charge of disproportionate assets of the respondents by

relying on the decision in Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra).

While strongly refuting the imputation made in course of the

arguments on behalf of the respondents that the prosecution

against them has been unfair, the learned senior counsel inter

alia referred to a show cause notice that was issued to A1 to

explain the disproportionate assets before launching the

prosecution. In discarding the income tax returns and the

orders passed thereon for the various assessment years during

the check period to be unworthy of any credence, the same

having been belatedly filed much after the charge-sheet with

an obvious purpose, Mr. Acharya emphasized that evidence

adduced authenticated unabated cash flow from 36, Poes

Garden, i.e. the residential Secretariat of A1 to various

accounts of the other respondents as well as the firms and the

companies of which they were partners/Directors, culminating

in the acquisition of huge properties thereby. According to

him, the accounts of A2, A3, A4 and of the firms/companies

involved were apparently false fronts to mask the flux of cash

deposits and exchanges originating from A1 and circulated

inter se in order to defeat the charge under Section 13(1)(e) of

Page 205

205

the 1988Act and Sections 109 and 120B IPC. While reiterating

that the income tax returns and the orders of the Income Tax

Authorities thereon are not at all binding on the Criminal

Courts, he further asserted that as the State was not a party

to the proceedings, these are neither relevant nor admissible

nor of any probative worth qua the defence offered on the

basis thereof. Not only the assessment and computation of the

income has been grossly wrong, the High Court did commit

apparent errors in evaluating the assets and quantifying the

expenditure, he urged. According to Mr. Acharya not only the

purchases amongst others of the immovable properties by the

146 sale deeds in the names of the firms created during the

check period were sham transactions on the face of the record

and were occasioned through two attorneys representing the

owners thereof, the deals have been undervalued and further

even the rules for registrations thereof have been flexed to the

advantage of the respondents, obviously on the instructions of

A1 who was then in power. The learned senior counsel argued

that on an overall analysis of the evidence on record, the deep

rooted design of the respondents in distributing the otherwise

disproportionate assets of A1 amongst themselves and the

Page 206

206

firms/companies administered by them has been proved

beyond all reasonable doubt and the acquittal recorded by the

High Court is patently unmerited and if allowed to stand

would result in travesty of justice and trivialization of the

avowed objectives of 1988 Act. He submitted that in the face of

the overwhelming evidence in support of the charge, the

respondents, by no means could have been extended the

benefit of the decision in Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra).

133. Dr. Subramaniam Swami, in supplementation has

argued that in the teeth of a new legal regime ushered in by

the 1988 Act ordaining an uncompromising stand point in re a

charge of corruption more particularly in public life, the High

Court did grossly err in acquitting the respondents by applying

the decision in Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra). According to

Dr. Swami not only this decision does not lay down an

uniform proposition of law regardless of the textual facts, even

assuming without admitting that the computation undertaken

by the High Court in evaluating the income, the assets and the

expenditure to be correct, the respondents could not have

been exonerated of the serious charges levelled against them

in the overwhelming perspective of the statutory intolerance

Page 207

207

against pervasive and pernicious escalation of corruption in

public life destroying the vitals of the systemic soul of our

democratic polity.

134. Mr. Anbazaghan, the petitioner in SLP (Crl.)

Nos.6294-6295 of 2015 impeaching as well the acquittal of the

respondents has in his written submissions insistently

asserted in favour of his locus to maintain the challenge by

profusely referring to the pronouncements of this Court in K.

Anbazhagan Vs. Superintendent of Police and others –

(2004) 3 SCC 767 and K. Anbazhagan (supra). Apart from

contending that his standing having been unreservedly

recognized by this Court and his intervention inter alia in

occasioning the transfer of the prosecution from the State of

Tamil Nadu to that of Karnataka on valid reasons as noticed

therein, he has pleaded that he indeed had constructively

contributed at all stages of the trial to ensure a fair conduct

thereof. That he had also submitted detailed written

arguments before the Trial Court has been mentioned. He has

expressed his grievance as well, on the non-consideration of

his written submissions by the High Court. While asserting

his right to pursue his assailment of the decision of the High

Page 208

208

Court acquitting the respondents, he has chiefly focused on

the error committed by it in quantifying the amount of loan as

income in ascertaining the percentage of disproportionate

assets. According to him, in reiteration of the contention of the

State as well, the High Court had wrongly incorporated an

amount of Rs.13,50,00,000/- on that count, which if omitted,

the disproportionate assets on the basis of the formula

applicable would mount to 76.7% thus disentitling the

respondents to the benefit of the decision in Krishna Nand

Agnihotri (1977) 1 SCC 816.

135. In persuasive refutation, learned senior counsel for A1

emphatically endorsed the impugned decision on all scores.

The learned senior counsel at the first place questioned the

locus of Mr. K. Anbagazhan to offer any oral submission in

addition to those advanced by the other counsel for the State.

He argued that not only Section 13(1)(e) of 1988 Act insists on

income from lawful source which envisages one not prohibited

by law, in absence of any special law, rules or orders,

produced by the prosecution, requiring a public servant to

intimate the sources of such lawful income, the charge against

his respondent has remained unproved. He asserted that as

Page 209

209

no charge has been framed against A1 either under Section 7

or 11 or 13(1)(a) or 13(1)(b), no presumption for the offence

under Section 13(1)(e) of 1988Act is available under Section 20

thereof. Further, the initial burden being on the prosecution to

call in evidence, in support of the charge of disproportionate

assets on the basis of the sources of income known to it, no

burden in this case did shift on A1 on any point of time, as

such prerequisites remained uncomplied. The learned senior

counsel dismissed the evidence with regard to benami

transactions stemming from the imputation that the properties

of A1 have been allegedly purchased/held in the name of A2,

A3, A4 and the firms/companies involved, as no charge with

regard thereto had been framed. According to the learned

senior counsel not only the relevant income tax returns of his

client had been filed before the raid was conducted in her

house on 07.12.1996, the orders passed by the Income Tax

Authorities thereon after a full-fledged scrutiny of all relevant

aspects proffer a complete answer to the accusations made

against her. The learned senior counsel asserted that the

income tax records were relevant and admissible as public

documents even without reference to Section 43 of the Indian

Page 210

210

Evidence Act, 1892 (for short hereinafter referred to as the

“Evidence Act”). He urged that the income tax

proceedings/orders passed, following detailed enquiries into

the inputs provided and successively tested in appeals before

several tiers, thus cannot be wished away as of no evidentiary

value as commented by the Trial Court. Additionally, the

defence not only did refer to the income tax records but also

had produced the same at the trial by way of primary evidence

which by no means could have been overlooked by the Trial

Court. The learned senior counsel elaborated on various

aspects of the evidence pertaining to income, assets and

expenditure to insist that the appraisal thereof by the High

Court and the findings based thereon are incontrovertible.

While repudiating the charge of abetment of conspiracy as well

the learned senior counsel maintained that mere joint

residence of A1 to A4 could not be construed to be a decisive

factor in support thereof and in absence of any tangible

evidence of diversion of reserves of A1 to the co-accused and

the utilization thereof for the acquisition of the properties

involved, the High Court was justified in exonerating them

therefrom. According to him, having regard to the two

Page 211

211

inconsistent views recorded by the two forums, this Court

ought to examine the evidence on record afresh to adjudicate

the issues involved. In any case, the learned senior counsel

argued that the burden of A1, qua the charges was only by

way of preponderance of probability which she adequately

discharged though not warranted, the prosecution having

failed to substantiate the same. While endorsing the

assessment undertaken by the High Court with regard to the

valuation of the assets, the learned senior counsel discarded

amongst others the so called reports made by the expert team

to be sketchy, inchoate and unreliable being not either

supported by reasons or any contemporaneous

record/document.

136. Mr. Naphade, representing A2 to A4, at the first

instance, has denounced the decision of the Trial Court to be

vitiated by non-application of mind and non-consideration of

vital pieces of evidence adduced by the defence. According to

him, the verdict of conviction is fraught with conjectures and

surmises, not permissible in any view of the matter, on the

proved facts. While criticizing the approach of the Trial Court

to be prompted by disproportionate emphasis on extraneous

Page 212

212

considerations, the learned senior counsel has maintained

that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge. Mr.

Naphade has asserted that in absence of any evidence to prove

cash-flow from A1 to the co-accused or the firms and

companies involved, the substratum of the charge had been

rendered non est. According to him, the Trial Court had gone

conspicuously wrong in ignoring the income tax records and in

overlooking the fact that even prior to the check period, A2

had been in business and had filed her income tax and wealth

tax returns. That all the six firms/companies were in existence

before the check period and had been in business, have been

overlooked as well by the Trial Court in assuming the

culpability of the respondents de hors supporting materials,

has been emphasized. In any view of the matter, Mr. Naphade

submitted that the prosecution has failed to discharge its

burden that A1 by herself and/or with the co-accused on her

behalf had committed any corrupt practice, and thus the High

Court was perfectly justified in recording their acquittal in

absence of any tangible proof of abetment and conspiracy. The

learned senior counsel asserted that in any case A2, A3 and

A4 not being public servants at the relevant point of time, they

Page 213

213

cannot be called upon to explain the charge under Section

13(1)(e) of 1988 Act. He dismissed as well the evidence of the

prosecution with regard to the income, assets and

expenditure, with particular reference to the reports of the

experts in connection therewith, branding the same to be

lacking in inherent worth and credibility. That the Trial Court

had grossly erred in analyzing the evidence of the prosecution

and leaving out of consideration most of the materials adduced

by the defence, in inferring the complicity of the respondents

in the charge, has been highlighted. According to him, by no

means, the banking transactions involving the respondents

and the concerned firms/companies could be attributed any

sinister or indictable attribute to assume a culpable design of

the respondents, to return a finding of guilt against them. That

mere joint residence of the respondents and their business

association by no means could have been accepted as a

decisive index of abetment and conspiracy has been

underlined to deduce prejudice in the approach of the Trial

Court. Mr. Naphade took pains to demonstrate that the

evidence on record did authenticate that the prosecution had

deliberately omitted to add substantial amounts of income of

Page 214

214

the respondents and the Trial Court disregarded the same as

well in recording their conviction.

137. Apt it would be, as a multitude of propositions have been

exchanged, to notice at this juncture, the salient features of

the anti corruption law involved the relevant decisions cited at

the Bar pertaining thereto and the legal precepts of binding

impact applicable to the issues seeking adjudication.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

138. The preamble of this statute manifests that it is a

legislation with the objective of enhanced effective prevention

of bribery and corruption. As the Statement of Objects and

Reasons of this enactment demonstrates, it was impelled by

the felt necessity for curbing bribery and corruption of public

servants which noticeably had enormously increased by the

war conditions, lingering at that point of time. The post war

fall outs bearing on large amounts of government surplus

stores and related disbursement of large sums of government

money, visibly facilitated wide scope for corrupt practices,

which necessitated immediate and drastic initiatives to stamp

out the said malady. As the existing law proved to be

Page 215

215

inadequate to tackle the sprawling menace, the legislation was

enacted.

139. Apart from providing the definition of the expression

“public servant”, as contained in Section 21 of the Indian

Penal Code, by Section 3, the offence punishable under

Section 165A of the said Code was construed to be a

cognizable offence for the purposes of the then Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 14 lodged the presumption

where a public servant was found to accept or agreeable or

attempting to accept/obtain any gratification other than legal

remuneration. In the eventualities, as mentioned therein,

Section 5 defined criminal misconduct by a public servant.

Noticeably, by Section 6 of Act 40 of 1964 i.e. the Anti

Corruption Law (Amendment) Act, 1964, amongst others, the

following insertion by way of clause (e) was incorporated in

Section 5:

“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.”.

Page 216

216

140. A bare perusal of this extract would reveal that the

criminal misconduct of the public servant, as envisaged

therein, would ensue if he/she or any person on his/her

behalf was in possession or had, at any point of time during

the period of his/her office, been in possession of pecuniary

resources or property, disproportionate to his/her known

sources of income, which the public servant cannot

satisfactorily account. Significantly, for such misconduct, the

possession of the disproportionate pecuniary resources or

property, which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily

account, can be held either by him/her or any person on

his/her behalf is essential. This offence thus, enfolds in its

sweep a definitive involvement and role of persons other than

the public servant, either as a abetter or a co-conspirator in

the actualisation of the crime. Consequently, thus such

abettors or co-conspirators or partners in this item of offence,

if proved, cannot escape the legal consequences for their

participatory role. The other segments of Section 5, not being

of immediate relevance, are not being referred to.

141. Section 7A mandated application of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898 (then in force) to any proceeding in relation

Page 217

217

to any offence punishable under Sections 161, 165, 165A of

the IPC or Section 5 of the Act subject to the modifications as

enumerated therein.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

142. The 1947 Act was succeeded by a new version of anti

corruption law in the form of the Prevention of Corruption,

1988, which seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating

to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected

therewith. The statute, as the prefatory introduction thereof

authenticates, retraced the evolution of the law regarding the

offence of bribery and corruption amongst public servant,

starting from the Indian Penal Code to the 1947 Act seeking to

respond to the exigencies of time, precipitated by the post

World War-II manifestations. Having felt that even the 1947

Act had proved to be inadequate to deal with the offence of

corruption effectively warranting a result oriented legislation,

the 1988 Act was ushered in amongst other by widening their

coverage and re-enforcing the provisions thereof. The Bill as a

precursor of the 1988 Act was introduced in the Parliament

with these objectives.

143. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this statute,

Page 218

218

while reiterating the above mission, referred to the provisions

in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with public

servants and those who abet the offences mentioned therein,

by way of criminal misconduct. The provisions in the Criminal

Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 enabling attachment of ill

gotten wealth, obtained through corrupt means, was also

adverted to. The Bill was clearly contemplated to incorporate

all these provisions with necessary modifications, so as to

make those more effective in combating corruption amongst

public servants. With that end in view, the ambit of “public

servant” was sought to be expanded. Additionally, the offences

hitherto enumerated in Sections 161 to 165A IPC were

recommended to be incorporated in the legislation with

enhanced penalties. Finality of the order of the Trial Court

upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution and provision

for day to day trial of cases were also integrated as few other

unique features of the initiative.

144. In order to obviate avoidable references, certain

provisions of decisive relevance would only be dilated upon.

Section 3 empowers the Central or the State Government to

appoint Special Judges, by notification in the official gazette,

Page 219

219

to try cases, as may be specified therein, namely;

(a) any offence punishable under the Act; and

(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or

any abetment of the offences specified in clause (a).

145. Section 4 clarifies that the special Judge, so appointed,

shall try the offences specified in Section 3 of the Act and may

also try any offence other than those with which an accused

may be charged at the same trial under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ as well).

Section 5 predicates that subject to the deviations, as

contemplated in sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof, the

provisions of the Code would, so far as they are not

inconsistent with the Act, apply to the proceedings before a

special Judge, whose court would be that of Court of Session

and the person conducting it would be deemed to be a public

prosecutor. Section 5(6) enjoins that a special Judge, while

trying an offence punishable under the Act, would exercise all

the powers and functions, exercisable by a District Judge

under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

146. Chapter III dwells on “offences and penalties” and

Page 220

220

Section 13 thereunder sets out the contingencies under which

a criminal misconduct is committed by a public servant.

Clause 1(e) of Section 13 being the gravamen of the charge

herein is quoted hereunder:

“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.”

147. A significant addition to this clause otherwise

reproduced from the 1947 Act is the explanation appended

thereto which exposits the expression “known sources of

income” to be the income received from any lawful source, the

receipt whereof has been intimated in accordance with the

provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being,

applicable to a public servant.

148. Lawfulness or legitimacy of the known sources of income

of the public servant, to satisfactorily account the pecuniary

Page 221

221

resources or property, alleged to be disproportionate thereto,

is, thus the indispensable legislative edict.

149. Section 22 of the Act also makes the provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable to a proceeding

in relation to an offence punishable thereunder, subject to

certain modifications as mentioned therein. Here as well, the

applicability of Section 452 of the Code otherwise empowering

a criminal court to order for disposal of the property at the

conclusion of the trial before it, has not been excluded. While

Section 27 recognises a special Judge under the Act to be a

Court of Session qua the powers of appeal and revision,

conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 available to

the jurisdictional High Court, Section 28 ordains that the

provisions of the Act would be in addition to and not in

derogation of any other law for the time being in force and that

nothing contained therein would exempt any public servant

from any proceeding which might be instituted against

him/her. By Section 29, amongst others, paragraph 4A of the

Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act, 1944 has been

substituted as hereunder:

Page 222

222

“4A – An offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988”.

Significantly, prior to the substitution, paragraph 4A of the

afore-mentioned ordinance read as follows:

“4A: An offence punishable under Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947”

150. Assuredly thus, the offence under Section 5 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short “1947 Act”), was

included in the schedule of offences, appended to the

Criminal Amendment Ordinance, 1944 since 18.12.1964 w.e.f.

which Anti Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 was

enforced.

151. As a consequence of the integration of the offences uner

Sections 161 to 165A contained in Chapter IX of the Indian

Penal Code dealing with the criminal misconduct of a public

servant and the offence of abetment thereof, by Section 31 of

the statute, these provisions were omitted from the IPC and

were construed to have been repealed by a Central Act.

152. The scheme of the Act 1988, thus ensure a stricter

legislation to combat and eradicate corruption in public life

Page 223

223

and takes within its sweep, not only the public servants but

also those who abet and conspire with them in the

commission of offences, enumerated therein. The avowed

objectives of the statute prompted by the compelling exigencies

of time and the revealing contemporary realities, thus demand

of a befitting curial approach to effectuate the same sans qua

the rule of benefit of doubt on intangible and trivial omissions

and deficiencies.

153. A plain perusal of the scheme of the Act presents several

noticeable special features thereof in accord with the

legislative intendment to achieve the objectives set therefor.

Apart from the overwhelming backdrop demanding the

necessity to consolidate and reinforce the anti corruption

law, the main mission being to achieve a catharsis in public

office, the statute besides expanding the notion of “public

servant” to effect maximum extension of its sweep as

envisaged, has ordained the constitution of a court of Special

Judge to try the offences thereunder and also the charge of

any conspiracy or attempt or abetment in the commission

thereof. Thus, an exclusive autonomous adjudicative regime

has been put in place. The provisions of the Code have been

Page 224

224

made applicable subject to the modifications contemplated

and the special Judge in particular, while trying an offence

punishable under the Act has been authorised to exercise all

powers and functions invocable by a District Judge under the

Ordinance. Sections 7 to 12 of the Act correspond to Section

161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby integrating the

offences in the legislation to be tried by a special forum as

envisaged. Resultantly, Sections 161 to 165A have been

effaced from the Indian Penal Code for obvious reasons.

Explanation to Section 13(i)(e) makes it limpid that the known

sources of income of the public servant, to satisfactorily

account the pecuniary resources or the property otherwise

alleged to be disproportionate thereto, has to be from a lawful

source and further that the receipt thereof had been intimated

in accordance with the provisions of any law, rule or orders for

the time being applicable to him/her, as the case may be.

This prescription indubitably emphasizes the lawfulness or

legitimacy of the income to enable the public servant to

satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources or property

otherwise imputed to be disproportionate thereto. Not only the

Act entertains presumption against the public servant, in the

Page 225

225

eventualities as comprehended in Section 20 of the Act, it is

clarified in Section 28 that nothing in the statute would

exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might

apart from the Act, be instituted against him or her. Section

29, amongst others to reiterate, has substituted in paragraph

4A of the Ordinance, an offence punishable under the 1988

Act, in lieu of the offence under Section 5 of the 1947 Act. The

legislation thus is a complete code by itself, vibrant with the

purpose therefor and animated with the spirit to effectuate

the statutory goal. All these predicate a purposive explication

of the provisions thereof to further the salutary legislative

vision.

CONSPIRACY

154. While dwelling on the concept of conspiracy this Court in

Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra Etc. Vs. K.S. Dalipsinghji and

Another Etc., (1969) 3 SCC 429 held that in conspiracy,

agreement is the gist of the offence and a common design and

common intention in furtherance of the common scheme is

necessary. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one

integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. It

Page 226

226

was enounced that conspiracy may develop in successive

stages and new techniques may be invented and new means

may be devised, and a general conspiracy may be a sum up of

separate conspiracies having a similar general purpose, the

essential elements being collaboration, connivance, jointness

in severalty and coordination. (Emphasis supplied)

155. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin (supra),

encountered a fact situation witnessing a clash between the

neighbours on a very trivial incident of a cow blocking a

passage. Murderous assaults followed in which the appellant

along with 4/5 associates were involved. The appellant along

with others were found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC. This

Court held that participation is the gravamen of common

intention but Section 109, abetment can be attracted even if

the abettor is not present. Qua conspiracy, it was exposited

that it postulates an agreement between two or more persons

to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not

illegal by illegal means. It was elucidated, that conspiracy is of

wider amplitude than abetment though there is a close

association between the two. It was ruled that c onspiracy can

be proved by circumstantial evidence and proof thereof is

Page 227

227

largely inferential founded of facts and this is because of the

difficulty in securing direct evidence of criminal conspiracy. It

was explicated that once a reasonable ground is shown to

suggest that two or more persons have conspired, then

anything done by one of them in reference to their common

intention becomes relevant in proving the conspiracy and the

offences committed pursuant thereto . (Emphasis supplied)

156. In Saju Vs. State of Kerala (supra), it was propounded

that to attract Section 120B IPC, it is to be proved that all the

accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the

crime. It was assumed that conspiracy is hatched in private

and in secrecy, for which direct evidence would not be readily

available. It was ruled that it is not necessary that each

member to a conspiracy must know all the details of all the

conspiracy. (Emphasis supplied)

157. This Court recalled its observations in Yash Pal Mittal

Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 540 that there may be so

many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common

goal of the conspiracy, and there may be division of

performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve

the real end, of which every collaborator need not be aware

Page 228

228

but in which each one of them would be interested. There

must be a unity of object or purpose but there may be

plurality of means, sometimes even unknown to one another,

amongst the conspirators. The only relevant factor is that all

means adopted and illegal acts done must be to fulfill the

object of the conspiracy. Even if some steps are resorted to by

one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the

others, it will not affect the culpability of those others when

they are associated with the object of the conspiracy.

It was noted that as an exception to the settled position

of law, an act or action of one of the accused cannot be used

as evidence against another, Section 10 of the Evidence Act

provided otherwise. To attract the applicability of Section 10,

the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or

more persons had conspired together for committing an

offence and then the evidence of action or statement made by

one of the accused could be used as evidence against the

other. (Emphasis supplied)

158. In Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation (supra), the executives of the Maruti Udyog

Limited were charged with criminal conspiracy to siphon off its

Page 229

229

funds in favour of A-5 and were prosecuted under Sections

13(1) (c) and 13(2) of the 1988 Act along with Sections 120B,

420,409, 467 and 471 of the IPC. This Court reiterated that

the essence of a Criminal conspiracy, is unlawful combination

and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is

framed and that the law making conspiracy a crime, is

designed to curb the immoderate power to do mischief which

is gained by combination of the means. It was held that the

offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an

agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not

merely in the intention of two or more but in the agreement of

two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means.

The agreement which is the quintessence of criminal

conspiracy can be proved either by direct or by circumstantial

evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience

that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.

159. The following excerpt from Halsbury's Laws of England

4th Edition Volume XI, page 54, para 58 was relied upon:- “The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made: and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists that is, until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or

Page 230

230

however, it may be the actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or at the same place. It is necessary to show the meeting of minds to a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with each other.”

160. Reference was made to Regina Vs. Murphy, (1837) 173

ER 502 where Coleridge J, was of the view that although

common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to

prove that these two parties had come together and actually

agreed in terms to have the common design and to pursue it

by common means and so to carry it into execution, as in

many cases of established conspiracy, there are no ways of

proving any such thing. If it is found that these two persons

pursued by their acts, the same object, often by the same

means, one performing one part of an act and the other

another part of the same act so as to complete it, with a view

to attain the object which they are pursuing, you will be at

liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in

a conspiracy to effect that object. (Emphasis supplied)

161. The overwhelming judicial opinion thus is that a

Page 231

231

conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence as mostly

having regard to the nature of the offending act, no direct

evidence can be expected.

162. In Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of

Kerala, (supra), it was ruled that loosened standards prevail

in a conspiracy trial regarding admissibility of evidence.

Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecution, any

declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a

conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against

each co conspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay

evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions. It was

observed that thus the conspirators are liable on an agency

theory for statements of co conspirators just as they are for

the overt acts and crimes committed in their confederates.

(Emphasis supplied)

163. In Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643, it was enounced that

courts in deciding on the existence or otherwise, of an offence

of conspiracy must bear in mind that it is hatched in secrecy

and that it is difficult, if not impossible to obtain direct

evidence to establish the same. The manner and

Page 232

232

circumstances in which the offences have been committed and

the accused persons had taken part are relevant. To prove

that the propounders had expressly agreed to commit the

illegal act or had caused it to be done, may be proved by

adducing circumstantial evidence and or by necessary

implications. (Emphasis supplied)

164. The following extract from Russels on Crimes 12th

Edition, Volume I was quoted with approval:- “The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough.”

165. It recalled its conclusions in Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs.

State (Delhi Administration), (supra), that to establish the

offence of criminal conspiracy, it is not required that a single

agreement should be entered into by all the conspirators at

one time. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one

integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose.

Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a general

conspiracy though he may not know all its secrets or means

by which the common purpose is to be accomplished. On the

Page 233

233

touchstone of the above adumbrated legal postulations, the

evidence on records would have to be assayed to derive the

deduction as logically permissible. (Emphasis supplied)

Approach of Court in PC Cases

166. Qua the required orientation of a Court vis-a-vis offences

under the Act, it has been inter alia emphatically observed in

State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88, that

corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which

if not detected in time is sure to afflict the polity of the country

leading to disastrous consequences. It was ruled that

corruption is like a plague which is not only contagious but if

not controlled spreads like fire in a jungle. It was proclaimed

that corruption is opposed to democracy and social order,

being not only anti people but aimed and targeted against

them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural

heritage and therefore, unless it is nipped in the bud at the

earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence, shaking the

socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy,

wealthy, effective and vibrating society.

167. The history of the enactment of the 1947 Act was traced

Page 234

234

in R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 and a

caveat was sounded to the effect that whenever a question of

construction arises upon ambiguity or if two views are possible

of a provision of an anti corruption law (then Act 1947), it

would be the duty of the Court to adopt that construction

which would advance the object underlying the statute,

namely to make effective the provision for the prevention of

bribery and corruption and at any rate not to defeat it. It was

underscored that procedural delays and technicalities of law

should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be

achieved by the statute and the overall public interest and the

social object is to be borne in mind while interpreting the

various provisions thereof and in deciding cases under the

same. (Emphasis supplied)

168. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal & Anr. Vs. State

of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642, this Court while dwelling

on the same theme, exposited as hereinbelow : “It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by decree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that

Page 235

235

immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality.”

169. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Subramanian

Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation &

Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 682, reiterated that corruption is an

enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public

servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate

of the Act 1988.

170. On the touchstone of the above entrenched legal

prescripts the evidence on record would have to be assayed to

derive the deductions as logically permissible.

Probative worth of Income Tax Proceedings qua lawfulness of the source of income

171. The respondent in Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P.

Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) ITR 194 was a

firm dealing in handloom cloth and silk fabrics. In the

proceeding for the assessment year 1946-47, the income tax

Page 236

236

officer, amongst others, found a credit of Rs.20000/- in its

books of accounts as a deposit in the name of M/s.

Banshidhar Rawatmal of Ratangarh. After considering the

evidence procured by the assessee, the Income Tax Officer

rejected the plea that the amount had been deposited by the

above firm and concluded that it was the assessee's income

from undisclosed source. Eventually, the statement of case

was referred to the High Court with the following question:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to hold that the sum of Rs.20,000/- was income of the assessee from some other source and was not income included in the assessed income on the rejection of the books of account?”

The High Court, having answered in the affirmative in

favour of the assessee, the issue reached this Court.

172. It was exposited that there was nothing in law which

prevented the Income Tax Officer in an appropriate case from

taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which

was not satisfactorily explained, and the business income

estimated by him under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act,

1922, after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as

Page 237

237

unreliable. It was propounded as well that where there was

unexplained cash credit, it was open to the Income Tax Officer

to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further

burden lies on the Income Tax Officer to show that that

income is from any particular source and that it was for the

assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represented

income, it was an income from a source which had already

been taxed.

173. In Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. C.I.T.,

Andhra Pradesh, (1980) Suppl. SCC 13, the return filed by

the petitioner – assessee, who was an Abkari contractor, was

not accepted by the I.T.O. as amongst others, excess

expenditure over the disclosed available cash was noticeable

and further several deposits had been made in names of

others. The assessee's explanation that the excess expenditure

was met from the amounts deposited with him by other

shopkeepers but were not entered in his book, was not

accepted and penalty proceedings were taken out against him

holding that the items of cash deficit and cash deposit

represented concealed income resulting from suppressed yield

and low selling rates mentioned in the books. The Appellate

Page 238

238

Tribunal however, allowed the appeal of the assessee and set

aside the penalty order. The High Court reversed the decision

of the Appellate Tribunal and the matter reached the Supreme

Court.

174. It was held that as per Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961, penalty can be imposed in case where any

person has concealed the particulars of his income or has

deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.

The related proceeding was quasi criminal in nature and the

burden lay on the revenue to establish that the disputed

amount represented income and that the assessee had

consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had

deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The burden of

proof in penalty proceedings varied from that involved in

assessment proceedings and a finding in assessment

proceedings that a particular receipt was income cannot

automatically be adopted as a finding to that effect in the

penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, the taxing

authority was bound to consider the matter afresh on the

materials before it, to ascertain that whether a particular

amount is a revenue receipt. It was observed that no doubt

Page 239

239

the fact that the assessment year contains a finding that the

disputed amount represents income constitutes good evidence

in the penalty proceedings, but the finding in the assessment

proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose

of penalty proceedings. Before a penalty can be imposed, the

entirety of the circumstances must be taken into account and

must lead to the conclusion that the disputed amount

represented income and that the assessee had consciously

concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately

furnished inaccurate particulars.

175. The decision is to convey that though the I.T. returns

and the orders passed in the I.T. Proceedings in the instant

case recorded the income of the accused concerned as

disclosed in their returns, in view of the charge levelled against

them, such returns and the orders in the I.T. Proceedings

would not by themselves establish that such income had been

from lawful source as contemplated in the explanation to

Section 13(1(e) and that independent evidence would be

required to account for the same.

176. Though considerable exchanges had been made in course

of the arguments, centring around Section 43 of the Indian

Page 240

240

Evidence Act, 1872, we are of the comprehension that those

need not be expatiated in details. Suffice it to state that even

assuming that the income tax returns, the proceedings in

connection therewith and the decisions rendered therein are

relevant and admissible in evidence as well, nothing as such,

turns thereon definitively as those do not furnish any

guarantee or authentication of the lawfulness of the source(s)

of income, the pith of the charge levelled against the

respondents. It is the plea of the defence that the income tax

returns and orders, while proved by the accused persons had

not been objected to by the prosecution and further it

(prosecution) as well had called in evidence the income tax

returns/orders and thus, it cannot object to the admissibility

of the records produced by the defence. To reiterate, even if

such returns and orders are admissible, the probative value

would depend on the nature of the information furnished, the

findings recorded in the orders and having a bearing on the

charge levelled. In any view of the matter, however, such

returns and orders would not ipso facto either conclusively

prove or disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of

evidence which have to be evaluated along with the other

Page 241

241

materials on record. Noticeably, none of the respondents has

been examined on oath in the case in hand. Further, the

income tax returns relied upon by the defence as well as the

orders passed in the proceedings pertaining thereto have been

filed/passed after the charge-sheet had been submitted.

Significantly, there is a charge of conspiracy and abetment

against the accused persons. In the overall perspective

therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed

in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest

the lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons

or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the

disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and

properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

177. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh

Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4

SCC 370, in this context had ruled that there is neither any

statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings

recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding

on the other as both the cases have to be decided on the basis

of the evidence adduced therein.

178. In CIT Patiala Vs. Piara Singh, 1980 Supp. SCC 166,

Page 242

242

the respondent was apprehended while crossing the Indo

Pakistan Border and a sum of Rs.65,500/- was recovered. He

revealed at the interrogation, that he was taking the currency

notes to Pakistan for purchase of gold to smuggle it into India.

The currency notes were confiscated. In the income tax

assessment proceedings of the respondent, the I.T.O., held

that out of Rs.65,500/- an amount of Rs.60,500/- constituted

income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The plea of

the respondent was that if he was regarded as engaged in the

business of smuggling gold, he was entitled to deduction

under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act of the entire

amount at Rs.65,500/- as loss incurred in the business due to

the confiscation thereof. His claim was upheld. It was ruled

that if the activities of smuggling can be regarded as business,

the currency notes carried by the assessee was meant for

acquiring gold in Pakistan to be sold in India at a profit. The

carrying of currency note was thus an essential part of the

business and the confiscation of currency notes was a loss

occasioned in pursuing the business and would be akin to an

eventuality, as if the currency notes had been stolen or

dropped on the way, while carrying on business.

Page 243

243

(emphasis supplied) This rendition too proclaims against probative efficacy of

an income tax proceeding or order passed therein as a

conclusive determinant of lawfulness of the source of any

income involved therein.

179. In State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Vs. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors.,

(2014) 11 SCC 709, the allegation against the respondent, who

was the Minister of Tamil Nadu was acquisition of pecuniary

resources and properties in his name and in the names of his

family members, and friends, disproportionate to the known

sources of income. Charge of abetment was also levelled

against the family members and friends. Charge sheet was

submitted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e)

and 13(2) of the 1988 Act. All of them were discharged by the

High Court.

180. This Court ruled that the fact that the accused, other

than the two Ministers, had been assessed to income tax and

had paid income tax could not have been relied upon to

discharge the accused persons in view of the allegation made

by the prosecution that there was no separate income to

Page 244

244

amass such huge property. It was underlined that the property

in the name of the income tax assessee itself cannot be a

ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee

and that if this proposition was accepted, it would lead to

disastrous consequences. This Court reflected that in such an

eventuality it will give opportunities to the corrupt public

servant to amass property in the name of known person, pay

income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief

of law. (emphasis supplied) 181. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. S.C.

Kothari, (1972) 4 SCC 402, the respondent S.C. Kothari was

a registered firm and carrying on the business of commission

agents and general merchants. During the assessment year

1958-59, the assessee claimed to have incurred a loss of

Rs.3,40,443/- in certain transactions and pleaded that the

above loss was allowable under Section 10(1) of the Income

Tax Act, 1922 as a deduction against its other business

income. The Income Tax Officer was of the view that the

transactions in question were hit by the provisions of the

Forward Contracts Regulation Act, 1852 and the Rules and

Regulations of the Saurashtra Oil and Oilseeds Association

Page 245

245

Ltd. The losses were thus held to have been incurred in

illegal transactions and the Income Tax Officer, thus rejected

the contention of the assessee that even on the assumption

that the losses were incurred in illegal transactions, they

would be allowed in the computation of the income. The

appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the

Income Tax Officer but the Tribunal held, in further appeal,

that the transactions in question were not illegal contracts but

were contracts which had been validly entered into under the

Act and the bye-laws etc. The Tribunal remanded the matter

to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for a report and on

the receipt thereof, it eventually held that such loss could not

be set off against the other income but was of the view that

the assessee was entitled to a set off of the loss against the

profits in speculative transactions. 182. The High Court in the reference made, inter alia, held

that even though the disputed contracts were not validly

entered into in accordance with the above mentioned Act, the

loss of Rs.3,40,443 was liable to be taken into account in

computing the business income of the assessee under Section

10 of the Act of 1922 and the assessee was entitled to set off

Page 246

246

against the profits from other speculative transactions. This

Court in the above factual backdrop held that it is well settled

that contracts which are prohibited by statute, the prohibition

being either express or implied, would be illegal and

unenforceable if they are entered into in contravention of the

statute. If the business is illegal, neither the profits earned or

the losses incurred would be enforceable in law. But that does

not take the profits out of the taxing statute. Similarly the

taint of illegality of the business cannot detract from the losses

being taken into account for computation of the amount which

can be subjected to tax as “profits” under Section 10(1) of the

Act of 1922 and the Tax Collector cannot be heard to say that

he will bring the gross receipts to tax. He can only tax profits

of a trade or business and that cannot be done without

deducting the losses and the legitimate expenses of the

business. The view of the High Court that for the purpose of

Section 10(1), the losses which have actually been incurred in

carrying on a particular illegal business must be deducted

before the true figure relating to profits can be computed or

determined to be brought to tax, was upheld. (emphasis supplied)

Page 247

247

183. The import of this decision is that in the tax regime, the

legality or illegality of the transactions generating profit or loss

is inconsequential qua the issue whether the income is from a

lawful source or not. The scrutiny in an assessment

proceeding is directed only to quantify the taxable income and

the orders passed therein do not certify or authenticate that

the source(s) thereof to be lawful and are thus of no

significance vis-à-vis a charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the

Act.

184. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors.,

(2007) 4 SCC 380, a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ for

directing Union of India to take appropriate action to

prosecute R2 to R5 under the 1988 Act for having amassed

assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by

misusing their power and authority. The respondents were

the then sitting Chief Minister of U.P. and his relatives.

Having noticed that the basic issue was with regard to alleged

investments and sources of such investments, the

respondents 2 to 5 were ordered by this Court to file copies of

income tax and wealth tax returns of the relevant assessment

Page 248

248

years which was done. It was pointed out on behalf of the

petitioner that the net assets of the family though was

Rs.9,22,72,000/-, as per the calculation made by the official

valuer, the then value of the net assets came to be Rs.24

crores. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that

income tax returns had already been filed and the matters

were pending before the authorities concerned and all the

payments were made by cheques, and thus the allegation

levelled against them were baseless. It was observed that the

minuteness of the details furnished by the parties and the

income tax returns and assessment orders, sale deeds etc.

were necessary to be carefully looked into and analysed only

by an independent agency with the assistance of chartered

accountants and other accredited engineers and valuers of the

property. It was observed that the Income Tax Department

was concerned only with the source of income and whether the

tax was paid or not and, therefore, only an independent

agency or CBI could, on court direction, determine the

question of disproportionate assets. The CBI was thus

directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of all

the respondents and to take further action in the matter after

Page 249

249

scrutinizing as to whether a case was made out or not. This decision is to emphasize that submission of income

tax returns and the assessments orders passed thereon, would

not constitute a full proof defence against a charge of

acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known lawful

sources of income as contemplated under the PC Act and that

further scrutiny/analysis thereof is imperative to determine

as to whether the offence as contemplated by the PC act is

made out or not.

Consistent approach of Courts in P.C. matters

185. In State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8

SCC 693, this court while responding to the plea for a lenient

view qua a charge of corruption expressed its concern against

rampant venality by public servant observed that the malady

is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the

body politics, social falenic of efficiency in public service and

demoralizing the honest officers. The need for public servants

to devote their sincere attention to the duties of the office was

emphasized.

Page 250

250

186. In Subramanian Swamy (supra), this Court was

examining the challenge to the constitutional validity of

Section 6A of the DSPE Act, 1946 - qua a classification

amongst public servants made by Section 6A for the purpose

of inquiry/investigation into any offence under the 1988 Act.

It was observed that the corruption is an enemy of the nation

and to track down the corrupt public servant and to punish

them is the necessary mandate of the 1988 Act and as such

the purposes of law being either to eliminate public mischief or

achieve public good, the classification militates against the

same and in a way advances public mischief and protects the

crime doer. It was held that the provision thwarts

independent unhampered, unbiased, efficient and fearless

inquiry/investigation to track down the corrupt public

servants. Section 6A of the DSPE Act and Section 26 (c) of the

CBC Act struck down.

187. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal (supra), this

Court, apart from elucidating the objective of the 1988 Act

ruled that the gravity of the offence thereunder is not to be

judged on the measure of quantum of obribe, as corruption is

Page 251

251

not to be justified in degree. A serious concern was expressed

noticing the permeating presence of the malady in the

contemporary existence, so much so, that immoral acquisition

of wealth visibly has the potential to destroy the morale of the

people believing in honesty, destroying societal will to

progress, aside corroding the sense of civility and enervating

the marrows of governance.

LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL OF THE COMPAN Y

188. In Aron Salomon (Pauper) Vs. A. Salomon and

Company Limited, 1897 AC 22, the House of Lords

accentuated the distinctive entity of a company qua its

subscribers as elucidated hereunder:

“The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the memorandum; and, though it may be that after incorporation, the business is precisely the same as it was before, and the same persons are managers, and the same hands receive the profits, the company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or trustee for them.”

The caveat of Lord Halsbury L.C. in this context, as

extracted hereinbelow, however is revealing:

“I am simply here dealing with the provisions of the statute, and it seems to me to be essential to the

Page 252

252

artificial creation that the law should recognise only that artificial existence – quite apart from the motives or conduct of individual corporation. In saying this, I do not at all mean to suggest that if it could be established that this provision of the statute to which I am adverting had not been complied with, you could not go behind the certificate of incorporation to show that a fraud had been committed upon the officer entrusted with the duty of giving the certificate, and that by some proceeding in the nature of scire facias you could not prove the fact that the company had no real legal existence.”

189. While elaborating on the same theme, this Court in Delhi

Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P)

Ltd. & Anr., (1996) 4 SCC 622, noted that the above legal

proposition was, however, subject to several exceptions

amongst others, when the corporate personality is blatantly

used as a cloak for fraud or improper conduct, as scripted by

Gower – Modern Company Law – 4th Edn. (1979) (page 137).

190. The following passage from Company Law by

Pennington – 5th Edition 1985 at page 53 was also quoted

with approval:

“The concept of 'piercing the veil' in the United States is much more developed than in the UK. The motto, which was laid down by Sanborn, J. and cited since then as the law, is that 'when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of

Page 253

253

persons'. The same can be seen in various European jurisdictions.”

This Court also in that decision, referred to the following

synopsis on the subject as entered by the American Professor

L. Maurice Wormser in his article “Piercing the veil of

corporate entity” :

“When the conception of corporate entity is employed to defraud creditors, to evade an existing obligation, to circumvent a statute, to achieve or perpetuate monopoly, or to protect knavery or crime, the courts will draw aside the web of entity, will regard the corporate company as an association of live, up-and-doing, men and women shareholders, and will do justice between real persons.”.

191. It was finally held that the concept of corporate entity

was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commerce

and not to commit illegalities or to defraud people and thus

when the corporate character is employed for the purpose of

committing illegality or for defrauding others, the Court ought

to ignore the corporate character and scan the reality behind

the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass appropriate

orders to do justice between the parties.

Page 254

254

192. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone

Khanji Udyog Private Limited & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 469, it

has propounded that the principle of lifting the corporate veil

was well recognized not only to unravel tax evasion but also

where protection of public interest was of paramount

importance and the corporate entity was only an attempt to

evade legal obligations and lifting of veil is necessary to

prevent a device to avoid any welfare legislation. It was

acknowledged that it was difficult to enumerate the classes of

cases where lifting the veil is permissible but it was stressed

upon that the same must necessarily depend on the relevant

statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved,

the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of the

public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected etc. It

was recorded that the doctrine of lifting the veil could be

invoked, if the public interest so required or if there was

violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity. In

the reported case, the corporate entity had been used to

conceal the real transaction of transfer of mining lease to a

third party for consideration without the statutory consent by

terming it as two separate transactions. The real transaction

Page 255

255

was the sale of mining lease which was legally impermissible.

That the doctrine of lifting the veil has to be applied to give

effect to law which is sought to be circumvented, is thus the

judicial precept.

193. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala,

(2007) 6 SCC 21, the issue involved related to additions made

by the Assessing Officer in respect of several foreign gifts

stated to have been received by the assessees from one

common donor Sampat Kumar. Though the gifts were claimed

to have been received from persons with two other names, in

course of the inquiry, it was ascertained by the Assessing

Officer that those were all aliases of Sampat Kumar. The

concerned revenue authority, therefore did not accept the

explanation that the receipt was a gift from an NRI. Noticeably,

the payments were made by instruments issued by a foreign

bank and credited into the respective assessee’s account by

negotiation through a bank in India. In course of the inquiry,

except the self-serving statement of Sampat Kumar, no other

material evidence as regard his financial status did surface.

The Assessing Officer, on an appreciation of the evidence

collected, concluded that he had given gifts to the assessees

Page 256

256

with the possibility of having received compensatory payments

in lieu of the gifts made by him. It was thus, concluded by the

said authority that the gifts though apparent were not real and

accordingly, treated those amounts credited in the books of

the assesses as their income.

194. This Court while scanning the facts involved referred to

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also relied on the

decision of this Court in Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax, Bangalore, (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 453 to the

effect that in all cases where a receipt is sought to be taxed as

income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is

within the taxing provision and that if the receipt is in the

nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable

because it falls within the exemption provided by the Income

Tax Act lay upon the assessee. This Court in the textual facts

upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer, and most

importantly underlined that though the money involved had

come by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of

banking transaction, the same per se were of no consequence.

(emphasis supplied)

195. The decision highlights two aspects, firstly if the

Page 257

257

Assessing Officer on the consideration of the materials sought

for is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the

assessee qua an income determined by undisclosed sources,

in terms of Section 68, such income can be made subject to

income tax and secondly even if such transaction is evidenced

by banking operations as well as contemporaneous records

pertaining thereto, the same ipso facto would not be

determinative to hold that the transaction was that of a

genuine acceptable gift. It was in this context that the

distinction between a transaction that is apparent from one

i.e. real has been highlighted in emphatic terms.

196. In Yash Pal Goel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals), (2009) 310 ITR 75 (P&H) Smt. Kusumlata

Thakral Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (2010)

327 ITR 424 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.

Sandeep Goyal, (2014) 369 ITR 471 (P&H) and Income Tax

Officer Vs. Mukesh Bhanubhai Shah, (2009) 318 (AT) 394

(ITAT [Mum]), the common issue was with regard to

applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

vis-a-vis receipts which were claimed by the assessees to be by

way of gifts and thus exempted from income tax. In all these

Page 258

258

cases the assessees were asked to provide explanation to bring

the receipts within the purview of gifts exempted from income

tax and the AO on an indepth scrutiny thereof had concluded

that the transactions were only smoke screen/subterfuge to

avoid income tax. The decision in Sumati Dayal (supra), with

reference to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was relied upon.

Further the significant aspects of creditworthiness of donors

and genuineness of the transactions were highlighted. The

relationship between the donors and the assessee was also

examined so as to furnish an acceptable reason or justification

for such gift out of natural love and affection.

197. It was emphasized that to examine the genuineness of a

gift, the test of human probability was very appropriate. It

was reiterated that a gift cannot be accepted as such to be

genuine merely because the amount has come by way of

cheque or draft through banking channels unless the identity

of the donor, his creditworthiness, relationship with the donee

and the occasion was proved. Unless the recipient proved the

genuineness of the transaction, the same could be very well

treated as an accommodation entry of the assessee's own

money, which was not disclosed for the purpose of taxation.

Page 259

259

198. In all however, the process undertaken by the Income

Tax authorities under Section 68 of the Act is only to

determine as to whether the receipt is an income from

undisclosed sources or not and is unrelated to the lawfulness

of the sources or of the receipt. Thus even if a receipt claimed

as a gift is after the scrutiny of the Income Tax Authorities

construed to be income from undisclosed sources and is

subjected to income tax, it would not for the purposes of a

charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act be sufficient to hold

that it was from a lawful source in absence of any independent

and satisfactory evidence to that effect.

199. In Sumati Dayal (supra), the subject matter of scrutiny

was receipts by the assessee claimed to be from her winnings

in races and the explanation in support thereof. This court

held that it is no doubt true that in all cases where the receipt

is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the

Department to prove that it is within the relevant provision

and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proof

that it is not taxable but it falls within the exemption provided

by the Income Tax Act lies on the assessee. But in view of

Page 260

260

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the

books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be

charged as income tax as the income of the assessee of the

previous year, if the explanation offered by the assessee about

the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the

Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. It was expounded that in

such a case there is, prima facie, evidence against the

assessee viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the

said evidence, it can be used against him by holding that it

was a receipt of an income nature.

200. In the contextual facts it was observed that though there

was no dispute that the amounts were received by the

appellant from various race clubs on the basis of winning

tickets presented by her, the question was whether the

transaction could be accepted as real. The Court recalled, the

laid down proposition that apparent must be considered as

real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the

apparent is not the real and the Taxing Authorities are entitled

to look in the attendant circumstances to find out the reality

and that the matter has to be considered by applying the test

Page 261

261

of human probabilities. On an analysis of the various

attendant factors i.e. knowledge of the appellant about racing,

wild and unbelievable claim of the appellant to have won

several jackpots in 3-4 races not merely at one place but at

three different centres, absence of drawings from the

appellant's books on the race days or on the immediately

preceding days, absence of any debit either for expenses and

purchase of tickets or for losses etc., the Court upheld the

analysis the AO rejecting the appellant's claim of receipts of

winning races as unreal. This Court thus upheld the approach

of examining attendant circumstances and applying the test of

human probabilities to ascertain as to whether the claim was

genuine or not.

Gift, if Lawful Source of Income for a holder of Public Office:

201. This Court in R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay & Anr.,

(1986) 2 SCC 716, amongst others dealt with the distinctive

features of Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code. It

enunciated that under the former Section, a present is taken

by a public servant as a motive or reward for abuse of office

but under the latter, the question of motive or reward is wholly

Page 262

262

immaterial and 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 official favour to the person giving such

valuable thing. While observing that the ambit of Section 165

is wider than that of Sections 161, 162 and 163 IPC and is

intended to cover cases of corruption which do not come

within the sweep of the latter provisions, it was emphatically

proclaimed that if public servants are allowed to accept

presents when they are prohibited in law, they would easily

circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape

of a present. It was underscored that the provisions under

Sections 161 and 165 IPC as well as the Section 5 of the Act

1947 were intended to keep the public servant free from

corruption and thus ultimately to ensure purity in public life.

202. It is worthwhile to recall that with the advent of the Act

1988, Sections 161 to 165A have been omitted from the Code

as those have been essentially engrafted in the said Statute

and thus the essence and spirit thereof seemingly have a

Page 263

263

bearing on the constituents of Section 13 of the Act. This, in

our comprehension, would comport to the Statement of

Objects & Reasons of the legislation, which envisaged

widening of the scope of the definition of the expression

“public servant” and incorporation of the offences under

Sections 161 to 165A in the Act. As a corollary, while applying

Section 13 thereof in the facts of the given case, the attributes

of the offences contained in erstwhile Sections 161 to 165A of

the IPC cannot be totally disregarded.

Burden of proof and benefits of doubt

203. That the burden of proof a charge is on the prosecution

subject to the defence of insanity and any other statutory

exception has been authoritatively proclaimed in

Woolmington Vs. The Director of Public Prosecutions,

(1935) AC 462, and testified by the following extract:

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the

Page 264

264

prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

204. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of

Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer J., in

his inimitable expressional felicity cautioned against the

dangers of exaggerated affinity to the rule of benefit of doubt

as hereunder:

“The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs thro' the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned author (Glanville Williams in 'Proof of

Page 265

265

Guilt') has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty.”. (emphasis supplied)

205. In Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. Vs. D.

Bhoormall, (1974) 2 SCC 544, this Court had observed that in

all human affairs, absolute certainty is a myth and the law

does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. It

was highlighted that all that was required is the establishment

of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on this

basis believe in the existence of the fact in issue. It was

exposited that legal proof is thus not necessarily perfect proof

and is nothing more than a prudent man's estimate as to the

probability of the case.

206. That proof beyond reasonable doubt is only a guideline

and not a fetish and that a guilty man cannot get away with it

because truth suffers from infirmity, when projected through

human processes, was underscored by this Court in Inder

Singh & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4

SCC 161. It was remarked that if a case is proved too

Page 266

266

perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some

flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is

argued that it is, too imperfect and thus whether in the

meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from

being punished, many, guilty men must be callously allowed

to escape.

207. In the same vein, this Court in Ashok Debbarma alias

Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747,

expounded that in our criminal justice system, for recording

guilt of the accused, it is not necessary that the prosecution

should prove the case with absolute or mathematical certainty

but only beyond reasonable doubt and the criminal courts,

while examining whether any doubt is beyond reasonable

doubt, may carry in their mind, some “residual doubt” even

though the courts are convinced of the accused persons' guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE - ESTOPPEL

208. This Court in Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana,

Page 267

267

(1975) 3 SCC 742, while dwelling on the rule of issue/estoppel

enunciated that in order to invoke the rule of issue-estoppel

not only the parties in the two proceedings must be the same

but also the fact-in-issue proved or not in the earlier

proceeding must be identical with what is sought to be

re-agitated in the subsequent one.

209. This ruling was in the context of the plea that in the face

of the acquittal of the co-accused (appellant therein) in a

separate trial, conviction against him (appellant) was

unsustainable. This proposition has been relied upon by the

prosecution to reinforce its plea that in any view of the matter,

it not being a party to the tax assessment proceedings, at any

level, the decision passed therein would not be of binding

bearing at the trial by invoking the rule of issue estoppel.

210. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh

Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (supra), in

this context had ruled that there is neither any statutory

provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in

one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in other as

both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence

Page 268

268

adduced therein.

Interpretation of the expression “satisfactorily account” in the context of the offence of misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) of Act of 1947 and Section 13 (1)(e) of Act 1988

211. This Court in C.S.D. Swami Vs. The State, (supra), was

dealing with an appeal from a conviction under Sections 5(1)

(a) and 5(1)(d) of Act 1947. In the textual facts this Court

while examining the purport of Section 5(3) of Act 1947

observed that the said provision did not create a new offence

but only laid down a rule of evidence, enabling the Court to

raise a presumption of guilt in certain circumstances – a rule

which was in complete departure from the established

principles of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always

lay on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the

offence charged and that the burden never shifted on to the

accused to disprove the charge framed against him. In this

premise, it was held that the test of plausible explanation was

inapplicable, as under this statute, the accused person was

required to satisfactorily account for the possession of the

pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to its own

sources of income and that the word “satisfactorily” used by

Page 269

269

the legislature deliberately did cast a burden on the accused

not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to

acquire his large wealth but also to satisfy the Court that his

explanation was worthy of acceptance. This Court enunciated

that “known sources of income” must have reference to

sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation

of the case and it cannot be the resources known to the

accused. In further elaboration, it was elucidated that the

affairs of an accused person would be a matter within his

special knowledge in terms of the Section 106 of the Evidence

Act and that the source of income of a particular individual

would depend upon his position in life, with particular

reference to its occupation or avocation in life and in case of

government servant, the prosecution would naturally infer

that his known source of income would be the salary earned

by him during his active service. That however, it would be

open to the accused to prove the other sources of income

which have not been taken into account or brought into

evidence by the prosecution was underlined. (emphasis supplied)

212. In M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, (1963)

Page 270

270

Suppl. 2 SCR 724, also involving the offence under Section

5(1)(d) of the Act 1947, this Court emphasised that this statute

was passed to make more effective provisions for the

prevention of bribery and corruption as the general law with

regard thereto as contained in Sections 161 and 165 IPC

proved to be insufficient to eradicate or even control the

growing evil of these offences corroding the public service. This

Court held a view that the rebuttable presumption

contemplated by the statute though contrary to the well

known principles of criminal jurisprudence had been

comprehended as a socially useful measure conceived in

public interest and thus deserve to be liberally construed to

bring about the desired object. This Court added that when

the legislature, having referred to the aim of the legislation had

used comprehensive terminology in Section 5(1)(d), to achieve

a purpose, it would be appropriate not to limit the content by

construction when in particular the spirit of the statute is in

accord with the words used therein. (emphasis supplied)

213. The same view was reiterated, amongst others in State

of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar,

Page 271

271

(supra), dealing in specific terms with Section 5(1)(e) of 1947

Act. The evident dispensation of this pronouncement is that

the spirit of the enactment has to be acknowledged as a

relevant factor to construe an offence alleged to have been

committed there under. While dilating on the expressions “the

public servant cannot satisfactorily account” and “known

sources of income”, which was construed to mean “sources

known to the prosecution”, this Court held the view that the

plea that unless the prosecution disproves all possible sources

of income, a public servant charged for having

disproportionate assets in his possession, which he cannot

satisfactorily account, cannot be convicted under Section 5(1)

(e) of the Act was erroneous. It was enunciated that the

possible sources of income beyond those known to the

prosecution were matters within the special knowledge of the

public servant within the meaning of Section 106 of the

Evidence Act, 1872. It was, however, recognized that the

burden of the accused was not so onerous as that of the

prosecution and could be discharged by proof of balance of

probabilities. (emphasis supplied)

Page 272

272

214. In K. Ponnuswamy Vs. State of T.N., (2001) 6 SCC

674, this Court referred to the definition of the word “proved”

in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and also Section

114 thereof. While noting that in terms thereof, a fact is said

to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the

Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so

probable that a prudent man, under the circumstances of the

particular case, ought to act upon this supposition that it

exists. It reflected also on the permissible presumption

envisaged under the statute, with regard to the existence of

any fact which a Court is likely to think to have happened,

regard being had to the common course of natural events,

human conduct and public and private business in relation to

the facts of a particular case.

215. The significance of this decision is that while evaluating

the evidence on record, the attendant facts and circumstances

need be taken note of as well, to determine as to whether the

materials available, having regard to the common course of

natural events and human conduct do logically prove the point

in issue.

Page 273

273

216. In the context of the sources of income of a public

servant which is the kernel of the offence of criminal

misconduct engrafted in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, this Court

in State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., (2004) 1

SCC 691, elaborated on the attributes of income as hereunder

in para 6:

“The phrase “known sources of income” in Section 13(1)(e) [old Section 5(1)(e)] has clearly the emphasis on the word “income”. It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. 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 understanding the term “income”. Therefore, it can be said that, though “income” is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets from his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes, which conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the “known sources of income” of a public servant.” (emphasis supplied)

Page 274

274

217. It was emphasised that the word “satisfactorily” did levy

a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible

explanation as to how he came by his large wealth but also to

satisfy the Court that the explanation was worthy of

acceptance. The noticeable feature of this pronouncement

thus is that the explanation offered by the accused to be

acceptable has to be one not only plausible in nature and

content but also worthy of acceptance.

218. In P. Nallammal & Anr. Vs. State, (supra), this Court

while elucidating that the 1988 Act does contemplate

abetment of an offence under Section 13, proclaimed that in

terms of the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of 1988 Act, the

known sources of income of a public servant for the purpose of

satisfying the Court should be “lawful source” and further the

receipt thereof should have been intimated by him or her in

accordance with the provisions of any law applicable to such

public servant at the relevant time. It was underscored that a

public servant cannot escape from the tentacles of Section

13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, by showing other legally forbidden

sources.

Page 275

275

219. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Veeraswami

Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 655, again

elaborating on an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with

Section 5(2) of the Act 1947 reaffirmed the view that clause (e)

of Section 5(1) created a statutory offence which must be

proved by the prosecution and when the onus is discharged by

it, the accused has to account satisfactorily for the

dis-proportionality of the properties possessed by him. It was

noted that the Section did make available a statutory defence

to the accused which he/she was to prove and that the public

servant was required to account for the disparity of the assets

qua the income. Though it was observed that the legal burden

of proof placed on the accused was not so onerous as that of

the prosecution, it was enunciated that it would not be enough

to just throw some doubt on the prosecution version. Referring

to the expression “satisfactorily account”, it was ruled that due

emphasis must be accorded to the word “satisfactorily” which

signified that the accused has to satisfy the Court that his

explanation was worthy of acceptance. Though it was marked

that the procedure was contrary to the well known principle of

criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lay always on

Page 276

276

the prosecution and did never shift to the accused, the

competence of the Parliament to shift such burden on certain

aspects and particular in matters especially in the knowledge

of the accused, was acknowledged. The plea of the appellant

therein that the possession of assets disproportionate to one’s

source of income is no offence, till the public servant was able

to account for the excess thereof was not accepted. It was held

that if one possesses assets beyond his legitimate means, it

goes without saying that the excess is out of ill-gotten gain

observing that assets are not drawn like Nitrogen from the air

and that have to be essentially acquired, for which means are

necessary. It was stressed upon that the public servant

concerned was required to prove the source of income or the

means by which he had acquired the assets. It was

propounded that once the prosecution proved that the public

servant possessed assets dis-proportionate to his known

sources of income, the offence of criminal conduct was

attributed to him but it would be open to him to satisfactorily

account for such dis-proportionality.

220. In V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), it

was expounded that when a statute places burden of proof on

Page 277

277

an accused person, it is not that he is not required to establish

his plea, but a decree and character of proof which the

accused was expected to furnish could not be equated with

those expected from the prosecution.

221. In N. Ramakrishnaiah (dead) through LRs. Vs. State

of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 17 SCC 83, charge-sheet was

submitted against the petitioner (since dead) under Section

5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Act 1947 on the allegation of acquiring

disproportionate assets compared to his known sources of

income and he was convicted by the Trial Court. In the appeal

before the High Court, the dispute was restricted only to Item

26 of the assets (moveables) and agricultural income. It was

pleaded that the former was over estimated and deserved to be

reduced and the latter was under estimated and was to be

enhanced. The High Court rejected the plea. This Court noted

that whereas the prosecution in support of the agricultural

income amongst others relied on the evidence of the Mandal

Revenue Officer and the details furnished by the witness in

the documents proved by him, the accused placed reliance on

a document without disclosing as to who was the author

thereof and on what basis the entries mentioned therein had

Page 278

278

been made. Placing reliance on the decision in State of M.P.

Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others (supra), dealing with

“income” of a public servant “ known sources” of income” and

“satisfactorily account”, this Court affirmed the conviction. It

reiterated that by using the word “satisfactorily”, the

legislature had deliberately cast a burden on the accused not

only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his

large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation

was worthy of acceptance.

Scope of interference with an order of acquittal/conviction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

222. This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chet Ram &

Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 425, while reflecting on the scope of appeal

against acquittal recorded by the High Court thus reversing

the verdict of conviction rendered by the Trial Court

propounded that though the power (under Article 136) ought

to be exercised with care and restraint in setting-aside a

judgement of acquittal, the Court would be failing in its duty

when the ends of justice warrant the same. In the textual

facts, this Court recorded that the conclusions of the High

Page 279

279

Court had been drawn on assumption of surmises without any

foundation in the evidence for them. It was observed that the

prosecution evidence was of unimpeachable nature and did

not afford any scope of two views to be taken with one of them

being more plausible than the other. It was held that as an

abstract proposition of argument, though it may be stated that

every case affords the potential for two views being taken, it

has to be realized that the alternative view must have some

content of plausibility in it and without the same, the said

view cannot be countenanced in law as a plausible alternative.

In this context, it recalled the enunciation in Arunachalam

Vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham & Anr., (1979) 2 SCC 297, that in

dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court would keep

in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the

accused is reinforced by the judgment of acquittal. It,

however, noted as well the caveat that in such an eventuality

also, the Court would not abjure its duty to prevent

miscarriage of justice by hesitating to interfere where

interference is imperative. It was stated that where the

acquittal is based on irrelevant ground, or where the High

Court allows itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across

Page 280

280

the track, or by the evidence accepted by the Trial Court but

rejected by the High Court after perfunctory consideration or

where the baneful approach of the High Court has resulted in

vital and crucial evidence being ignored or for any such

adequate reasons, the Court would feel obliged to step in to

secure the interest of justice, to appease the judicial

conscience as it were. (emphasis supplied)

223. That this Court ought to rarely interfere and only where

there is a grave error of law or serious miscarriage of justice or

the judgment of the High Court appealed against is fraught

with serious and substantial error of law and legal infirmities

was highlighted in State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsinghrao

Gangaram Pimple, (1984) 1 SCC 446. In the factual scenario

involved therein, this Court was of the view that abstinence

from interference with the order of acquittal would amount to

failure in duty.

224. In State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC

271, where apart from underlining that there was no embargo

on the Appellate Court to review the evidence upon which an

order of acquittal is based, it was elaborated that if two views

are possible on the same set of evidence, interference with an

Page 281

281

acquittal would be justified when there are compelling and

substantial reasons for doing so. It was stated as well that if

the impugned judgement of acquittal is unreasonable, it would

as well be a compelling reason to overturn the same. (emphasis supplied)

225. It was propounded in Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab

alias Kuti Biswas & Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796, that minor

discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and

evidence is to be considered from the point of view of

trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires

confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is

incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence,

then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. Every

omission cannot take place of a material omission and

therefore minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant

embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

The omission should create a serious doubt about the

truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It was held that

it is only serious contradictions and omissions would

materially affect the case of the prosecution, but not every

contradiction or omission is relevant.

Page 282

282

226. This Court in State of U.P. Vs. Gokaran & Ors., 1984

Suppl. SCC 482, expounded that when incriminating evidence

of a satisfactory character is brushed aside mainly by relying

upon a few circumstances which do not detract from the value

of such incriminating evidence, it becomes the duty of the

Court to interfere with the acquittal in order to redeem the

course of justice. It was elaborated that if it is found that the

Court below had adopted a hyper technical approach to the

entire prosecution case and that the direct ocular evidence

cannot be doubted, interference would be warranted.

227. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1976)

4 SCC 158, this Court ruled that the Supreme Court is not an

ordinary court of criminal appeal and does not interfere with

pure questions of fact. It is only in very special cases where it

is satisfied that the High Court has committed an error of law

or procedure as a result of which there has been a serious

miscarriage of justice, that it would intervene. It is generally

not in the province of this Court to reappraise the evidence

and go into the question of credibility of the witnesses unless

Page 283

283

the assessment of evidence by the High Court is vitiated by an

error of law or procedure, by the principles of natural justice,

by errors of record or misleading of evidence,

non-consideration of glaring inconsistencies in the evidence

which demolish the prosecution case or where the conclusions

are manifestly perverse and unsupportable. In other words,

substantial and grave injustice ought to be visible, warranting

a review of the decision appealed against. Something

substantial has to exist to persuade the Court to go behind the

findings of facts. It underlined that Article 136 reserves to this

Court, special discretionary power to interfere in suitable

cases when for special reasons, it considers that interference

is called for in the larger interest of justice.

228. In Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,

(2007) 4 SCC 415, the High Court had reversed the order of

acquittal made by the Trial Court and had convicted the

appellants. The scope of interference with an order of acquittal

under Section 378 Cr.P.C. thus fell for scrutiny of this Court.

It was ruled that in an appeal against acquittal, the High

Court has full power to re appreciate, review and reconsider

the evidence at large, the material on which the order of

Page 284

284

acquittal is founded and to arrive at its own conclusions on

such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to

determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order

of acquittal. It, however, has to bear in mind that there is a

double presumption in favour of the accused once there is an

order of acquittal. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is

available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal

jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be

innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court

of law and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal,

the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened

but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court.

229. It quoted with approval the view of Lord Russel in Sheo

Swarup Vs. R. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2), that there was

no foundation of the opinion that the High Court has no power

or jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal except in cases

in which the lower court has “obstinately blundered” or has

“through incompetence, stupidity or perversity” reached such

'distorted conclusions as to produce a positive miscarriage of

justice or has in some other way so conducted or

misconducted itself as to produce a glaring miscarriage of

Page 285

285

justice or has been tricked by the defence so as to produce a

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SELVI J. JAYALALITHA .

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SELVI J. JAYALALITHA .