14 February 2017
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SELVI J. JAYALALITHA .

Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,AMITAVA ROY
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000300-000303 / 2017
Diary number: 19487 / 2015
Advocates: JOSEPH ARISTOTLE S. Vs


1

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)

2

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,

3

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

4

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;

5

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

6

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

7

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;

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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 ,,

24

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

25

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)

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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 .

39

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

40

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

41

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

42

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

43

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

44

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

45

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

46

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

47

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

48

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

49

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

50

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

51

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

52

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

53

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

54

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

55

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

56

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

57

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

58

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

59

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/-

60

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/-

61

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

62

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

63

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

64

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

65

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

66

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

67

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.,

68

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.,

69

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:

70

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:

71

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.

72

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,

73

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,

74

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

75

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

76

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

77

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

78

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

79

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

80

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

81

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

82

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.

83

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

84

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

85

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

86

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

87

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

88

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

89

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

90

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;

91

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

92

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.

93

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.

94

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/-

95

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.

96

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

97

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/-

98

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/-

99

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/-

100

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/-

101

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

102

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

103

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

104

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

105

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/-

106

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

107

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

108

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

109

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

110

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

111

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

112

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

113

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

114

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

115

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

116

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

117

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

118

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

119

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

120

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

121

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

122

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/-

123

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

124

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

125

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

126

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

127

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

128

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

129

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

130

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

131

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

132

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

133

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

134

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

135

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

136

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.

96.

96.

96.

96.

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

137

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

138

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

139

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

140

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

141

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

142

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

143

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

144

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

145

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

146

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

147

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

148

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

149

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

150

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

151

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/-)

152

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

153

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

154

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

155

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

156

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

157

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

158

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

159

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

160

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

161

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

162

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

163

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

164

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

165

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

166

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.

167

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

168

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  

169

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.

170

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

171

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

172

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

173

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  

174

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

 

175

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

176

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.

177

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

178

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

179

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

180

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

181

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

182

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

183

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

184

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

185

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

186

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

187

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

188

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

189

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.

190

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

191

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

192

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

193

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

194

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

195

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

196

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

197

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.  

198

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.

199

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

200

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

201

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

202

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

203

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

204

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

205

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

206

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

207

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

208

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

209

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

210

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

211

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

212

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

213

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

214

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

215

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.”.

216

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

217

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,

218

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,

219

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

220

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

221

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:

222

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

223

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

224

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

225

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

226

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

227

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

228

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

229

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

230

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

231

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

232

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

233

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

234

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

235

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

236

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

237

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

238

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

239

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

240

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

241

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,

242

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.  

243

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

244

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

245

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

246

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)

247

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

248

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

249

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.

250

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

251

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

252

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

253

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.  

254

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

255

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

256

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

257

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

258

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.

259

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

260

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

261

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

262

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

263

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

264

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

265

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

266

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,

267

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

268

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

269

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)

270

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,

271

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)

272

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.  

273

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)

274

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.

275

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

276

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

277

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

278

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

279

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

280

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

281

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.

282

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

283

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

284

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

285

Page 285

285

justice or has been tricked by the defence so as to produce a

similar result.

230.  It  was reiterated that  though the High Court has full

power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal

is founded, in view of the presumption of innocence,  reversal

can  be  made  only  for  substantial  and  compelling  reasons.

The decision quoted the  observations in  Shivaji  Sahabrao

Bobade (supra), sounding  caution  against  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 the justice to the

victim and the community.  The decision also adverted to the

rendition in K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

(1979) 1 SCC 355, to the effect that if two reasonably probable

and evenly balanced views on the evidence are possible, one

must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt

but  remote  and  fanciful  possibilities  must  be  left  out  of

account.  It was reiterated that in order to entitle an accused

person to the benefit of doubt arising from the  possibility of

duality of views, the possible view in his favour, must be as

reasonably probable as that against him.

286

Page 286

286

     (emphasis supplied)

231.  In Ramaiah @ Rama Vs. State of Kanataka, (2014) 9

SCC 365, this Court, while dwelling on the same theme quoted

its  observation  in  Harbans  Singh  &  Anr.  Vs.  State  of

Punjab, AIR  1962 SC 439,  to  the  effect  that  in  the  recent

years,  emphasis  on  “compelling  reasons”  has  often  been

avoided but nonetheless the emphasis on the requirement of

close and careful examination of the reasons that had impelled

the lower courts to acquit the accused has been insisted upon.

While  reiterating  the  essentiality  of  examination  of  the

evidence  with  particular  care  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  in

deciding the assailment against acquittal, it has however been

underlined  that  once  the  Appellate  Court  comes  to  the

conclusion that the view taken by the lower court was clearly

unreasonable, then that by itself would be a compelling reason

for interference. It was highlighted that it is a court’s duty to

convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond

reasonable  doubt,  no  less  than it  is  its  duty  to  acquit  the

accused when such guilt  is not so established.   (emphasis

supplied)

287

Page 287

287

Benami transactions:  

232.  This  Court  in Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased)  through

LRs.  (supra), enunciated that it is well settled that the burden

of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent

purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person

asserting it to be so. The burden has to be strictly discharged

by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would

either  directly  prove  the  fact  of  benami  or  establish

circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference

of that fact. It was propounded that the essence of a benami is

the  intention  of  the  party  or  parties  concerned  and  not

unoften,  such  intention  is  shrouded  in  a  thick  veil  which

cannot be easily pierced through.  However such difficulties do

not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami,

of any part of the serious onus that rests on him nor justify

the  acceptance  of  mere  conjectures  or  surmises,  as  a

substitute for proof.  It was exposited that the reason is that a

deed  is  a  solemn  document  prepared  and  executed  after

considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as

the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts  with the initial

presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is

288

Page 288

288

the real state of affairs. It was held that though the question,

whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of

fact and for determining this question, no absolute formula  or

acid test, uniformly applicable  in all situations, can be laid

down; yet in weighing the probabilities  and for gathering the

relevant indicia, the courts are usually guided by the following

circumstances:

(1) The source from which the purchase money came;

(2)  The  nature  of  possession  of  the  property,  after  the

purchase;

(3) Notice, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;

(4)  The position  of  the  parties  and the  relationship,  if  any,

between the claimant and the alleged benamdar;

(5) The custody of the title-deeds after the sale and

(6) The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the

property after the sale.

233.  That  the  above  indicia  are  not  exhaustive  and  their

efficacy varies according to the facts of each case was however

underlined. The emphasis of the decision on benami purchase,

therefore, is that there has to be  either some direct evidence

289

Page 289

289

or strong circumstantial evidence to raise an inference that the

property alleged  to be benami had been purchased with the

funds/resources of someone other than the person in whose

name the property is shown in the document.

234.  In the present case, there is also a charge of conspiracy

and abetment and, therefore, the factors as above would have

to  be  tested  on  the  anvil  of  the  overall  circumstances  to

ascertain as to whether a reasonable inference therefrom can

be drawn of a benami transaction as alleged. This is more so

as by the very nature of the offence of conspiracy, the activities

in connection therewith are expectedly hatched in secrecy.

PROBATIVE WORTH OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

235.  In re the probative worth of experts evidence, a host of

decisions in Mahmood Vs. State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 542,

Chatt Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1980) 1 SCC 460, State

of  H.P.  Vs.  Jai  Lal  &  Ors.,  (1999)  7  SCC  280,  Ramesh

Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Limited & Ors.,

(2009) 9 SCC 709, and  Dayal Singh & Ors. Vs.  State of

Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263, have been cited at the Bar.

290

Page 290

290

As  all  these  decisions  postulate  identical  propositions,  the

gravamen of these authorities would only be referred to avoid

inessential prolixity.  These renderings explicate that an expert

is  one  who  has  made  a  subject  upon  which  he  speaks  or

renders his opinion, a matter of particular study, practice or

observation  and  has  a  special  knowledge  thereof.  His

knowledge must be within the recognized field of expertise and

he essentially has to be qualified in that discipline of study.  It

has been propounded that an expert is not a witness of fact

and its evidence is really of an advisory character and it is his

duty to  furnish to the Judge/Court  the necessary scientific

criteria for testing the accuracy of  the conclusions so as to

enable the Judge/Court to form his/its independent judgment

by the application of such criteria to the facts proved by the

evidence.  Referring to Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1892,

which makes the opinion of an expert admissible, it has been

underlined that  not  only  an expert  must possess necessary

special skill and experience  in his discipline, his opinion must

be  backed  by  reason  and  has  to  be  examined  and

cross-examined to ascertain the probative worth thereof.  That

it would be unsafe to convict the person charged on the basis

291

Page 291

291

of expert opinion without any independent corroboration has

also  been indicated.   It  has  been held  that  the  evidentiary

value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon

which it is based and also the validity of the process by which

the conclusion has been reached. The decisions underline that

the Court is not to subjugate its own judgment to that of the

expert or delegate its authority to a third party but ought to

assess the evidence of the expert like any other evidence.   

HEARSAY EVIDENCE CAN BE USED TO CORROBORATE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.

236.  In Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC

241, this Court had observed that hearsay evidence could be

used to corroborate substantive evidence.  

Krishnanand  Agnihotri  (supra), In  this  case  the

petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court as well as the High

Court  by acting on the presumption contained in Section 5(3)

of the Act, 1947 (prior to the amendment of 1964, as it was)

for  the offence punishable under Section 5(2).  The plea of the

petitioner  was  that  the  charges  levelled  against  him  under

292

Page 292

292

Section  5(1)  had  not  been  established  and,  therefore,  the

presumption was not available.

237.  The  facts  revealed  that  the  admitted  income  was

Rs.1,12,515.43  during  the  check  period  29.11.1949  to

1.1.1962.  Various heads of income were in dispute and this

Court  examined the evidence adduced by the parties under

those heads and after disallowing/allowing different amounts,

reached the figure of Rs.1,27,715.43/-  as the income.   

Vis-a-vis  the  expenditure  also,  the  admitted  figure  was

Rs.23,459.84 and the parties were at issue on various heads.

Similarly,  this  Court  analysed the  evidence  adduced by  the

parties  and  after  allowing/disallowing,  the  expenditure  of

different  items  concluded  that  the  total  expenditure  of  the

petitioner during the check period was Rs. 83,331.84.    

Thus deducting the total expenditure from the total income so

computed, it transpired that an amount of Rs.44,383.59 was

available with the petitioner for his acquired assets.   

The  admitted  assets  was  Rs.38,572.46.  Here  again,  under

different heads by appreciating the evidence on record and by

293

Page 293

293

allowing/disallowing the rival claims, this Court arrived at a

figure of Rs.55,732.25 as the value of the assets.   

238.  Comparing the income, after adjusting the  expenditure

that  was  left  with  the  petitioner  i.e.  Rs.44,383.59  with  the

value of the assets i.e. 55,732.25, this Court held that  though

the value of  the assets exceeded the amount of income, the

excess was comparatively small and less than 10% of the total

income  i.e.   Rs.1,27,715.43  and  was  of  the  view  that  the

assets  were  not  disproportionate   to  his  known sources  of

income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under

Section 5(3).  The petitioner was acquitted.    

239.  The narration of the judgment clearly indicates  that this

Court had assessed  the evidence  on record by itself on the

items of dispute pertaining to income, expenditure and assets

and had recorded its own independent findings.  In most of the

items,  where  this  Court  had  rejected  the  contention  of  the

prosecution, it appears that it had not adduced any evidence

whatsoever.  Further  the  judgment  does  not  advance  any

proposition that in order to adjudge the disproportionateness

of the assets  in  comparison of the income of a public servant,

the  margin   of  10%  is  a  permissible  index  of  uniform

294

Page 294

294

application and acknowledged as a determinant to decide as to

whether a public servant charged under Section 13(1)(e) of the

1988  Act  can  be  held  guilty  of  a  criminal  misconduct

contemplated by the statute judged on such benchmark.   

240.  The evidence on record in the above backdrop, now has

to be tested in the context of the charge framed against the

respondents.  The respondent A1 has been charged with the

offence of  conspiracy as well  as  criminal  misconduct  under

Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and A2 to

A4  in  particular,  of  conspiracy  and  abetment  in  the

commission of the above offence under the Act.

There are basically four broad heads for scrutiny:

(1) Income

(2) Expenditure

(3) Assets

(4) Conspiracy and abetment.

From the evidence led and the arguments advanced, it appears

that  the  income,  expenditure  and  assets,  all  have  been

cumulatively taken account of. Though it had been argued on

295

Page 295

295

behalf of A1 that she had no connection whatsoever with A2,

A3  and  A4  and,  therefore  the  figures  relating  to  income,

expenditure  and  assets  would  have  to  be  separately

considered,  it  would  transpire  that  while  adverting  to  the

charts submitted in the course of arguments, such segregation

has not been insisted upon and is even uncalled for, having

regard  to  the  charge  of  conspiracy  and  abetment,  for  the

purpose of the appraisal to follow.

INCOME

241.  Under the head income, the prosecution has limited its

tally to 64 items, which the respondents do not dispute but

they have added seven further heads thereto.  According to the

prosecution, the income  of the 64 heads is Rs.9,34,26,053.56,

which the Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence has

found to be Rs.9,91,05,094.75.  

242. The  High  Court,  however,  accepted  the  respondents'

claim of income under seven additional heads and raised the

income  to  Rs.34,76,65,654.  Noticeably,  this  income  of

Rs.34,76,65,654  is  the  combined  total  income  of  all  the

296

Page 296

296

respondents.  In other words, the respondents also rely on this

collective income to disprove the charge.  Nowhere, their plea

is  that  the  income  of  A1  has  to  be  separately  noted,  as

distinguished from the income of A2, A3 and A4.   In view of

the  fact  that  the  respondents  accept  the  income  of

Rs.9,34,26,053.56 as cited by DVAC and there is no dispute

with  regard  thereto,   it  is  not  necessary  to  examine  the

evidence of the prosecution in support of its figures.  

243.  As the income cited by the DVAC is not disputed and the

case  of  the  respondents  is  based  on  the  additional  income

under the seven heads, as cited by them and accepted by the

High  Court,  it  would,  thus,  be  necessary  to  examine  the

evidence in respect of those additional heads along with  the

findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.

Vis-a-vis the income, there appears to be three facets:

(i)  the income  as listed by the DVAC

(ii)  The additional  heads of  income taken note  by  the  High

Court and

(iii)   The  heads  of  income  introduced  in  evidence  by  the

defence  also supplementing  the earlier two heads.

297

Page 297

297

The income, as mentioned by the DVAC, to reiterate  is  not

disputed by the  defence.  The respondents however seek to

take advantage of the additional heads taken note of by the

High Court to boost the income further.  

1.  Income from Grape Garden:

244. This  item  of  income  has  been  mentioned  by  the

prosecution  at  Item  No.33  of  Annexure  III  at  page  1228  –

Volume V and has been calculated at Rs.5,78,340/-.

The Trial  Court on an assessment of  the evidence has

enhanced the income to Rs.10,00,000 i.e. enhanced the figure

cited by the DVAC by Rs.4,21,660.

The High Court, however, accepted the claim of A1 that

the  income  was  Rs.52,50,000  and   thereby  added

Rs.46,71,660 to Rs.5,78,340, as fixed by DVAC.

245.  The argument on behalf of A1 is that the extra amount

of  Rs.46,71,660  has  been  conceded  to  in  course  of  the

arguments on behalf of the State and further this amount has

been  established  on  the  basis  of  the  income  tax

returns/orders  passed  thereon   for  the  assessment  years,

298

Page 298

298

1995-96  to 1996-97.  As  against  this,  the  argument  on  behalf  of  the

prosecution  is  that  the  income  tax  returns  and  the  orders

passed thereon are not binding and those by themselves do

not prove the amount of income or the lawful source thereof.     

246. The  relevant  evidence  of  the  prosecution  on  this

component is traceable to PW165 –  K.R. Latha – Horticulture

Officer  in  the  office  of  the  Assistant  Director  (Horticulture),

Rangareddy District, A.P. PW166 – P. Kondareddy, Assistant

Director of Horticulture and PW256 – Mr. R. Kadireshan, Dy.

Superintendent  of  Police,  Vigilance  Department  &  Anti

Corruption,  Chennai.

PW 165 has deposed that  as per  the direction of  Assistant

Director  of  Horticulture  on 10.12.1996,  she  had visited the

grape  garden  belonging  to  A1  along  with  the  Horticulture

Officer  Sanjay Kumar in presence of PW256.  She inspected

the horticulture crops and examined the varieties of  grapes

raised as well as the plants and the area covered.

247.  PW-166  corroborated the testimony of  PW-165.  She

also visited the grape garden and had worked out the details

regarding the cost of raising the grapes and the gross and net

299

Page 299

299

income and submitted his report (Ex. P-938).  The Assistant

Director of Horticulture claimed to be competent to assess the

basis of  cost for  raising various crops including grapes and

mentioned the total  income of  seeded variety  for  the period

1991-96  to  be  Rs.3,82,420  and  the  reseeded  variety  from

1993-96 as Rs.2,18,960.  He mentioned that he had assessed

liberally in arriving at the above conclusion.  He claimed his

expertise in the matter of preparation of the assessment report

pertaining to  the cost of cultivation and income of crops and

stated to have  adopted  NABARD norms in assessing the cost

of cultivation and the yield.  In cross-examination, he however

conceded that he had not enclosed the inspection report of PW

165  along  with  his   report  Ex.  P-938  and  also  that  his

evaluations were approximate and probable.

PW 256 stated that he on the request of PW 165 and Sanjay

Kumar had estimated the value of the produce  of the grape

garden.

248.  The Trial Court examined the plea on behalf of A1 that

Ex.  P-938  was  not  worthy  of  acceptance  as  it  was  not

accompanied by any final report and also in absence of any

300

Page 300

300

explanation of the prosecution for such omission.  It examined

as well, the plea based on the income tax returns of A1 and

the orders of the assessing officer accepting the same and that

eventually on the basis of the said returns and the orders, the

income from the grape garden was found to be Rs. 52,50,000.

The evidence  adduced by the  defence may at  this  stage be

briefly referred to.

249.  Vide  Exbs.  D-61  to  D-64,  the  orders  passed  by  the

concerned  income  tax  authorities/forums,  eventually   the

claim  of  agricultural  income  of  A1  on  the  basis  of  the

particulars  furnished  in  her  returns  for  the  relevant

assessment years i.e. 1991-92 to 1996-97 were accepted.   As

the  order  of  the  CIT  (Appeals)-1,  Chennai  dated  30.3.1999

(Exb.  D-61)  would reveal,  while  upholding  the  claim of  the

agricultural  income  of  A1  to  be  Rs.10,50,000/-  for  the

assessment  year  1994-95,  the  said  authority  relied  on  the

report dated 25.3.1999 of the assessing officer, as called for

and  accepted  the  figure  furnished  by  A1.  The  report

incidentally mentioned the age of the grape vines, as enquired

from the Supervisor,  to be 2 to 2.5 years.   Though the net

301

Page 301

301

agricultural  income  on  the  basis  of  the  said  report  was

assessed to be Rs.13,55,000/-, after applying the cost inflation

index and the  additional  land  in  cultivation,  the  authority

accepted the  figure  furnished by  A1.  Prior  thereto,  for  the

assessment year 1993-94, the CIT (Appeals) had accepted the

agricultural income of A1  at Rs.9,50,000  as furnished by her.

The  same  approach  was  adopted  by  the  concerned

authorities/forums  for  the  assessment  years  1995-96  and

1996-97 and same reasons had been cited.

250.  A1  thus  claimed  agricultural  income  of  Rs.52,50,000

during  the  check  period,  on  the  basis  of  the  above

returns/orders of the income tax authorities/forums.

The Trial Court duly evaluated the evidence adduced by

the prosecution as well as by the defence in this regard  in

detail and concluded that the two versions were irreconcilable.

It did not accept the evidence adduced by the prosecution in

absence of the notes of inspection  endorsing the report Ex.

P-938.  It also noticed the flaws in the evidence of PWs 165,

166 and 256 which revealed that the inspection of the grape

garden had been made without reference to any revenue or

survey  records  and  that  there  was  no  clear  and  definite

302

Page 302

302

evidence regarding the specific  extent  of  land used for   the

cultivation of grapes and  other crops.  It doubted the basis on

which the yield  had been determined and the price calculated

by the inspecting  team and, therefore held that the report was

unreliable.  

251.  The  evidence  of  A1  was  also  held  to  be  vague  and

ambiguous  being not supported by acceptable evidence.  It

was of the view that  the income tax returns and the orders

passed  thereon  were   of  minimal  evidentiary  value  in

determining the extent  of  cultivation,  quantum of  produce,

cost  of  cultivation  and  the  price  fetched  by  A1  during  the

relevant  years.   It  held  that  though all  these  aspects  were

within  the  exclusive  knowledge  of  A1,  she  had  failed  to

produce the best evidence available to her. The Trial Court was

thus  of  the  view  that  there  was  no  worthwhile  evidence  to

accept the claim of A1. The above conclusion notwithstanding,

the Trial Court  took note of the fact that A1 had been holding

14½ acres of agricultural land and that she had been growing

grapes  thereon.   It  referred  to  copies  of  the  pahanis  Exb.

P2251 to P2258 in support of her stand that grapes were being

grown on the land involved.  The Trial Court was of the view

303

Page 303

303

that  her  entire  claim  cannot  be  rejected  for  her  failure  to

produce convincing documentary evidence.  It took note of the

fact  from the reports, that 10 acres of land were being used

for cultivation of grapes  at the relevant time. Having regard to

the  likely  cost  of  cultivation  and  the  fluctuating  price

prevalent  during  the  check  period,  the  Trial  Court  made  a

rough  estimate  of  income  from  the  grape  garden  at

Rs.20,000/-  per  acre  per  annum and on the  basis  thereof,

quantified  the agricultural income for the check period of five

years at Rs.10 lakhs during the check period, thus enhancing

the income from Rs.5,78,340/- cited by the prosecution.

252.  The High Court, on the other hand,  readily accepted the

income  tax  returns  filed  by  the  assessee  and  affirmed  the

claim of A1  of agricultural income of Rs.52,50,000/-.  It was

of the view that though the income tax returns had been filed

belatedly, the same  per se could not be a ground to reject the

same  as a proof of the agricultural income of A1 from grape

garden.  Thereby,  the  High  Court  enhanced  the  agricultural

income  of  A1  to  Rs.52,50,000/-  permitting  an  addition  of

Rs.46,71,600/-.   

253.  Apart from the fact that the approach of the High Court

304

Page 304

304

on  this  aspect  appears  to  be  summary  in  nature  without

reference  to  the  other  evidence  on  record  as  had  been

exhaustively discussed and analysed by the Trial Court, in law

the income tax returns/orders passed thereon qua the issue

are not final and binding on a criminal court, and at best only

are relevant and always subject to its independent appraisal

on merits.

254.  It has been urged on behalf of R1/A1 that her claim of

income  of  Rs.52,50,000/-  under   this  head  stands  proved

wholly  on the basis of the relevant income tax returns and the

orders  passed  thereon.  Oral  evidence  of  DW-64  and  the

documentary  evidence  by  way  of  D-61  to  D-64  have  been

relied upon.   As observed hereinabove,  the High Court  had

readily accepted this evidence and had thereby enhanced the

income of  A1 under  this head to Rs.52,50,000/- by adding

Rs.46,71,600/- to the sum of Rs.5,78,340/- mentioned by the

DVAC.   In absence of any independent evidence in support of

this claim,  having regard to the state of law  that income tax

returns/orders  are  not  automatically  binding  on  a  criminal

court,  in our view,  the effortless acceptance thereof by the

High Court  is  in  disregard to  this  settled  legal  proposition.

305

Page 305

305

Thereby the High Court has accorded  unassailable primacy to

such income tax returns/orders and have made those  final

and binding on the criminal court without any appreciation of

the probative  potential thereof.  

255.  The  High  Court  thus  had  proceeded  not  only  in

disregard of the evidence as a whole but also being oblivious of

the legal postulations enunciated by  this Court that income

tax returns/orders passed thereon are not binding on criminal

court and that the facts involved are to be proved on the basis

of  independent  evidence   and  that   the  income  tax

returns/orders are only relevant and nothing further.  

LOANS:

256.  The second additional head of income involved by the

respondents constitutes loans in addition to the bank loans

cited by DVAC as taken note of  by the High Court  to add

Rs.18,17,46,000 to the income of the respondents.

This  item  of  income  significantly  is  suggestive  of  the

collective orientation of the respondents qua the charge as one

corporate  unit.  The  tone  and  tenor  of  the  contents  of  the

applications  for  loan  and  the  composition  of  the

306

Page 306

306

firms/companies availing the benefit thereof, suggest that the

respondents  were  in  collaboration  with  each  other  in  the

transactions which demonstrate  their  combined involvement

therein.

257.  Here,  according  to  the  prosecution,  there  are  two

aspects, firstly there is a duplication as  DVAC has included

these loans in its chart which have been considered by the

Trial  Court  and  secondly,  even  otherwise,  the  High  Court

committed a mistake in adding up the loan amounts of these

additional 10 heads to arrive at a figure of Rs.24,17,31,274

which on a correct calculation, ought to be Rs.10,67,31,224/-.

258.  Noticeably,  these  additional  loan  amounts  have  been

availed of by A1, M/s Sasi Enterprise and other firms like M/s

Jaya Publications,  M/s Jay Real  Estate,  M/s J.S.  Housing,

M/s  J.  Farm  House,  M/s  Ramraj  Agro  Mills  Limited,  M/s

Mahalaxmi  Kalyanmandpam (hereinafter  for  sake  of  brevity

'M/s' as prefix to the names & the firms referred to would be

avoided).

Apt it would be to deal with these loans in seriatim.  

307

Page 307

307

Indian Bank – OMTL – Jaya Publications:  

Rs.1,50,00,000/-

259.  This  head  corresponds  to  item No.  1  of  Annexure  IV

(Expenditure)  -   Exb.  P-2330.  This  indicates  that  this  loan

account  was  closed  on  25.6.1994.  An  amount  of

Rs.50,93,921/- was paid by way of interest on this loan which

is evident from Exb. P-1027.  This has been stated by PW 182.

PW6 also confirms the repayment of the loan.  Thus, this head

of  income did  not  exist  at  the  end of  the  check period i.e.

30.4.1996 and cannot be accounted for.

The  Trial  Court  did  take  note  of  this  aspect  in  its

judgment while dealing with these items of loan on the basis of

the evidence adduced, more particularly while dealing with the

heads of expenditure.  

In  that  view of  the  matter,  the High Court  was in  error  in

including  this item of loan in the income of the respondents.

Indian Bank - Agricultural Loan - Rs.3,75,00,000:

260.  This corresponds  to item No. 8 of the Heads of Income

308

Page 308

308

vide Exb. P-2329 as cited by the DVAC. The oral evidence to

this effect has been adduced by PW 182 who has proved Exb.

P-1101. The Trial Court  dealt with the evidence both oral and

documentary in this regard and by referring to the letter Exb.

P-1001, addressed to the bank by the applicant for the loan

thereof, had concluded that  the liability to liquidate the loan

had been taken over  by A2 to A4.  The evidence  on record,

thus, demonstrates that the Trial Court had taken note of this

item of loan and, therefore the High Court ought not to have

added this figure by way of duplication.

Indian Bank – A1 – Rs.90,00,000/-   

261.  As would be apparent from the evidence of PW 182 who

proved Exb. P-1114, this loan was taken after the check period

i.e. in August 1996 and thus, the amount thereof  could not

have been taken into account by the High Court.  This figure,

therefore as a corollary has to be excluded.

Indian Bank – Jay Real Estate – Rs.25,00,000/-

309

Page 309

309

262.  This corresponds  to item No. 4 of the list of income cited

by the DVAC and relatable to Exb. P-2329.  PW 182 through

Exb. P-1161 to P-1163  has proved this loan.    Exb. P-1161

written by A3 on behalf of Jay Real Estate is one seeking loan

of  Rs.29  lakhs  providing  the  necessary  particulars  in  the

annexure  appended  thereto.  Exb.  P-1162  discloses  that

medium term loan of Rs.25 lakhs was sanctioned by the bank

but  as  on  22.11.1995,  an amount  of  Rs.5  lakhs  had  been

disbursed, as is evident by Exb. P-1163.

The Trial Court has duly dealt  with the evidence to this effect

while  quantifying  the  income  as  well  as   in   noting  the

expenditure by way of interest against this loan.

The plea of  the  prosecution that  in  the  above  premise,  the

High  Court  was  wrong  in  adding   a  sum  of  Rs.25  lakhs

towards the income of the respondents under this head, has to

be accepted.  

Indian Bank  – J.S. Housing  – Rs.12,46,000/-:

263.  This corresponds  to item No. 3 of the heads  of income

cited  by  the  DVAC vide  Exb.  P-2329.   This  loan  has  been

310

Page 310

310

proved by PW 182 through Exb.  P- 1171 to 1173.The Trial

Court  has  referred  to  this  evidence   while  quantifying  the

income and the expenditure by way of  interest on the loan

amount as had been listed in Annexure IV (Expenditure) cited

by the DVAC.

264.  The  documents  pertaining  to  this  loan  transaction

authenticate that  though an amount of  Rs.12,46,000/- had

been  sanctioned by the bank, it had released only a sum of

Rs.7 lakhs and the principal amount and the interest had not

been repaid by the firm.  Thus, per se the High Court was not

justified  in adding a sum of Rs.12,46,000/- to the tally of

income of the respondents under this head.

Indian Bank – Jay Farm House  – Rs. 50,00,000/-:

265.  This corresponds  to item No. 2 of the heads  of income

cited by the DVAC  and has been proved by PW 182 through

Ex P-1211. The records attest  that though the full amount of

Rs.50,00,000/-  was sanctioned, a sum of  Rs.28 lakhs was

only disbursed and the principal amount with interest had not

been repaid.

311

Page 311

311

The  Trial  Court  has  considered  the  evidence,  oral  and

documentary, to this effect.  The addition of a further amount

of Rs.50 lakhs  by the High Court  to the corpus  of income of

the respondents, therefore, is clearly erroneous.

Indian Bank  – Ms. Sasikala – Rs. 25,00,000/-:

266.  This corresponds  to item No. 1 of the items  of income

cited by  the  DVAC   and in fact  had been availed  by  Sasi

Enterprise,  as  has  been  deposed  by  PW  182  through  Ex.

P-1260. The amount due and outstanding to the bank, at the

relevant point of time,  was Rs.13,55,023/-.

The Trial Court noted that the application for loan had been

made by Ms.  Sasikala as the Managing Partner of  the firm

and  had  examined  the  relevant  evidence  including  the

statement  of  account  pertaining  to  the  loan.   This  head  of

income thus had been taken note  by the Trial  Court and,

therefore the High Court was not justified  to add a further

sum of Rs.25 lakhs thereunder.

312

Page 312

312

Indian Bank – Mr. Sudhakaran - Rs. 1,57,00,000/-:

267.  This corresponds  to item No. 7 of the heads  of income

cited by the DVAC  and has been proved by PW 182 through

Ex P-1330. The Trial Court has examined the evidence relating

to this loan applied for by Mr. V.N. Sudhakaran on behalf of

Lex  Property  Development  (P)  Limited   for  a  loan  of

Rs.1,57,00,000/-.  The oral and other documentary evidence

with  regard  to  the  sanction  of  loan  and  the  statement  of

account  has been analysed as well.  The Trial Court, thus,

had taken note of this  loan while computing  the income of

the  respondents.   The  principal  amount,  due   under  this

account  at  the  relevant  point  of  time,  was  Rs.83,00,000/-.

The addition of an amount of  Rs.1,57,00,000/- by the High

Court towards income in the above backdrop is indefensible.

Ramraj Agro Mills Limited - Rs.1,65,00,000/-:

268.  This item is not included in the list of income furnished

by the DVAC.  PW 182 has deposed about this loan through

Exb. P-1349 to P-1354.  The statement of account of Ramraj

Agro Mills Limited is Exb. P-1354.  This has been corroborated

313

Page 313

313

as well by PW 235 who has stated that an amount of Rs.1.65

crores  had been sanctioned as loan.  There is,  however,no

evidence  with regard to the disbursement of any amount qua

the loan sanctioned.  In any case, the amount due to the bank

at  the  relevant  point  of  time  in  this  account  was

Rs.39,10,781/-.  Therefore,  addition  of  amount  of  Rs.1.65

crores, by no means, as done by the High Court, can be said

to be justified.

269.  There is no discussion about this head of loan  by the

Trial Court presumably   due to the absence of any evidence

with  regard  to  disbursement  of  any  amount  in  connection

therewith.  The High Court, however, has added an amount of

Rs.1.65 crores   without   even referring   to  the  evidence  to

ascertain  as  to  whether  any  amount  out  of  the  loan

sanctioned,  in  fact  had been released in favour  of  the  firm

involved.

In any case, examination of Exb. P-1354, the statement

of account of Ramaraj Agro Mills Private Limited pertaining to

this loan, discloses  that, at the relevant time, the outstanding

amount due to the bank was Rs.39,10,781/- and thus, in any

314

Page 314

314

view  of  the  matter,  the  High  Court  could  not  have  added

Rs.1.65 crores against this item.

 

Indian Bank – Maha Subbalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam - Rs.17,85,274/-:

270.  This corresponds  to item No. 6 of the heads  of income

cited by the DVAC  and has been referred to by PW 182 who

proved  Ex P-1357 in connection therewith. The amount due

under this account   at the relevant time was Rs.19,81,802/-.   

The  Trial  Court  has  considered  the  evidence,  oral  and

documentary, to this effect and thus had accounted for this

component  while  quantifying  the  total  income  of  the

respondents.  In this premise, the High Court was not right in

adding the  entire sum of Rs.17,85,274/-, as if the same had

escaped  the notice of DVAC  or the Trial Court.

271.  As  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  would

reveal, it referred to generally the testimony of PW 182 and PW

259  and had observed  that the respondents  had borrowed

loans from the banks  as well as from the private parties which

however have not been taken into consideration.  While noting

315

Page 315

315

the loans availed by the respondents from different firms and

companies,  as named therein,  the  High Court  did,  however

limit itself  only to the loans borrowed from the nationalised

banks, as referred to hereinabove, but wrongly totalled  the

amounts to inflate figure to Rs.24,17,31,274/- which in fact

ought to have been Rs.10,67,31,224/- on a correct arithmetic.

The High Court, thereafter,  adjusting  Rs.5,99,85,274/-, i.e.

the income quantified by the DVAC  added Rs.18,17,46,000/-

(Rs.24,17,31,274  –  Rs.5,99,85,274)  to  the  income  of  the

respondents.

272.  In view of the above discussion, the High Court has not

only erred in including the entire amount of loan encompassed

in ten items, mentioned hereto before, but also premised  its

finding on income on an inflated and patently incorrect figure

of Rs.24,17,31,274/-.  This addition of Rs.18,17,46,000/- to

the income of the respondents, as done by   the High Court, is

obviously erroneous  and thus cannot be sustained.  

To  reiterate,  even  the  High  Court  though  had  referred  to

private loans, availed by the respondents  from A3, J. Farm

House,  Meadow  Agro  Farms   Limited,  Sasi  Enterprises,

Bharani  Beach  Resort,  Lex  Property  Development  Private

316

Page 316

316

Limited, it did not include the same in the total income of the

respondents.   The plea of  the respondents  that  the  income

from private sources had not been considered at all, is thus

untenable, more particularly in absence of any challenge by

them against the above exclusion by the High Court.

GIFTS:

273.  The next additional item of income indicated by the High

Court is gifts offered to A1. The defence has introduced this

item of  income against  receipts  on  the  birthday  of  A  1  on

24.2.1992, claimed to have been celebrated on a grand scale

as it was her first birth day as the Chief Minister of the State

for  the  said  term.   Gifts  by  way  of  jewellery  and  cash  in

particular have been claimed to have been received.  Foreign

remittance  also has been assimilated.  The evidence adduced

by  the  defence  includes  testimony  of  members  of  AIADMK

party,  of  which   at  the  relevant  time,  AI  was  the  General

317

Page 317

317

Secretary. The  decipherable pattern  of the evidence adduced

by  the  members  of  the  AIADMK,  who  claimed  to  have

contributed  along  with  about  300/350 donors  is  that  their

contributions were collected by the concerned office bearers of

the  party  and  thereafter  the  amount  was  converted  into

demand draft in the name of A1.  It is, however,  deducible

from the evidence which is almost stereotype in nature  that

no individual   receipt had been  issued to the contributors

against  their  donations.  Record  of  the  collectors,  as  office

bearers of the party,  has also not been produced.  No account

has been maintained with regard to such collection. A copy of

the draft amount of Rs.2,15,000/- has been proved.  No record

with regard to the banking transactions resulting in the draft

has also been proved. In other words, the source of the fund of

the draft has remained obscure.     

274.  According to the prosecution, the gifts, as claimed by the

respondents,   do  not  constitute  a  lawful  source  of  income

under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act and, therefore had not been

included by the DVAC  in the list of known sources of income.

275.  A1 through her letter dated 6.9.1993 claimed receipt of

gifts of jewellery, cash, demand draft, silver items, silk sarees,

318

Page 318

318

framed portraits  etc. on the occasion of her birthday.   There

is  also  mention of  receipt  of  similar  gifts  qua  the relevant

assessment years  1990-91, 1991-92, etc.  In the concerned

assessment order dated 21.3.1995, affidavits filed relating to

gifts   for  the  assessment  years  1990-91,  1991-92,  1992-93

had also  been considered.     This  assessment  order  would

show that a total of Rs.1,26,32,657/-  was taken to be  the

income against  receipt  of  jewellery,  silver  articles  and  cash

deposits in the bank.  

276.  Ex.  P-2139  is  the  income  tax  return  of  A1  for  the

Assessment Year 1991-92 which had been filed on 23.11.1992

and does not mention  any gift as income from other sources.

However,  the  assessment  order  for  the  assessment  year

1992-93 passed on 21.3.1995 Ex.  P-2140 discloses that  on

7.12.1992, the assessee's representative  filed the receipts and

payments  account  Exp.  2140,  profit  and  loss  account  and

balance sheet,  as  on 31.3.1992 with a  request  to  treat  the

same to be read with the total income statement.  Thereunder,

the  head  “Receipt  and Payment”  for  the  period 1.4.1991 to

31.3.1992, a sum of Rs.1,94,50,012/- has been mentioned to

be  “gifts  received”.   The  said  figure  is  also  shown  in  the

319

Page 319

319

balance sheet as at 31.3.1992. To this, a further amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- also had been added as gifts receipt.

277.  This order thus suggests that in the return of A1 for the

financial  year  1991-92,  a  sum  of  Rs.1,94,50,012/-  against

gifts had not been originally shown but  had been sought  to

be  introduced  on  7.12.1992  as  a  supplementary  income

statement.  Be that as it may, this exhibit i.e. P-2140 also on

the above reasoning, has taken note of this amount and this

receipt as gift has been subjected to tax by taking the same to

be income from undisclosed sources.   

278.  The  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  defence  to  prove  the

income tax returns and the assessment orders, as above, is to

show that receipts by way of cash, demand draft,  jewellery,

silverware etc. had been a normal feature on every birthday of

A1 in view of  the  respect  and  esteem earned by  her  as a

political personality and an adorable leader.  

279.  Incidentally,  the  CBI,  vis-a-vis  the  claim of  receipt  of

Rs.1.5 crores as income from gifts  had filed a charge sheet

against  A1  constituting  the  same  to  be   an  offence  under

Section 11 of the 1988 Act.  The High Court, however,  had

quashed  the  proceedings  on  the  ground  of  delay  in  the

320

Page 320

320

investigation and the CBI has filed a Special  Leave Petition

before  this  Court,  being SLP (Crl.)  Nos.  1163-1168 of  2012

which is pending adjudication.  This fact was not brought to

the  notice  of  the  High  Court,  passing  the  impugned  order

herein.  Noticeably again, as the prosecution asserts, in view of

the  'Explanation'  to  Section 13(1)(e)  of  the  PC Act,  any gift

received by the public servant, to be a lawful source of income

should have been intimated to the authorities in accordance

with law.  Mentioning of such receipt in the income tax return,

per se, according to the prosecution, is not enough.  

280.  The Trial  Court,  while dealing with  this  aspect,  took

note of  the plea of the defence of making   gift by way of cash

and  drafts  amounting  to  Rs.2,15,00,012/-  and  foreign

remittance  of  Rs.77,52,591/- to A1, who had disclosed the

same  in  her  income  tax   return  for  the  assessment  year

1992-93 filed on 22.11.1992.  That the income tax authorities

had  treated  this  amount  to  be  an  income  of  A1  from

undisclosed sources and had levied tax, which was paid by

her,  was  also  noticed  by  the  Trial  Court.   The  evidence  of

PW-259,  the  Investigating  Officer  in  his  cross-examination

that   in  Tamil  Nadu,  party  workers  and  ordinary  people

321

Page 321

321

generally  present  such  gifts  on  the  birthdays  of  political

leaders  and  that from the witnesses examined, an amount of

Rs.1,94,50,012/- had been received through demand drafts as

birthday gift for A1, was also taken on record.  Cash receipts

by way of gift amounting to Rs.15 lakhs for the same event, as

stated by PW-259, was also considered.  Receipts by way of

gifts in the earlier years also did not  miss the attention of the

Trial  Court.   It  noted  as  well,  the  receipt  of  gift  of  the

substantial  amount   by  way   of  foreign  remittance   in

American dollars during 1992-93 from the testimony of this

witness.  

281.  The defence evidence and the income tax returns/orders

proved by the respondents,  were also  considered in details.

The  evidence  in  particular  of  DW-64  S.  Shanmugam,

Chartered  Accountant  in  this  regard  also  was  analyzed.

Noticeably,  this  witness  was  the  auditor  of  A1  during  the

period 1996-2000 but claimed to have dealt with her accounts

for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1997-98.  He generally

reiterated the  evidence  with  regard to  the  disclosure  of  the

receipts by way of gifts  by A1 on the occasion of her birthday

on 24.2.1992   amounting  to  Rs.2,15,00,012/-  and foreign

322

Page 322

322

remittance of Rs.77,52,591/-.  He however admitted that the

income  tax  returns  for  the  assessment  years  1991-92  to

1995-96 of A1 were filed  by her previous tax consultant and

not by him.  

282.  The Trial Court, on an analysis of the evidence of this

witness,  however  was  of  the  opinion  that  he  was  not

acquainted   with  the  true   facts  of  the  case  and  was

incompetent to speak about  the gifts received by A1 or the

income tax returns said to have been filed  by her, as he  was

not her auditor  at the relevant point of time.  The Trial Court

examined as well the relevant returns and the orders passed

by the concerned income tax authorities and rightly noted that

there  was  no  mention  of  the  alleged  presents/gifts  in  the

return  of  A1  for  the  assessment  year  1992-93  at  the  first

instance.  However the factum of receipt of jewellery as gifts

for the period of the wealth tax return of 1991 was taken note

of.  The letter dated 18.3.1994 of A1 reiterating that she had

received  cash/DD/jewellery/silverwares  in  various  years  as

personal gifts on her birthdays and that she had disclosed the

same  in her wealth tax returns and had paid the wealth tax,

also was considered by the Trial Court.  It however, took note

323

Page 323

323

of  the  observation  made  in  Ex.  P-2145  that  the  returns

claiming birth day presents  were not  filed in the  respective

assessment  years but long after and that for the first  four

years, i.e. assessment years 1987-88 to 1990-91,  there was

no  mention  of  cash  presents  and  that  it  was   limited  to

jewellery only.

283.  That  aggrieved by the finding of  the Commissioner  of

Income Tax, PW-125 that the money and assets representing

the presents and gifts  did constitute applicant's income from

undisclosed source within the meaning of Sections 69 and 69A

of the income tax Act, A1 had preferred an appeal before the

Tribunal and that the same  was pending, was recorded.

284.  That  the  receipt  of  money  or  pecuniary  resources  in

order to qualify as income within the meaning of Section 13(1)

(e) of the Act,  in case of a public servant  should essentially be

attached to his/her official post and that any windfall or gain

of graft, crime or immoral secretions  prima facie  would not be

a receipt from the known sources of his/her income  as held

by this Court in  State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta

(supra),  was  noted.  The  Trial  Court  was  of  the  view  that

though the receipt of birthday presents by themselves might

324

Page 324

324

not amount to windfall or immoral secretions, the receipt of

huge  amount  of  Rs.2  crores  and  foreign  remittance  as

presents  and  gifts,  as  the  Chief  Minister  of  a  State,  was

susceptible to serious doubts and suspicion about the nature

of the receipts.  The fact that the  practice of offering such gifts

had been discontinued after 1992 and the possibility of such

offerings   not  being  made  if  A  1  was  not  in  office,  was

pondered over.   The Trial Court discarded the evidence of the

party workers and rejected the A1's claim of income from the

gifts from a lawful source.  The decision of this Court in A.R.

Antulay  Vs.  R.S.  Nayak & Anr., (1988)  2  SCC 602,  was

referred to emphasize upon the objectives of the 1947 Act to

keep  a  public  servant  free  from  corruption  and  to  ensure

purity in public life.  The Trial Court, thus, rejected the alleged

gifts, said to have been received by A1 to constitute a lawful

source of income.   On a reading of the discussion of the Trial Court on this

issue, by no means, can it be repudiated to be one bereft of

appreciation  of  the  evidence  on  record  or  reasons  or

application of mind.

285.   In  contradistinction,  the  High  Court  quantified  the

325

Page 325

325

amount of gifts to be Rs.1.5 crores principally referring to the

income tax returns and the orders of the authorities passed

thereon.   It  did notice  that  there had been a delay in the

submission of the income tax returns but accepted  the plea of

the defence  acting on the orders of the income tax authorities.

It seems to have been convinced as well by the contention that

there was a practice of offering gifts to political leaders on their

birthdays in the State.  Not only is the ultimate conclusion of

the High  Court, de hors  any independent assessment of the

evidence to overturn the categorical finding of the Trial Court

to  the  contrary,  no convincing  or  persuasive  reason is  also

forthcoming.   This assumes significance also in view of  the

state  of  law  that  the  findings  of  the  income  tax

authorities/forums  are  not  binding  on  a  criminal  court  to

readily  accept  the  legality  or  lawfulness  of  the  source  of

income as mentioned in the income tax returns by an assessee

without any semblance of inquisition into the inherent merit of

the materials on record relatable thereto. Not only this aspect

was totally missed by the High Court,  no attempt seems to

have been made by it to appraise the evidence adduced by the

parties  in  this  regard,  to  come  to  a  self-contained  and

326

Page 326

326

consummate determination.

286.  Exb.  P-2145 is  the  order  dated 25.3.1996 of  the  CIT

(appeals)  rejecting the explanation of  A1 with regard to the

gifts said to have been received by her by way of cash, demand

draft, jewellery, silverware for the assessment years 1987-88

to 1992-93.  The order, amongst others, reveals that none of

the income tax returns and wealth tax returns of A1, was in

time.   Whereas  those  for  the  assessment  years  1987-88 to

1991-92 were delayed by periods ranging between one year

and five years and above, that of 1992-93 was also belated.

The explanation provided by A1 in her letters to this effect was

taken  note  of  and   was  not  accepted   by  the  Assessment

Officer and the CIT (Appeals) also sustained this conclusion.

Apart from other aspects, the appellate authority also noticed

the unexplained delay in the submission of the income tax as

well as wealth tax returns.  The observation of the Assessment

Officer  that  the  income  tax  returns  did  not  disclose  the

presents/gifts  received  by  the  assessee  during  the  relevant

time, was also noted.  The appellate authority was of the view,

taking  the  clue  from  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  The

Commissioner  of  Expenditure  Tax,  Andhra  Pradesh  Vs.

327

Page 327

327

P.V.G. Raju, (1976) 1 SCC 241, that politics is a profession

and thus the collections in the form of presents/gifts cannot

but were receipts from profession and, therefore were to be

construed as professional income under Section 28.  As would

be evident from the order, the income tax authorities did limit

their scrutiny only to decide as to whether the receipts by way

of presents/gifts were to be treated as income or not for the

purposes of Income Tax Act and not to verify the genuineness,

authenticity  and  lawfulness  of  the  source  thereof  or  of  the

transactions relating thereto as required from the standpoint

of a charge of criminal misconduct under the 1988 Act.

287.  Apart from the fact that the oral testimony of PWs 215

and  259  as  to  the  practice  of  entertainment  of  gifts  and

donations  qua the political figures of the states on celebratory

occasions is of  no consequence to ascribe any legitimacy to

such receipts  as a lawful source of income under the 1988

Act, in view of the incorporation of Sections 161 to 165A IPC

in their letter and spirit  in the 1988 Act, gifts as claimed to

have been made to A1 were not only prohibited by law, having

regard to  her  office  and the  role  attached thereto,  but  also

constitute an offence thereunder. By no means therefore, the

328

Page 328

328

gifts in any form, as offered to A1 during the relevant period,

can be construed,  having regard to the rationale and rigour of

the  underlying objectives of this lagislation be accepted as a

lawful source of income. To reiterate, disclosure of such gifts

in the income tax returns of A1 and the orders of the income

tax authorities on the basis thereof, do not validate the said

receipts  to  elevate  the  same  to  lawful  income  to  repel  the

charge  under  Section  13(1)(e)  thereof.  The  reliance  of  the

defence on the decisions of this Court in  M. Krishna Reddy

(supra)  and  Kedari  Lal  (supra),  in  the  facts  and

circumstances of the case, is of no avail.   

288.  This  Court  while  dilating  on  the  permissibility  of

acceptance of presents  by public servants, proclaimed in R.S.

Nayak (supra), that if the same is allowed, it would facilitate

circumvention of the prohibition of acceptance of bribe in the

shape of present/gift. An analytical insight into the ingredients

of Sections 161 to 165A of IPC, then on the statute book as a

part of the Code was undertaken to propound  that the ambit

of Section 165 was wider than that of Sections 161,162 and

163 IPC and was intended to cover cases of corruption. It was

elaborated that the difference between the acceptance of bribe

329

Page 329

329

made punishable under Section 161 and 165 IPC was  that

under the former section, the present is taken as a motive or

reward for abuse of office but under the latter, the question of

motive or reward is wholly immaterial and the acceptance of a

valuable  thing  without  consideration  or  with  inadequate

consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any

business to be transacted,  is  forbidden because though not

taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour, it

is likely to influence the public servant to show official favour

to a person giving such valuable thing. It was underlined that

Sections 161 and 165 IPC  as well as Section 5 of the PC Act

are intended to keep the public servant free from corruption

and thus ultimately to ensure purity in public life.

289.  Gifts to A1, a public servant in the context of Sections

161 to 165A IPC now integrated into the Act are visibly illegal

and forbidden by law.  The endeavour to strike a distinction

between  “legal”  and  “unlawful”  as  sought  to  be  made  to

portray gifts to constitute a lawful source of income is thus

wholly misconstrued.   

290.  With  the  advent  of  the  1988  Act,  and  inter  alia

consequent upon the expansion  of the scope of definition of

330

Page 330

330

the “public servant” and the integration of Section 161 to 165A

IPC in the said statute, the claim of the defence to treat the

gifts  offered  to  A1  on  her  birthday  as  lawful  income,  thus

cannot receive judicial imprimatur.

INCOME  OF  SASI  ENTERPRISES  BY  WAY  OF  RENTAL INCOME,  AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN.

291.  This  partly  corresponds  to  the rental  income of  this

firm, listed at item Nos. 59,60 and 61 in the Heads of income

furnished  by  the  DVAC,  amounting  to  Rs.6,15,900/-.

Whereas  the  Trial  Court  had  rejected  the  claim  of  Sasi

Enterprises of having earned Rs.95,92,776/- as income  under

the  various  heads  i.e.  profit   from business,  sale  of  scrap,

agricultural income, rental income, recovery of loan, advance

receipt  for  sale  of  property  and  had  sustained  the  figure

mentioned by the prosecution,  the High Court assessed the

same to be Rs.25,00,000/-.

292.  As the evidence on record would reveal, in support of

their claim, the respondents relied heavily on the income tax

331

Page 331

331

returns  and  the  orders  passed  thereon  for  the  assessment

years 1991-92 to 1996-97 and the oral testimony of DW-88.

Ex. D-262 to D-275 were pressed into service.  Qua the rental

income  of  Sasi  Enterprises,  according  to  the  respondents,

against a sum of Rs.12,68,800/-, the DVAC had accepted only

Rs.6,15,900/- as reflected against item Nos. 59, 61 and 62 of

the schedule of income furnished by it.   

293.  DW-88  K.  Soundravelan  claimed  to  be  a  Chartered

Accountant  since  1992  had  deposed  to  have  handled  the

accounts of Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises and also

the personal accounts of A2 and the firms concerning her. He

is stated to have been involved in the finalisation of accounts

of  the  above  assessees.   He generally  identified the  various

exhibits  like  income  tax  returns,  profit  and  loss  accounts,

balance sheets and the orders of the income tax authorities in

connection therewith.   He  also   stated  with   regard  to  the

business in which Sasi Enterprises  was involved in the name

of FAX Universal.   He referred to a lease agreement of one TSR

Vasudevan  with  Sasi  Enterprises    in  the  year  1990  for

carrying out agricultural operations  and also a copy of the

certificate issued by the Tehsildar of Villupuram with regard to

332

Page 332

332

the   leasehold  lands.   He  identified  as  well  the  documents

produced by the firm indicating recovery of  a part of the loan

advanced to one Nagammal and Subramaniam.  Noticeably,

his  testimony was based on the contents of  the documents

alone.  He in the same vein, also referred to the agricultural

income as reflected  in the relevant income tax returns.  He,

however,  admitted  that  Sasi  Enterprises  had  not  filed  its

return of income for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96

and 1996-97 in time for which  notices had been issued under

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. This assumes importance

in view of   the  prosecution launched against  this  firm  for

delayed submissions of the income tax returns.

294. The prosecution had examined PW-113 Mosin Bijapuri

on this issue,  who at the relevant time i.e. 1992-93, was the

Managing Director in H.B.M. Foundation Limited.  He stated

about  taking on rent  by his company, a shop for which  an

advance  of Rs.21,600/- was made.  He also stated about the

payment of rent till 1997  i.e. till vacation of the premises.  He

referred to a copy of the rent agreement with Sasi Enterprises

but conceded that he did not know as to who had signed on

behalf of the firm.

333

Page 333

333

295.  The  Trial  Court  evaluated  the  oral  as  well  as  the

documentary evidence in full.  It analysed the contents of the

documents  individually  so  as  to  examine  the  tenability  or

otherwise of the claim of income under various heads for each

assessment  year  during  the  check  period.    It  recorded,

amongst  others,  that  in  terms  of  Section  269  (SS)  of  the

Income Tax Act,  no one was permitted to take or accept  from

any other  person,  any amount of  loan or deposit  exceeding

Rs.20,000/-  except  by  way  of  account  payee  cheque  or  an

account  payee  bank  draft.   It  examined  this  aspect  in  the

context of the definition of “known source of income” applied

in  Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  Act.   Reference  to  Section  269-D

regarding repayment also  through an account payee cheque

or an account pay bank draft was made.  Though it had been

argued on behalf of the respondents that in view of the Direct

Tax Laws (Amendment)  Act  of  1987,  Section 276DD, which

provided  for  prosecution  and  penalty  for  contravention  of

Section 269DD, had been repealed, non-compliance of Section

269SS,  even  assuming  that  such  violation  did  not   attract

prosecution  under  the  Act,  the  same  cannot  be  ignored  in

334

Page 334

334

order to determine the veracity and/or the acceptability of the

transactions involved.  At least to this extent, the approach of

the Trial Court and the application of Section 269SS merits

acceptance.

296.  The Trial Court was also of the view that vis-a-vis the

plea of  recovery of loan, the defence had mainly endeavoured

to substantiate the claim of income  under the aforementioned

head on the basis of the profit and loss account, there being

no  other  tangible  proof  either  of  grant  of  loan   or  the

repayment thereof. That the defence had neither examined the

loanee  nor  had  produced  any  material  in  support  of  the

transaction was recorded.  It also discarded the profit and loss

account in support of the plea of the defence that an amount

of Rs.16,91,000/- had been recovered out of the loan advance

to Nagammal and Subramanium.

297.  The Trial  Court  rejected the lease agreement  between

TSR Vasudevan and Sasi Enterprises, amongst others, on the

ground  that  the  claimant's   lease  was  for  a  period  of  11

months  which was  impermissible  under  Section 107 of  the

Transfer  of  Property  Act.   Further  there  was  no  acceptable

evidence  that  the  land  had  been  cultivated  to  claim

335

Page 335

335

agricultural income.   The letter of the Tehsildar, Vellupuram

Ex. 259 certifying that A2 was a lessee of the land involved

from  1980  to  1988  was  also  rejected  in  absence  of  any

evidence that the lease, the original term whereof had expired

on  21.7.1992, had been extended thereafter.   Additionally,

the certificate dated 25.10.2001 was de hors any proof of any

local inquiry or scrutiny of the relevant lease deeds, rendering

the said document a suspect.  According to the Trial Court,

the income tax returns, the profit and loss accounts and the

balance  sheets  as  well  as  the  orders  of  the  income  tax

authorities did not prove the claim of income as made by the

defence in absence of independent and persuasive evidence to

that effect.  The letter produced by the Housing Real Estate

and Development Private Limited   cited as a tenant of the firm

in support of the plea of having paid to it an amount of Rs.10

lakhs as rent,  was also  rejected, the document being on a

plain sheet of paper without any date of issuance thereof.  The

discrepancy  in  the  name  of  the  firm  was  also  noticed  to

dismiss this claim as inauthentic.  Ex. D-274 adduced by the

defence  as  an  excerpt   from the  confirmation  of  accounts,

furnished  by  Housing  and  Real  Estate  Development  Pvt.

336

Page 336

336

Limited also did not find the approval of the Trial Court, the

same not  having been proved by the author  thereof  and in

absence  of  the  required  particulars  of  the  transaction,

pertinent thereto. The Trial Court as a whole thus rejected the

claim of Sasi Enterprises of the additional amount of income of

Rs.95,92,776/-  during the check period.  

298.  The  High  Court  accepted  wholly  the  documents

produced  by  the  defence  as  enumerated  hereinabove  and

acted on the contents thereof.   It is however  noteworthy that

the narration in relation thereto, does not reveal any analytical

approach  to  the  fathom  probative   value  thereof  on  the

touchstone of acceptability of the proof of  the  facts proposed

thereby.  Neither the oral nor the documentary evidence has

been tested independent of the income tax returns, profit and

loss  accounts  and  the  balance  sheets  to  determine  the

intrinsic worth thereof.  At the conclusion, however, against

the  claim  of  Rs.95,92,776/-,  the  High  Court  assessed  the

income  of  Sasi  Enterprises  to  be  Rs.25,00,000/-.  No

acceptable basis for this computation has also been disclosed.  

299.  We have examined the oral and documentary evidence

referred to hereinabove to the extent warranted.  Apart from

337

Page 337

337

the fact that the contents of the income tax returns, the profit

and  loss  account  and  the  balance  sheet  for  the  relevant

assessment years, as well as the determination made by the

income tax authorities on the basis thereof, are not final and

binding on the criminal  court,  the investigative approach of

the  Trial  Court  visibly  has  been  relatively  exhaustive  and

searching qua every piece of  evidence adduced as expected.

Though the orders of the income tax authorities on the various

aspects of the issue under consideration, reveal examination

of  the  materials  considered  to  be  relevant  therefrom in  the

limited perspective of computation of taxable income alone, we

are left with the impression that High Court has not made any

endeavour to appraise the evidence available, independent of

documents/records pertaining to income tax assessments and

the  decision  of  the  tax  authorities     to  arrive  at  its

conclusions.   The  income  tax  returns  and  the  appendices

thereto as well as the orders of the income tax authorities, to

reiterate are neither decisive nor binding on the criminal court

and the facts narrated therein, if fall for scrutiny in a criminal

proceeding,  have  to  be  essentially  addressed  by  adducing

evidence to prove or disprove the same, as the case may be.

338

Page 338

338

Correspondingly,  the  court  would  be  legally  obliged  to

undertake an incised scrutiny thereof on its own to record its

deduction therefrom.  

300.  The  respondents  having  claimed  the  income  of

Rs.95,92,776/-  as  against   Rs.6,15,900/-  quantified  by  the

DVAC, the onus was on them to prove the same.  Even judged

by the bench mark of balance of probabilities, in our view, the

High Court in order to reverse the determination of the Trial

Court, on the same set of evidence ought to have applied itself

to examine and assess the evidence in this perspective.

301.  The  High  Court,  in  our  view,  having  regard  to  its

approach has failed as an appellate forum and as a higher

court of facts to appreciate the evidence in the correct legal

context.  The finding of the High Court, on this issue, thus,

cannot be sustained.  

Rental Income of A1

302.  Whereas the  DVAC  quoted  Rs.40,01,127/-  to  be  the

income under this head as listed against Item Nos. 53 & 54 of

the Heads of Income, according to the defence, the same ought

339

Page 339

339

to have been Rs.43,75,132/-.  The Trial Court considered the

oral evidence of PW-102 Raghwan, who at the relevant time,

was  the  Manager  (Administration)  of  the  firm  Plant

Construction Private Limited which had taken on rent  from

M/s Jaya Publications, vide  lease deed Ex. P651, the building

mentioned therein and owned by M/s Jaya Publications on a

monthly rent of Rs.1,05,000/-.  This witness also proved the

agreements whereby the tenancy had been extended thereafter

from time to time on enhancement of rent.

303.  This witness testified as well with regard to the tenancy

of another house also belonging to M/s Jaya Publications vide

lease deed Ex. P655 initially at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-,

which  stood  enhanced  thereafter  on  renewal  of  the

tenancy/lease.  According to this witness, the rent was paid

through cheques and in all for the period January, 1993 to

April,  1996,  an amount  of  Rs.43,75,132/-  was paid to  this

effect to M/s Jaya Publications.   

304.  It has been urged on behalf of A1 that she had received

an amount  of  Rs.90000/-  by  way  of  monthly  advance  and

Rs.2,32,000 by way of rental income during the check period.

Reliance has been placed on Ex. P-936 (statement of Central

340

Page 340

340

Bank of India of A1), P-2334 and P-2336 being her statements

of account during the relevant period.  The evidence of DW-64

S-Shanmugam, who claimed to be her Chartered Accountant,

has also been referred to.

305.  The learned Trial Court accepted this evidence and noted

that though the total rent paid did sum up to Rs.43,75,132/-,

the prosecution had taken this figure to be Rs.40,01,127/-.  It

however declined to interfere on the ground that rental income

was  taxable  under  the  Income Tax  Act.  The  High Court,

on the  other hand, without any discussion of the evidence

added Rs.3,22,000/- to the rental income as the prosecution

had omitted to do so.

306.  In our view, as the evidence adduced by the defence did

establish that Rs.43,75,132/- had been paid as rent for the

two premises in question, as identified under item nos. 53 &

54 in the list of income provided by the DVAC, the High Court

was justified in adding Rs.3,22,000/-.   

Income of Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR:

307.  The  appellant-State  has  also  taken  exception  to  the

341

Page 341

341

addition  of  an  amount  of  Rs.4  crores  by  the  High  Court

towards income of Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR in

addition to the figure cited by the DVAC.   

308.  Jaya Publications is the proprietorship firm of which, at

the relevant time, A1 and A2 were partners.  As per the deed of

partnership, it carried on business of all types of printing and

publication of  newspapers/magazines/ periodicals   etc.  and

such other business or businesses to be mutually agreed upon

between the  partners.   It,  as  per  the  records,  purchased  a

factory  shed  with  the  factory  building  and  had  installed  a

printing  press  thereat  and  had  commenced  its  business  of

printing  and  publication  of  news  letter  of  AIADMK  party

namely;  “Namadhu MGR” for circulation amongst the public

and various other agencies.

309.  It is claimed by the defence that a non-interest paying

deposit scheme was started in the year 1990  to supply free

copies  of  the  newsletter  against  deposits  of  Rs.12,000,

Rs.15000, Rs.18000 annually for which the subscribers could

get  4,  5  or  6  copies  of  such  newsletter  per  day,

correspondingly.   The provision for refund of the deposit by

giving prior notice was made as well.  

342

Page 342

342

310.  The  defence  examined  DW-88  K.  Soundravalan,  a

Chartered  Accountant  who  claim  to  have  handled  the

accounts of Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises and  was

involved  in  the  finalisation  of   accounts  of  the  said  firms

during  the  period  1992  to  1996.  He  referred  to  the

aforementioned scheme and also the rates of subscription.  He

stated that Jaya Publications was an assessee of income tax

from the  year  1991.   According  to  him,  he  had  personally

produced  the  books  of  account  of  the  assessee  before  the

special auditors for the assessment year 1994-95 which were

certified to have been maintained properly.  He identified the

income  tax  returns  of  the  firm  for  the  assessment  years

1991-92  to  1993-94  i.e.  Exbs.  D-218,  D-219,  D-220,

submitted on 6.11.1988.  He also identified  the income tax

returns of Jaya Publications for the assessment years 1994-95

to  1996-97  i.e.  Exbs.  D-221  submitted  on  17.3.1998  and

D-222, D-223 submitted on 17.3.1999. He deposed that along

with  the  returns,  statement  of  income  tax,  balance  sheets,

profit  and  loss  accounts  were  furnished  for  the  respective

years.  He however admitted that the balance sheets for the

343

Page 343

343

assessment  years  1994-95,  1995-96,  1996-97  were  not

available in the records  produced in court by the income tax

department and that he did produce the  attested copies of the

balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the assessee for

the years ending 31.3.1994, 31.3.1995 and 31.3.1996 i.e. Exb.

D-224, D-225 and D-226 respectively.  He also referred to the

list of subscribers to the deposit scheme for the year 1992-93

i.e. Exb. D-228 and also mentioned about the scrutiny of the

accounts  for  the  years  1991  to  1996  by  the  income  tax

authorities.  He stated that the assessing officer did not accept

the claim of scheme deposit for the assessment year 1991-92

by  his  order  dated  26.3.2001.  But  the  concerned  C.I.T.

(Appeals),  in  the  appeal  filed  by  the  assessee,  accepted the

claim of scheme deposit subscription.  

Similarly, the CIT (Appeals) did uphold the claim of the

assessee for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-1994.  

311.  Qua  the  assessment  years  1994-95  to  1996-97,

according  to  this  witness,  the  assessing  officer  partially

allowed the claim which was upheld in the appeals by the CIT

(Appeals).  Eventually, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B-

344

Page 344

344

Bench, by a common order, accepted the claim of the assessee

regarding  the  deposit  scheme  except  in  respect  of  41

depositors,  who  denied  to  have  made  such  deposits.   The

witness  did  disclose  that  the  matter  was  remanded  to  the

assessing officer with a direction to afford an opportunity to

the  assessee  to  cross-examine  these  41  depositors.  The

witness admitted that such enquiry was pending. He, however,

deposed  that  under  the  deposit  scheme,  Jaya  Publications

collected an amount of Rs.14,23,89,000/- over the period of

six years.   

312.  The witness disclosed that the main source of income of

Jaya Publications was sale of newspapers, advertisements and

printing on job work basis and that as per its profit and loss

statement, the net profit derived by it from the above sources,

during  the  assessment  years  1992-93  to  1996-97,  was

Rs.1,15,94,848.60/-.  He  also  mentioned  about  agricultural

operations being carried out by Jaya Publications in the name

of Sapthagiri Farms which yielded agricultural income.   

313.  The  Trial  Court,  took  into  account  the  particulars  of

income of Jaya Publications as claimed by the defence for the

assessment  years  1992-93 to  1996-97 sought  to  be  proved

345

Page 345

345

through the oral evidence of DW 88 and various documents

Exh.  D-217  to  D-235.   The  break  up  of  the  income  from

various sources, as furnished by the firm, discloses that   its

income  through scheme  deposit  over  the  above  period  was

Rs.14,10,35,000/- and qua other sources including sales, job

work,  advertisements,  interest,  agricultural  income,  rentals

etc.  Rs.1,15,94,848/-.  The Trial Court  was conscious  of the

fact  that  the  defence  in  support  of  its  claim of  the  income

aforementioned, had   called in evidence the  testimony of 31

witnesses, who did speak about the deposits made by them

under  the  scheme,  in  addition  to  DW 88  and  that  further

reliance had been placed on the special audit report  obtained

by  the  income  tax  authorities,  Exb.  P-217,  orders  of  the

commissioner of  income Tax (Appeals)  Exb. D-231 to D-234

as well  as the balance sheets filed along with the returns Exb.

D-218 to D-222.    

314.  The Trial Court rightly noticed that the returns for the

assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 had been  filed

much belatedly on 6.11.1998 and that  in these returns, the

nature of  the business of  the firm was shown as “printing,

publishing and dealing in properties”.  It also noted that in the

346

Page 346

346

balance sheet, enclosed to the return of the year 1991-92, an

amount of Rs.13,54,000/- was shown in the liability column.

The amounts of Rs.82,14,000/- and Rs.3,05,40,000/-, being

scheme deposit, were also shown in the liability column in the

balance sheets  enclosed with the returns for the assessment

years 1992-93 and 1993-94.  The Trial Court noticed as well

that the return for the assessment year 1994-95 Exb. D-221

had been filed only on 17.3.1998 and that the balance sheet

attached thereto, showed scheme deposit of Rs.51,31,50,00/-

in the liability column.   That the return for the assessment

year 1995-96 was also filed only on 17.3.1999 much belatedly,

was noticed as well.  The Trial  Court  mentioned and rightly

that this return as well as the return for the assessment years

1996-97 i.e. Ex. D-222 and D-223 did not mention about the

scheme deposit.   That  the  defence,  however,  separately  got

marked  the  profit  and  loss  accounts  for  the  years  ending

31.3.1994, 31.3.1995 and 31.3.1996 vide Exb. D-224, D-225

and D-226, was taken note of.   The Trial Court, however, left

out  of  consideration  these  documents  i.e.  profit  and  loss

accounts,  aforementioned  firstly  because  those  were  only

attested copies and secondly, as those did not disclose in any

347

Page 347

347

manner,  to  have  been  filed  with  the  corresponding  return

before the income tax authorities or produed before them at

any point of time.

315.  The  evidence  of  the  31  witnesses  with  regard  to  the

deposits made by them of amounts varying from Rs.12000/-

to Rs.18000/- is more or less of the same model and owing

allegiance to the AIADMK party.  Some of them also proved

their  application  for  becoming  subscribers  but  though they

stated  to  have  been issued  receipts  for  the  deposits  made,

none produced the same.

316.  The  Trial  Court,  in  assessing  the  evidence  on  record

traced the proceedings before the income tax authorities on

this count, beginning from the assessment year 1991-92.  It

marked  as  to  how  the  claim  of  scheme  deposit  had  been

rejected by the assessing officer  as the  impounded books of

accounts  did  not  reflect  the  same,  whereafter  following  the

re-assessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals)  upheld  the  same.  In  this  backdrop  of  the  initial

failure of  the assessee to produce the necessary documents

before the assessing officer supporting the scheme deposit and

the  unexplained  delayed  in  submission  of  the  income  tax

348

Page 348

348

returns for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 only on

6.11.1998, the Trial Court held the view  that the defence had

contrived the story of scheme deposit only in the year 1998

and in furtherance thereof, mentioned about it in the profit

and  loss  account  statement  enclosed  to  such  returns.  The

Trial Court, however, did not rest contended   on that finding

but  scrutinised  as  well  the  applications  of  the  subscribers

brought on record.  It, however, noted the explanation of the

assessee before the income tax authorities for non-production

of such application forms, counter-foils of receipts etc. on the

ground that those had gone missing and that a complaint with

regard thereto had been lodged.  The Trial Court thus reflected

on the credibility of the defence stand that such application

forms had been obtained from the income tax department.  It,

however, appears that DW-88 did refer to the files containing

the applications.  In any view of the matter, these applications

under  Exb.  D-230  had  been  produced  at  the  trial  by  the

defence.

317.  The Trial Court recorded that DW-88 had admitted   that

there  was  no  mention  in  Exb.  D-217,  the  report  of  the

Chartered Accountant of Jaya Publications addressed to the

349

Page 349

349

income  tax  authorities,  that  the  books  of  accounts  of  the

assessee  had  been  produced  before  the  special  auditors.

Further, it had been noted in the report Exb. D-217 that all

payments  through cash were not  supported by any outside

document or evidence and that they were only supported by

internally made vouchers with proper payees signatures.  The

Trial Court also recorded that DW-88 had admitted that profit

and  loss  accounts/balance  sheets  of  the  assessee  as  on

31.3.1994, 31.3.1995, 31.3.1996 i.e. Exb. D-224 to D-226 did

not  bear  the  date,  seal  and  signatures  of  the  income  tax

authorities.  Further  Exb.  D-228,  the  claimed  list  of

subscribers also did not  contain the seal  and signatures of

Jaya Publications. That the original subscription applications

contained  in  Exb.  D-230(1)  to  Exb.  230(17)  had  not  been

produced  before  the  income tax  authorities  but  their  xerox

copies were only produced, was noted as well.  The Trial Court

was categorical  in bringing on record the fact that it was only

after the CIT (Appeals) had set-aside the assessment order i.e.

3.3.1988 rejecting the claim of scheme deposit of the assessee

on 15.9.1998 that Jaya Publications filed its returns for the

assessment  years 1991-92,  1992-93,  1993-94 on 6.11.1998

350

Page 350

350

mentioning for the first time such deposits. That in the course

of the scrutiny thereafter, in response to the notice issued by

the assessing officer,  Jaya Publications did not produce the

originals of the applications and the counter-foils of deposits

but only copies, was taken note of.   

318.  The Trial Court also analysed the evidence of PW 201

C.K.R.K. Vidya Sagar, an officer of the Canara Bank, Mylapore

Branch disclosing the transactions of heavy amounts inter se

the  accounts   of  Jaya  Publications,  Namadhu  MGR,   Sasi

Enterprises,  Metal  King  Company  of  which  A2  was  the

proprietor and Vinod Video Vision  to indicate, according to it,

circulation  of  unaccounted  and  undisclosed  funds   in  the

names of various firms and companies of which A1 to A4 were

either  directors  or  partners  at  the  relevant  point  of  time.

Referring  to  the  amounts  mentioned  by  PW-201  in  the

accounts of Jaya Publications, the Trial Court disbelieved the

plea  of  credit  of  deposit  of  Rs.14,10,35,000/-  as  collection

from subscription under the deposit scheme as claimed by the

defence.

319.  The Trial Court on an overall assessment of the evidence

concluded  that  the  story  of  scheme  deposit  had  been

351

Page 351

351

introduced  by  the  defence  only  after  the  charge-sheet  had

been filed on 4.10.1997 i.e.  through the income tax returns

filed in the year 1998.  That no evidence had been produced

before the Court to show that the scheme had been floated in

the year 1990, was recorded.  While rejecting the claim of this

head of income by the defence, the Trial Court sought to draw

sustenance from the fact that  the assessee had not produced

the primary documents either before the special  auditors or

the assessing officers and also rejected the applications Exb.

D-230 series as manufactured.  The testimony of subscribers

was  dismissed also on the ground that they were hardened

party workers.

320.  The High Court, though had traversed  the above facts in

lesser  detail,  dealt  with the  oral  and documentary  evidence

and  noted   that  the  defence  claim  of  scheme  deposit  of

Rs.13,89,19,475/-,  as  accepted  by  the  concerned  CIT

(Appeals), was subjudice before the High Court, Madras.   The

High Court reiterated as well that the income tax returns for

the relevant assessment years had been filed  very belatedly

and that no plausible explanation, therefor was forthcoming.

That neither A1 nor A2 had examined  themselves, was noted.

352

Page 352

352

The High Court also did take into  account  the fact that  at

one  point  of  time,  the  assesee  had  complained  that  the

applications  by  the  subscribers  were  missing  and  that

complaint  to  that  effect  had been lodged,  but  subsequently

those  applications  said  to  have  been  presented  before  the

income tax department were marked in court.  The High Court

categorically held  that delayed and unexplained submission of

income tax returns  did give rise to doubt of the genuineness

thereof.  This notwithstanding, the High Court only in the face

of the oral evidence of the 31 witnesses claiming themselves to

be the depositors/subscribers for the newsletter,  returned a

finding  that  the  whole  claim  of  the  assessee  could  not  be

rejected only on the ground of delay in filing of the income tax

returns. Acting solely on this consideration, the High Court,

thus  allowed addition of a sum of Rs.4  crores as income of

Jaya Publications.  

321.  Not only as referred to hereinabove, in our view, the Trial

Court had been alive to the relevant materials  bearing on this

issue and had founded its conclusions on elaborate scrutiny

thereof,  its  criticism  by  the  defence  that  it  had  left  out  of

consideration amongst others, the oral evidence of PWs 201,

353

Page 353

353

PW-230 and DW2 to  DW67 and  DW88 is not acceptable.  The

grievance with regard to non production of the report of the

internal  auditor  of  the  DVAC  about  the  affairs  of  Jaya

Publications and the accounts of Namadhu MGR as adverted

to by PW 259 in his testimony, is also not of any conclusive

relevance.  Not only the absence of the report does not prove

the  defence  plea,  significantly,  no  endeavour  was  made  on

behalf  of  the  respondents  to  summon the  said  report.  The

contention that the omission on the part of the prosecution to

examine  the  internal  auditor  and  to  produce  his  report

warrants adverse inference against the prosecution, does not

commend for  acceptance.This is  more so as the prosecution

had  not  accepted  the  deposit  under  the  Namadhu  MGR

scheme to  be  a  lawful  source  of  income.   The respondents

consequently in order to establish it to be one, ought to have

discharged their burden to satisfactorily prove the same and

for that matter, ought to have taken necessary steps, if such

report was construed  to be vitally essential.    

322.  Vis-a-vis  the  balance  sheet  and  the  profit  and  loss

account  for  the  relevant  assessment  years,  rejected  by  the

Trial  Court,  suffice  it  to  record   that  mere   marking  of

354

Page 354

354

documents without  any objection from the  prosecution ipso

facto,  in  law  is  not  an  authentication  or  proof  of  contents

thereof and the plea to the contrary, thus cannot be sustained.

Further, reliance on the presumption based on clause (d) of

the Explanation under Section 139(9) of the  Income Tax Act,

1961, to suggest that the balance sheet and the profit and loss

accounts must have been filed along with the corresponding

income tax returns and that  the  failure  on the  part  of  the

income  tax  department   to  produce  the  same,  does  not

demolish  the  plea  of  the  defence  of  submission  of  such

balance sheets and profit  and loss accounts along with the

returns, in our estimate, is no answer to the inaction on the

part of the respondents to prove by better evidence  that the

balance sheets and the profit and loss accounts  supposed to

accompany  the  income  tax  returns  mandatorily,  had  infact

been filed  therewith, more particularly in view of the apparent

discrepancies  in  the  balance  sheet  and  the  profit  and  loss

account for the assessment year 1994-95, proved at the trial.

323.  The evidence of PW 201 on which great emphasis has

been laid by the respondents, to start with,  is contradictory

on the date  of  opening of  the current  account of  Namadhu

355

Page 355

355

MGR.   Though  reference  has  been  made  by  this  witness

vis-a-vis current account No. 1952 of Namadhu MGR about

deposits  made  therein  from  18.12.1991,  significantly  it  is

apparent from his testimony that sizeable amounts have been

transferred therefrom to the accounts of A1, A2, A3 and A4,

Jaya  Publications,  Sasi  Enterprises,  Anjaneya  Printers  Pvt.

Ltd., Metal King, Green Farmhouse,  Meadow Agro Farms and

Fax  Universal  (unit  of  Sasi  Enterprises)  on  various  dates

during the check period.

324.  Having regard to the overall evidence with regard to the

scheme deposit and the free flow of funds from the account of

Namadhu  MGR  to  the  respondents  and  their  firms,  the

concurrent conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court

against  this  source  of  income,  as  claimed  by  the  defence,

appear to be unexceptionable.   

325.  Significantly, though the High Court had rejected  this

source of income also on scrutiny of the materials on record

albeit  less  exhaustively  compared  to  the  Trial  Court  and

noticing  as  well  the  unexplained  belated  submission  of  the

income tax returns of the relevant years, the said finding has

remained unchallenged by the respondents.

356

Page 356

356

326.  At the cost of repetition, having regard to the conspectus

of facts pertaining to this issue, the Trial Court was within its

authority and being obliged in law, rightly  scrutinised  the

evidence  independently to assay the genuineness or otherwise

of  the  claim of  scheme deposit  made by  Jaya Publications.

Considering the  different phases of the process undertaken by

the  income  tax  authorities,  the  failure  of  the  assessee  to

produce  the  primary   documents  in  original  before  the

auditors and the income tax authorities in support of  such

scheme deposit and more particularly the inordinate  delay in

submission of income tax returns much after  the submission

of  the  charge-sheet,  along  with  the  other  attendant

circumstances considered by the  Trial  Court,  we are of  the

view  that  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  allowing  an

additional sum of Rs.4 crores as income of Jaya Publications

on account of scheme deposit merely on the basis of the oral

evidence of the 31 witnesses.  This is more so when  it was

otherwise convinced on the appreciation of  the  evidence  on

record  that  the  income  tax  returns,  in  particular   for  the

relevant assessment years, incorporating the scheme deposit

357

Page 357

357

were doubtful in view of the unexplained delay in submission

thereof.  In other words, though the High Court itself  was left

unconvinced about the  acceptability of the claim of scheme

deposit, due to largely delayed income tax returns, it benignly

did award an income of Rs.4 crores to the assessee only on the

basis of the oral testimony of 31 witnesses who, as noted by

the Trial  Court,  owed unstinted allegiance to AIADMK party

with  no  legally  acceptable  documentary  evidence  to

corroborate the same.  The   addition of this additional sum of

Rs.4 crores as income of Jaya Publications, having regard to

the  state  of  the  evidence  with  regard  thereto,  cannot  be

upheld.

Income of A1 by way of interest on bank deposit:

327.   A further sum of Rs.18,49,210/- has been claimed on

behalf  of  R1/A1 as her  income by way of  interest on bank

deposits.  Though the prosecution against the relevant items

of income has accepted a sum of Rs.58,90,925/-, according to

the R1/A1, it ought to have been Rs.77,40,135/-.  Thus the

claim of the additional amount of Rs.18,49,210/-.  To endorse

358

Page 358

358

this  claim,  this  respondent  has  again  wholly  relied  on  the

income tax returns/orders for the assessment years 1992-93

to  1996-97,  where  various  amounts  were  shown under  the

head “income from other sources”.   

328.  The Trial Court had dealt with these items elaborately.

It  examined  the  evidence  of  PWs  164,  173,  201  and  202,

officers   of the concerned banks  with reference to the copies

of  the  contemporaneous   statements  of  accounts  and  had

accepted  the  figures  available  thereunder.   It,  however,

declined  to  accept  the  profit  and  loss  account  statements

adduced on behalf  of  the said respondent in support of the

enhanced claim of  Rs.77,40,135/- as her income by way of

interest   in  absence  of  any other  reliable  evidence  to  that

effect.  Even assuming that the contention on behalf of this

respondent that profit and loss accounts were indeed part of

the respective  income tax returns and had, in any case, been

separately tendered and marked in evidence at the trial, in law

the same per se was not an unassailable authentication of the

probative  worth  of  the  contents  thereof,  so  much  so  to

repudiate  the  approach  of  the  Trial  Court  to  be  incurably

erroneous.  Further the High Court seems to have omitted   to

359

Page 359

359

adjudicate this issue.   

329.  To reiterate, as the scrutiny of the evidence on record in

a  trial  on  a  charge  under  the  1988  Act,  coupled  with  the

imputation of conspiracy and abetment  has to be essentially

in the perspectives attuned to  the  ingredients of the offences

involved and not divorced therefrom, unreserved reliance on

the  disclosures of income in the income tax returns and the

orders passed thereon by the income tax authorities would be

an approach not in accord with law.  The omission on the part

of the prosecution to object either to the admissibility of the

income tax  returns/orders or the mode of proof thereof, ipso

facto would not  endow  the contents thereof  with probative

efficacy.  The reliance on the decision of this Court in R.V.E.

Venkatachala Gounder  vs  Arulmigu Viswesaraswami &

V.P. Temple and another (2003) 8 SCC 752 on this aspect is

thus of no avail to the respondents.   

330.  This decision dwell on the nature  of objections as to the

admissibility of documents e.g. an objection that it is  by itself

inadmissible in evidence or as to the mode of  proof  thereof

alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient.   It is not an

authority on the proposition that if  none of these objections is

360

Page 360

360

taken,  the  contents  of  the  document  so  introduced,  would

automatically have to be accepted as the unassailable proof of

the facts conveyed thereby.  

Income of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd.  – Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

331.  Whereas the Trial Court has rejected this claim, the High

Court has allowed it.  This head of income was not included by

the DVAC in its list and the defence plea has been that the

same  had  been  wrongly  and  deliberately  excluded.   This

amount is claimed to be the legitimate income of A3 from his

business initially carried on as the proprietor of Super Duper

T.V.  and  later  incorporated  as  Super  Duper  T.V.  Private

Limited.  The Trial Court  did refer to the evidence of PW 259,

the  Investigating  Officer,  who  deposed  that  the  seized

documents included 22  fee receipt books maintained by the

firm, each of 100 leaves and that the counter-foils  showed

receipt of Rs.5000/- each.  The witness, however, denied that

the  sum  otherwise  totalled  at  Rs.1,10,00,000/-  was  the

income of  Super Duper T.V.  and that this amount was not

included as income of A3 as the same had been utilised in the

361

Page 361

361

expenditure to run the company.   

332.  As referred to by the defence, the learned Trial Court did

take note  of  the  testimony of  witnesses  DW 65  to  DW 73

about the deposits made by them with the company during the

check  period.   The  documents  exhibited   by  DW  85,  the

Manager of the company to prove the receipt of Rs.1.10 crores

was  also  considered.  The  Trial  Court  recorded  that  this

company was one of those floated by A2, A3 and A4 during the

check  period  and  that  it  had  introduced  a  deposit  scheme

whereunder  the  cable  operators  made  cash  deposit  of

Rs.5000/- or multiples thereof and that in that process the

company  received  deposit  of  Rs.1,06,10,100/-.   In  addition

thereto, the Trial Court noted as well that the company did

receive  periodical  lease  rent  of  Rs.1500/-  p.m.  from  other

equipments given on hire.  The lease agreements to this effect

were  also  considered.  The  claim  that  the  company  had

supplied  equipments  to  Tamil  Nadu  Tourism  Development

Corporation  Limited  was  recorded.   The  copies  of  the

assessment  orders  exhibited  were  examined  and  the  Trial

Court  concluded  that  there  was  no  reason  to   doubt  the

business transactions carried on by A2 and A3 in the name of

362

Page 362

362

Super Duper T.V. Private Limited. It, however, recorded with

reference to the assessment orders relied on by the defence i.e.

Ex.  D-182,  D-183  and  D-184  that  those  were  belatedly

submitted after the charge sheet was filed on 4.10.1997.

333.  Vis-a-vis the claim of  the defence that  the amount of

Rs.1,06,10,100/-  as business income was available with A2

and A3 in addition  to other incomes, the Trial Court noted,

amongst  others,  that  as  per  the  Cable  Television  Network

Rules, 1994 enforced  on and from 29.4.1994, only refundable

security  deposits  was  permissible  and  that  though  receipt

books and counter-foils  of the payee-in- slips to show  that

the amount of Rs.5000/- each collected from large number of

subscribers  were  credited  to  account  No.  1152,  there  was

nothing on record to show  how the investments were made for

the purchase of equipments claimed to have been supplied by

the company to various subscribers and that in any case, this

amount could not  have been available  with the A3 as  the

stable corpus  of income for purchase of immovable properties,

as claimed.  Referring to the evidence of DW-85,  PW-182 and

PW 201  in details,  the Trial  Court recorded the huge cash

inflow and outflow to and from the account of the company.

363

Page 363

363

Noticeably, such deposits and withdrawals had been, vis-a-vis

several  accounts  involving  A1  to  A4  and  the  firms  and

companies floated by them during the check period of which

they were partners/directors, as  the case may be.  All these

were  noted  by  referring  to  the  accounts  and the  individual

transactions.  The Trial Court having regard to the enormity of

bank transactions inter se amongst the respondents and their

firms/companies declined to sustain the contention of A3 that

they were possessed of  independent source of  income and the

same  was  available  with  him  and  A2  for  acquisition  of

properties in their names.

334.  As against  this,  the High Court chiefly   relied on the

evidence  of  DW-85,  who  introduced  himself  as  the

Manager/Administrator of the company  during 1995-96 and

the  fee receipt books and the counter-foils  pertaining to the

claimed deposit of Rs.5000/- per member as  non-refundable

entrance fee.   

335.  Further,  it  accepted  the  investments/documents

exhibited at the trial with regard to payments received by the

company  amongst  others  from  the  Tamil  Nadu   Tourism

Development Corporation Ltd. and other public/public sector

364

Page 364

364

undertakings  in  connection  with  the  business  transactions

entered into.  It, in the passing also, noticed the assessment of

the returns of the company by the income tax authorities and

assessed the same to be Rs.1,00,00,000/-.  

336.  In our considered view, the High Court in appreciating

the evidence adduced missed the facets of the charges levelled

against the respondents and confined itself seemingly  to the

statements of  the claimed depositors and the deposit  books

and the counter-foils in connection therewith.  The Trial Court

in  contradistinction,  not  only  did  analyse  the  oral  and  the

documentary  evidence  adduced  by  the  parties  in  proper

details, it took pains to examine the trail of the income claimed

by the company and  the  feasible investments thereof.  It also

took note of the huge inflow  and outflow of cash to and  from

the accounts of the firms/companies of which the respondents

were partners/directors during the check period so much so

that  the  income  claimed  by  A3  under  this  head  ceased  to

retain its independent identity so as  to be accepted as  the

discernible  earnings   of  the  company  for  transacting   its

business  activities  as a  distinctly  separate  institution.   The

revelation  regarding  the  bank  transactions  are  matters  of

365

Page 365

365

record gleanable from the oral and documentary evidence to

this effect and, in our estimate, assume great significance in

the  backdrop  of  the  charge  of  conspiracy  and  abetment

imputed against the respondents.  The summary treatment  of

the  evidence  on  this  issue  by  the  High  Court,  in  our

comprehension,  lacks  the  desired  approach  and  insight

and,therefore, cannot be sustained.  The addition awarded by

it  of  income of  Rs.1,00,00,000/-  to  Super  Duper  T.V.   Pvt.

Limited, thus cannot be upheld.          

Refund of Wealth Tax to A1:

337.  Respondent  No.1/A1  has  pleaded  addition  of  further

amount of Rs.1,35,631/- by way of refund of wealth tax as on

22.4.1993 and to reinforce this claim, has placed reliance on

Exh. P-2336  and P-1382 being her  Statement of Affairs as on

31.3.1994 and  the  Statement of Account of Canara Bank,

Mylapore,  Madras,  for  the  period  1.4.1993  to  30.4.1993

showing the receipt/deposit of the said sum.  The testimony of

DW64 has also been pressed into service.  

338.  Having  regard  to  the  concept  of  wealth  tax  and  the

366

Page 366

366

comprehension of assets  and net wealth attracting such levy,

this  refund,  though  contemplated  by  the  Wealth  Tax  Act,

1957, ipso facto does not certify the lawfulness of the wealth

on which initially, a tax was charged and later refunded.  In

absence  of  any  other  evidence  to  satisfactorily  prove  the

legitimate  origin  and  status  of  the  wealth  relatable  to  the

refund, in our view, the same cannot be accepted to be an

income from the lawful source as envisaged in Section 13(1)(e)

of the Act.  More over there appears to be no discussion or

analysis  of this claim of income by the R1/A1  either by the

Trial Court or by the High Court.

Income of A1 from M/s Sasi Enterprises:

339.  The next addition sought for is by way of income   from

M/s Sasi Enterprises.  To bolster this claim, reliance has been

placed on Ex. D-267, the balance sheet of Sasi Enterprises as

on 31.3.1993  indicating payment of  registration charges of

Rs.2,86,569/-  for  31A,  Poes  Garden  and   Ex.  P-2334,  the

statement of account  of A1 for the assessment year 1996-97

showing receipt of an amount of Rs.3,42,000/- from M/s Fax

Universal   to  her  current  account  No.2018.   It  is  in  this

367

Page 367

367

premise, A1 asserted that under this head, she had an income

of Rs.6,28,569/- from Sasi  Enterprises, M/s Fax  Universal

being an unit of the said firm.  Incidentally and indubitably, at

the  relevant  time,  A1  and  A2  were  the  partners  of   Sasi

Enterprises  and  A2  was  one  of  the  partners   of  M/s  Fax

Universal as well.  The exchanges of the reserves mentioned

hereinabove are therefore   for all practical purposes inter se

A1  and  A2.  The  claim  of  the  defence  to  accept  the  above

amount  to  be   lawful  income  in  the  attendant  facts  and

circumstances, lacks persuasion.

Loan by A1 from A2:

340.  Loan of an amount  Rs.1,53,03,000/- from A2 and her

proprietary firms  forms the next sequence of income claimed

on behalf  of  A1.   The  oral  testimony  of  PW-201,  Manager,

Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch and Ex. P-2332, 2334, 2335,

2336,  statement  of account of A1 for the  assessment  year

1996-97,  P-1382,  P-1117  have  been  referred  to  for

demonstrating the receipts/deposits of various amounts from

A2, Fresh Mushroom Limited and  Vinod Video Vision.  

368

Page 368

368

341.  Admittedly,  A2 was the sole proprietor of  both,  Fresh

Mushroom and Vinod Video Vision at the relevant time and

thus the deposits, though speciously are evidenced by bank

transactions are visibly,  inter se,  A1 and A2 and her firms.

These receipts essentially have to be tested in the backdrop of

the  charge  of  conspiracy  and  abetment  so  as  to  determine

their genuine evidential worth.

342.  As referred to hereinabove, this Court in Commissioner

of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala (supra),  while examining

the challenge to the addition  made by the Assessing Officer

in respect  of receipts through foreign gifts, exhibited  by bank

transactions, held on an evaluation of the materials on record

that the transactions of  gift  were not real,  though apparent

and concluded that the fact that  money had come by way of

bank  cheques  and   had  been  paid  through  the  process  of

banking  transaction  by  themselves  was  no  certificate  of

authenticity. While comprehending that a transaction though

apparent  may  not  be  real,  as  may  be  demonstrated  by

contemporaneous  factors,  associated  therewith,  rejection  of

the  genuineness  of  the  gift  by  the  Assessing  Officer,  was

369

Page 369

369

sustained.

343. Having regard to the amalgam of  the  persons and the

entities involved in the transactions, aforementioned, we are

not inclined, in the absence of other convincing   evidence, to

accept  the  said  receipts/deposits  to  be  lawful  income  as

envisioned in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

A1’s Income from   Jaya Publications, CANFIN Homes  and Namadhu MGR:

344.  The next unit of income of A1 as per the respondents is

receipts  as  a  partner  from  Jaya  Publications  from  three

sources  i.e.  drawings  from  Jaya  Publications,  loan  from

CANFIN Homes which had been repaid  by Jaya Publications

on  behalf  of  A1  and  withdrawals  from  Namadhu  MGR.

Vis-a-vis the first component referred to hereinabove, it  has

been endeavoured on behalf of A1 to demonstrate on the basis

of  oral  and  documentary  evidence  which  mostly  constitute

entries in the Current Account No. 2047 of Jaya Publications

by way of withdrawals of various amounts therefrom in favour

of A1.  Such transfers as the relevant statement of account of

A1 and the entries in the aforementioned current account of

370

Page 370

370

Jaya Publications would indicate are of 5.8.1991, 12.8.1991,

21.10.1992,  21.3.1995,  17.7.1995,  7.11.1995,  each  of  an

amount  ranging  from  Rs.2  lakhs  to  Rs.5  lakhs.  This  is

significant  in  the  backdrop  of  the  recorded  facts  that  as

disclosed in the income tax returns of Jaya Publications for

the  assessment  years  1992-93  to  1996-97,  its  net  income

during the said period had been Rs.1,15,94,848/-.  According

to A1, under this head, an amount of Rs.1,01,49,900/- had

been withdrawn from the current account No. 2047 of Jaya

Publications.

345.  In addition to the above, it has been claimed on behalf of

A1  that  she  had  availed  loan of  Rs.75  lakhs  from CANFIN

Homes on 29.9.1992 which was repaid by Jaya Publications

on 27.3.1995.  It is asserted by her that this amount was not

refunded by her to Jaya Publications and has to be construed

to be her drawings as a partner of  the said firm.  In other

words, during the check period, Jaya Publications, apart from

disbursing Rs.1,01,49,900/- in favour of A1 did also repay her

loan of Rs.75 lakhs.  Noticeably, as has been recorded by the

Trial Court, while discussing the aspect of loan taken by A1

from CANFIN Homes,  prior to such loan, she had deposited

371

Page 371

371

Rs.1  crore  in  the  fixed  deposit   with  the  said  financial

institution on 6.3.1992.  This, as the Trial Court has, brought

on record is vide the testimony of PW-95 Veerappan, Regional

Manager, CANFIN Homes.  This witness has disclosed further

that the above loan amount was  taken on this fixed deposit.

He stated that on 25.8.1995, A1 again took  loan  of Rs.75

lakhs  on  this  fixed  deposit,  however  qua  a  different  loan

account.

346.  In re the third head, admittedly  Namadhu MGR is only

a publication of  Jaya Publications but has a separate bank

account. A1's claim of having drawn Rs.94,33,000/- as well

from Namadhu MGR is  seemingly  also  in  the  capacity  of  a

partner  of Jaya Publications.   

347.  The deposits and withdrawals represented through the

different entries in the bank accounts suggest multiplication of

transactions  stemming from the  same corpus.  The maze  of

financial  exchanges  in  fragments  involving  different

combinations  hint  at  the  attempt  to  inflate  individual  and

collective  income  of  the  respondents.   The  banking

transactions, though resorted to for proclaiming genuineness

thereof, having regard  to the overall factual conspectus do not

372

Page 372

372

appear to be real.  The claim of income of Rs.2,70,82,900/- of

A1  by  way  of  receipts  from  Jaya  Publications,  therefore  is

unconvincing.  In other words, A1, in our estimate, has failed

to satisfactorily prove this constituent of income.

Additional  Income Claimed by A2 to A4:

348.  Apropos, A2 to A4, their cavil is that the prosecution had

omitted  to  take  into  account  their  actual  income  and  had

limited  it  to  Rs.6,72,41,640/-  in  all.  They  claim  that  the

prosecution  had  not  taken  into  account  Rs.26,50,57,478/-

being  their  individual  income  as  well  as  that  of  their

firms/companies  Sasi  Enterprises,  Jaya  Publications,  Jay

Farm House, Green Farm House, Super Duper T.V., Anjaneya

Printers Private Limited,  J.Jay T.V. Private Limited and Super

Duper  T.V.  Private  Limited.   Break  ups  of  income  under

different heads have been furnished in the form of a chart and

after  effecting  deductions  of  amounts  included  by  the

prosecution  and  payments  made  to  the  outsiders/partners,

they assert that their total income, during the check period,

ought to have been recorded as Rs.28,23,16,656/- instead of

Rs.6,72,41,640/-.  

373

Page 373

373

349.  The  compilation  of  the  relevant  facts  and  figures  in

endorsement  of  the  above  claim  indicates  the  oral  and

documentary  evidence   in  support  of  the  different  items of

income,  those which have not  been considered by the Trial

Court at all  according to them but dwelt upon by the High

Court as well as those examined by the Trial Court but not

accepted by it. Qua certain items, it is not clear as to whether

those had been taken note of by the Trial Court or not.  There

are instances as well of components  of income, scrutinised

by the Trial Court but not responded to by the High Court.

The constituents  of income referred to by A2 to A4 include

those  recorded in  the  income tax  returns  of  A2 during  the

relevant assessment years, loan payable/availed/received by

her from the related firms in the capacity of  a partner and

otherwise, loan secured by such firms from the bank and the

sister  firms,  rental  advance,  agricultural  income  of  Sasi

Enterprises, rental income,  sale of capital assets, net profit of

Jaya Publications and scheme deposits of the Namadhu MGR.    

350.  Further income of A3 through his proprietorship firm,

inter alia from Super Duper T.V. and loan availed from sister

firms and  income of A4 through loans from the related firms,

374

Page 374

374

rent  receipts  etc.  has  been  cited.   Earnings  of  Anjaneya

Printers  Private  Limited and rental  advance received by the

firm  have also been included.  Loan availed by J. Jay T.V.

Private  Limited  from  Indian  Bank,  non-refundable  deposits

obtained from the  subscribers  by Super  Duper  T.V.  Private

Limited have  been taken into account as well to  compute the

income claimed.    

351.  In  reinforcement  of  the  plea  that  an  amount  of

Rs.26,50,57,478/- by way of income of A2 to A4 ought to be

added,  a  collage  of   statistics  qua  the  different  heads  of

earnings/ receipts had been pressed into service.  For the sake

of  convenience  in  scrutiny,  these  are  proposed  to  be  dealt

with in cognates groups.   

352.  Vis-à-vis the item numbers 1 to 21,  according to the

respondents,  the  High  Court  had  dealt  therewith  in  the

judgment  but  except  for  the  item  number  8,  according  to

them,  the  Trial  Court  did  not  even  consider  the  evidence

relatable  thereto.   The  sources  of  income  against  item

numbers 1 to 5 are traceable to the income tax returns of A2

for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95.  The

income  pertains  amongst  others  to  foreign  remittance  of

375

Page 375

375

Rs.51,47,955/- and agricultural income of Rs.35,000/- of A2.

Documentary  evidence  in  particular  by  way  of  income  tax

returns and the orders of the income tax authorities have been

relied  upon.   The  oral  testimony  of  DW-88  has  also  been

referred to.   

353.  Per  contra  it  has  been  contended  on  behalf  of  the

prosecution  that  not  only  the  income  tax  returns  and  the

orders passed in connection therewith are not conclusive of

the lawfulness of the income as referred to therein, the fact

that  M/s Sasi  Enterprises  along with A1 and A2 had been

prosecuted  for  delayed  submission  of  the  returns  for  the

assessment  years  involved  cannot  be  lost  sight  of  while

judging the credibility of  the defence based thereon.  It  has

also been urged that receipt of such huge amount of foreign

remittance by A2 is plainly unacceptable more particularly in

absence  of  any  explanation  by  her  justifying  the  same.

According to the prosecution thus, not only this receipt has

not been satisfactorily accounted for, it is strongly suggestive

of  a  remittance  in  favour  of  A1  in  the  name  of  A2  thus

attracting the presumption to that effect. The prosecution has

pleaded that such a possibility is writ  large in the face of the

376

Page 376

376

charge  of  abetment  and  conspiracy  levelled  against  the

respondents.

354.  Though a defence was sought to be taken on behalf of

the assessee against the prosecution that as the accounts of

the  firm  M/s  Sasi  Enterprises  had  not  been  finalized  and

therefore  no  returns  had  been  filed  and  that  as  the

assessment of the relevant returns had not attained finality,

the indictment was premature, the contentions were rejected.

It was held by this Court in Sasi Enterprises Vs. Assistant

Commissioner  of  Income  Tax, (2014)  5  SCC  139,  that

pendency  of  appellate  income  tax  proceedings  was  not  a

relevant  factor  for  not  initiating  prosecution  under  Section

276CC wherein an offence had been committed for  non-filing

of the return.  It was recorded as well that mere allusion in the

individual returns of the partners, that the account of their

firm had not been finalized and therefore no return could be

submitted was not an acceptable plea to absolve the firm of its

obligation under the Income Tax Act to file the return within

the prescribed period.   

355.  Noticeably, according to the compilation provided by the

defence, the High Court had dealt with item numbers 1 to 21

377

Page 377

377

of the income of A2 to A4.  A plain perusal of the narration of

that  portion  of  the  judgment  reveals  that  the  High  Court

therein  had  dealt  exclusively  with  loans  taken  from  the

nationalized banks as income of the respondents.  Though a

reference has been made of loans availed by the respondents

from various firms as named therein,  the High Court had not

taken into the account the same and had limited itself only to

the  loans  availed  by  the  respondents  from the  nationalized

banks.  In that view of the matter, the items of income under

scrutiny, had also been left out of consideration by the High

Court. Thus the grievance of the respondents that the evidence

with regard to these items of income had not been considered

by  the  Trial  Court,  is  not  of  decisive  significance  more

particularly in absence of any challenge made by the them  to

the omission as well of the High Court in this regard.   

356.  In course of the arguments, attention of this Court had

been  drawn  to  the  Remittance  of  Foreign  Exchange  and

Investment  in  Foreign  Exchange  Bonds  (Immunities  and

Exemptions) Act, 1991.  This is a statute to provide for certain

immunities  to  persons  receiving  remittances  in  foreign

378

Page 378

378

exchange and to persons owning  foreign exchange bond and

for  certain  exemptions  for  direct  taxes  in  relation  to  such

remittances and bonds and for matters connected therewith or

incidental  thereto.   Section  3  of  the  Act,  which  deals  with

immunities,  however  makes it  clear  in  sub section (2)  that

such immunity would not apply in relation to prosecution for

any offence punishable under Chapter IX or Chapter XVIII of

the Indian Penal Code, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances  1985,  The  Terrorists  and  Disruptive  Activities,

(Prevention) Act 1987, The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

or for the purpose of enforcement of any civil liability.

357.  The assertion of the respondents  qua item Nos. 6 and 7

refers to loan availed by A2 for herself and for the business

purposes of her firm Metal King, from Housing and Real Estate

Development  Private  Limited,  Chennai  by  two  transactions

amounting  in  all  to  Rs.60,00,000/-.  To  demonstrate  this

receipt, reliance has been placed amongst others on the oral

testimony of DW 88, the statement of account of M/s Metal

King and also of Housing and Real Estate Development Private

Limited, the lender.  

358.  The prosecution has refuted this claim contending that

379

Page 379

379

though credit entries by way of clearance have been sought to

be brought on record, there is no satisfactory evidence to prove

convincingly the transactions of loan.   It is pleaded that no

one  has  been  examined  on  behalf  of  the  lender   and  the

documents  relied  upon  by  the  respondents  per  se  are  not

enough to satisfactorily account for this receipt. According to

the  prosecution,  the  documents  relied  upon  by  the

respondents  have  not  been  proved  and  the  transactions

referred to have been introduced with the help of the so called

lender  to somehow boost the income of the respondents.

359.  Noticeably, the High Court, to reiterate, did not as well

accept  these items of income  referring to them as private

loans. This assumes significance in the face of  the grievance

of  the respondents  that  the Trial  Court  had not   adverted

thereto and there being no cavil on their part  with regard to

the omission of the High Court as well in this regard.   

360.  The next batch of  income as claimed by the respondents

is comprised of advances received by A2 from Bharani Beach

Resorts, Riverway Agro Products (P) Limited and M/s Meadow

Agro Farms (P) Limited by cheques amounting to Rs.22 lakhs,

Rs.52 lakhs and Rs.32,90,000/-  respectively.   Reliance  has

380

Page 380

380

been placed on the oral and documentary evidence including

the balance sheet of the companies involved, the income tax

returns  for  the  relevant  years   and  also  the  corresponding

assessment  orders.  It  has  been  contended as  well  that  the

Trial Court had wrongly left out of consideration the evidence

adduced.  It has been pleaded  that the Trial Court had erred

in discarding the transactions by referring to Sections 269SS

and  276DD  of  the  Income  Tax  Act.   According  to  the

respondents,  the  transactions  having  been  effected  through

cheques,  Section  269SS of  the  Act  had  no  application  and

further Section 276DD having been deleted by the Direct Tax

Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1989, reference thereto,

the  transactions  being  undertaken  thereafter,    was  wholly

misplaced.   

361.  Per contra, according to the prosecution, the agreement

for sale of property Ex. D-300 against which,  it is claimed that

an  amount  of  Rs.22  lakhs  had  been  received  by  way  of

advance from Bharani Beach Resorts, has not been proved in

law. DW88 being neither the executant nor a witness to the

document,  the  prosecution  has  pleaded,  he  could  not  have

proved this document. Alluding to the advances said to have

381

Page 381

381

been received by A2 from Riverway Agro Products (P) Limited

and M./s.  Meadow Agro Farms (P)  Limited,  the prosecution

has underlined that  A3 and A4 are the directors of both these

companies and the transactions presented  are really transfers

of deposits from one account to the other.  According to the

prosecution,  these  deposits  and  withdrawals  inter  se  the

accounts  are disguised exchanges involving  the circulation of

the money of A1 and cannot be said to be income from lawful

source  in  the  backdrop  of  the  charge  of  abetment  and

conspiracy.   

362.  Whereas, the High Court did not take into account these

receipts of A2, the Trial Court, apart from being of the view

that  cognizance  of  such transfers  of  fund by  way of  lawful

transactions cannot be taken in the face of Section 269SS of

the Income Tax Act and the provisions of the Companies Act,

rejected these also on the ground that the respondents had

failed  to  adduce  acceptable  evidence  with  regard  to  the

resources  of  these  two  companies  to  advance  such  huge

amounts.    

363.  In the opinion of this court, even without reference to

Sections 269SS and 276DD of the Income Tax Act,   the plea

382

Page 382

382

that Ex. D-300 i.e. the agreement for sale of property against

which  Bharani Beach Resorts  had advanced Rs 22 lakhs to

A2, had not been proved, cannot be lightly brushed aside. Be

that  as  it  may,  vis-a-vis  the  other  evidence  on  record,  as

adduced  by  the  respondents  in  support  of  the  advances

received, in absence of evaluation thereof by the High Court, in

the face of rejection of this item of income by the Trial Court,

this  Court  is  disinclined  to  sustain  the  claim  of  the

respondents.   

364.  The next item of income cited on behalf of A2 to A4, is by

way of earnings of A2 to the tune of Rs.2.2 crores as a partner

of  several  firms.   According  to  the  respondents,  all  these

payments  have  been  made  by  cheques  and  the  related

transactions are reflected in the corresponding bank accounts

of  A2  and  the  entities  involved.   The  bank  account  in

particular and the oral testimony of PW-209 have been relied

upon  in support of this source of income.   

365.   As  against  this,  the  prosecution  has  urged  that  in

absence of any evidence to establish the required income of

the firms, which supposed to have advanced amounts ranging

from Rs.20  to  25  lakhs  each,  these  transactions  are  really

383

Page 383

383

sham and made up for the purpose of defence.  It has been

asserted  that  no  tax  returns  (income/commercial/sales)  of

these firms had been brought on record to authenticate  the

extent of their business and earnings  to make such payments

feasible.  Further, the statements of accounts produced show

that all these accounts had been opened on the same day i.e.

20.3.1995  with cash deposit  of  Rs.501 and that there had

been a credit entry  of Rs.20,99,980/-  and a debit entry in

favour of A2 on 20.8.1995. Apart from this common feature in

all these nine accounts, at the relevant time, A2 to A4 and Lex

Property Developers (P) Limited were the partners thereof. It

has also been urged that A3 and A4 were the directors of Lex

Property  Developers (P)  Limited and all  the nine firms were

registered on the same day i.e. 15.2.1995 with the common

address of No. 21, Wellington Plaza.  

366.  The opposition registered  by the prosecution in view of

the recorded facts  which bear out unusual striking features of

similarity of  the nine firms  and their constitution  can by no

means be lightly disregarded by construing the same to be  a

mere co-incident.    

367.  To  reiterate,  whereas  the  remonstration  of  the

384

Page 384

384

respondents  is  that  the  Trial  Court  did  leave  out  of

consideration the evidence in support of this source of income,

the High Court as well did not refer thereto.  

368.  Vis-a-vis the income by way of Rs.2,90,000/-by A2 from

the sale of her properties to Meadow Agro Farms (P.) Ltd., the

High Court as well, according to the compilation furnished by

the respondents, did not account therefor.  In absence of any

demurral  before this Court,  vis-a-vis such omission of  High

Court, we are not disposed to evaluate the facts as a court of

first instance.  With regard to the claim of Rs.4,35,622/- as

cash balance  available with A2 as on 1.7.1991, on her own

showing, as per Ex. P-2191, this amount was in deposit as on

31.3.1991.  In absence of better evidence, it is not possible to

accept  that  the  same  amount  was  also  available  at  her

disposal as on 1.7.1991,   the date of commencement of the

check period.   

369.  With regard to item Nos. 46 and 47 of the compilation

offered by A2 to A4, the claim that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs

in all had been availed by  J. Farm House and Green Farm

House @ Rs.25 lakhs each from the Housing Real Estate and

Development (P) Ltd. during the financial year 1995-96, these

385

Page 385

385

transactions have been sought to be proved  on the basis of

the  bank  statements  of  the  lender  and  its  written

acknowledgment  to  that  effect.  The  genuineness  of  these

transactions  is  sought  to  be  refuted  by  the  prosecution  by

asserting  that  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  in  support

thereof and not only none on behalf  of  the lender has been

examined to prove the same, the documents adduced  also do

not convincingly vouchsafe this source of income.   Noticeably,

though it is the complaint of the respondents  that the Trial

Court did not at all consider this evidence, the High Court as

well  has not dealt therewith.

370.   Item numbers 50 and 51  next referred to on behalf of

A2 to  A4 represent loans advanced by Bharani Beach Resorts

and Vigneshwara Builders in favour of A3 on 18.3.1995 and

29.4.1995  respectively,  totalling   Rs.27  lakhs.   The

prosecution has branded these operations as mere transfer of

money from one account to another under the cloak of loans

which otherwise have not been proved in law.   

371.  The Trial Court did refer to the bank account of Bharani

Beach  Resorts  i.e.  CA-9006  while  dealing  with  the  broader

aspect of opening of more than 50 accounts apart from the

386

Page 386

386

loan accounts during the check period. It did note that at the

commencement of the check period, there were hardly 10 to

12 bank accounts standing in the names of A1 and A2.  It

marked the   particulars   of  52 accounts  in  all  which were

opened  during  the  check  period  in  the  names  of  the

firms/companies  of  which   A1,  A2,  A3  and  A4  were

partners/directors as would appear from the table referred to.

The bank account of Bharani Beach Resorts i.e. C.A. 9006 was

opened 6.2.1995 and noticeably, as claimed by A2 to A4, as

per  the  compilation relied  upon,  loan was advanced by the

said firm on 18.3.1995 to  A3.   To reiterate, the High Court

did not  at  all  advert  to the  oral  and documentary evidence

sought to be relied upon by A2 to A4 in this regard.    

372.  Qua item numbers 52 to 54,  which are loans  availed by

A4  from  Iyyeppa  Property  Development,  Bharani  Beach

Resorts (P) Ltd and Housing and Real Estate Development (P)

Ltd.  during the financial year 1995-96 to the tune of Rs.62

lakhs,  the  prosecution  in  response  to  the  oral  and

documentary evidence sought to be relied upon by A2 to A4,

has sought to dismiss these transactions as mere exchange of

funds, inter se accounts of A2 to A4 and their firms by giving

387

Page 387

387

the same  a colour of loan transactions. These items as well

have been left  out of  consideration by the High Court as is

evident from the impugned decision.

373.  With regard to the item of income by way of hire charges

at serial number 55 of the compilation, suffice it to state that

the Trial Court while dealing with item numbers 45 and 48 of

the Heads of Income of the DVAC had awarded the differential

amount of Rs.6,60,064/- and therefore  the respondents ought

not to have any cavil in this regard.    

374.  Qua item number  56, A4 claims that though she had

received an amount of Rs.1,11,231/- by way of gratuity, the

prosecution has recorded this receipt to be of Rs.1,01,231/-.

The  Trial  Court,  while  dealing  with  this  item  of  income  at

serial number 63 of the Heads of Income of the prosecution,

has observed that in terms of service register, Rs.40,000/- had

been  sanctioned  to  the  legal  heirs  of  T.V.  Jayaraman,  the

husband  of  A4.  In  any  view  of  the  matter,  the  amount  in

difference as claimed by A4 being small, nothing much would

turn on this.    

375.  The next item of income sought to be included by A2 to

A4  is  by  way  of  rentals  of  Mahasubhalakshami  Kalyana

388

Page 388

388

Mandapam.  It  is  claimed  that  the  actual  amount  received

under this head was Rs.17,85,023/- but the prosecution had

quantified  it  to  Rs.14,50,097/-  and  thus  a  further  sum of

Rs.3,34,926/- ought to be added to the income of A4.  Oral

evidence by way of the testimony of DW90 and documentary

evidence has been relied upon. Both the Trial Court and the

High Court have not referred to this head of income or the

evidence pertaining thereto.   

376.  Vis-a-vis item numbers 58 and 59, which represent the

net income of Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd for the years ending

31.3.1994,  31.3.1995  and  31.3.1996  and  rental  advance

received  by  this  firm  during  the  check  period,  totalling

Rs.55,07,715/-,  there seems to be no consideration of the oral

and  documentary  evidence  in  support  thereof  by  the  High

Court.   The Trial  Court  however,  exhaustively  examined all

relevant  aspects  with  regard  to  the  business  activities  of

Anjaneya  Printers  Pvt.  Ltd  since  its  incorporation  on

14.7.1993  with A2 and A3 as its directors.  It noted that the

company  had  filed  its  income  tax  return  on  29.8.1997

declaring undisclosed income for the block period 1.4.1986 to

24.9.1996 of an amount of Rs.10,81,478/-. It referred to Ex.

389

Page 389

389

D-278 relating to the assessment year 1994-1995 that a sum

of  Rs  747/-  had  been  declared  as  income  from  business

operations  but  during  the  year  of  accounting,  an aggregate

sum of  Rs.30 lakhs had been credited as share application

money received from Jaya Publications in three installments

on 29.9.1993,  23.1.1994 and 23.2.1994.  Apart from noticing

the fact that M/s Jaya publications had not filed the income

tax returns for the relevant years,  the Trial Court noted as

well that in the confirmation letter Ex. D-278,  the sources of

funds  available  with  Jaya  Publications  for  making  such

advances  to  Anjaneya  Printers  had  not  been  disclosed.

Referring to this document, further, the Trial Court recorded

that during the search operations of the premises of Anjaneya

Printers, no regular books of accounts  was found and that

consequently   the  assessing  authority  had  held   that  the

computerized copy of the accounts produced by the authorised

representative  of  the  assessee  company  would  have  to  be

construed as not  written in the normal  course of  business.

The Trial Court thus  in this backdrop entertained  a doubt

with regard to  the business operations of  this company as

claimed by it  so as to render  its claim of  income  under these

390

Page 390

390

items  to be unacceptable in law.   To reiterate, the High Court

did not  deal with the oral and documentary evidence in this

regard.    

377.  So far as item number 60 is concerned, which according

to A2 to A4 is  income of Rs.1 crore by way of loan availed

from Indian  Bank by M/s  J. Jay T.V. Private Limited, reliance

has been placed  on the bank statement of this firm.  As per

the prosecution,  this  firm is not one of those involved  in the

case and therefore  its transactions had been left out from the

purview   of   investigation  culminating  in  the  charges.

Whereas the High Court has not dwelt upon this item, it is

likely  that for the reasons cited by the prosecution,  there is

no reference  of this loan in the  decision of the Trial Court as

well.

378.  As the   principal grievance of the respondents is that

such evidence though available on record, the Trial Court did

not advert thereto, the respondents ought to have assailed the

omission on the part of the High Court before this Court in the

manner  as  contemplated  in  law.  In  arguments  as  well,  no

reservation was expressed in this regard.

379.  The  item  of  income  at  serial  number  22  of  the

391

Page 391

391

compilation submitted on behalf of A2 to A4, pertains to loan

said  to  be  availed  by  Jaya  Publications  from Indian  Bank,

Abhayrampuram Branch. It is an admitted fact that this loan

amount of Rs.1.5 crores had been repaid. The High Court has

allowed this head of income and the necessary analysis in this

regard having been undertaken, repetition is avoided.   

380.  According  to  the  respondents,  Sasi  Enterprises  had

availed loan of  Rs.10 lakhs  from Housing Real  Estate  and

Development (P) Limited  and Rs.2 lakhs on 18.10.1995 from

Lex  Properties,  both  by  cheques.   These  transactions  are

sought to be authenticated by the respondents on the basis

amongst others, of the bank statements , their grievance being

that the Trial Court had erroneously excluded  these amounts

by overlooking the evidence to that effect.     

381.  The prosecution has refuted the genuineness of  these

transactions of loan contending  that the bank statements and

the  letters  of  confirmation from the  lenders  concerned,   as

sought to be relied upon by the respondents, do not per se

prove the loan.    382.  Though the Trial Court did refer to the documents, relied

upon by the respondents,  it rejected the same as unreliable.

392

Page 392

392

In  doing  so,  it  made  reference  in  particular  to  letter  of

confirmation of Housing Real Estate and Development (P) Ltd..

383.  The High Court,  on  the  other  hand, did accept these

transactions by making passing reference to the documents

called in evidence by the respondents in this regard.    The

High Court  readily  acted upon the  letter  of  confirmation of

accounts issued by M/s Housing Real Estate Development (P)

Limited  and  also  the  balance  sheet  of  Sasi  Enterprises

indicating that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs had been received by

way  of  unsecured  loan  from  Lex  Properties  Development

Private  Limited.  No  attempt  was  made  to  examine  the

credibility  of  the  documents  in  the  context  of  the  charges

levelled.

384.   The respondents have next claimed  income of Rs.75

lakhs  by way of capital introduction  in Sasi Enterprises  by

A1  on  29.9.1992.     According  to  them,  this  amount  was

contributed by way of capital  by A1  which she had availed as

loan from CANFIN Homes Limited against her fixed deposit of

Rs.1 crore.  Reliance had been placed on the bank accounts of

Sasi Enterprises showing the receipt of Rs.75 lakhs as capital

contribution by A1 as its partner during the check period.

393

Page 393

393

385.  The prosecution has dismissed this transaction as inter

se transfer between the accounts of  A1, the partner of Sasi

Enterprises and the said firm, so much so that it could not be

construed to be  a genuine income.   The High Court  did not

deal with the oral and documentary evidence  to this effect in

details.  The Trial Court  was however of the view  that this

receipt  by   Sasi  Enterprises  was  in  fact  diversion  of

unexplained wealth of A1 to its account.

386.  Next in the que of income claimed by A2 to A4  is by way

of  dues  repaid   to  Sasi  Enterprises   by  M.  Ramachandran

Nagammal and Subramaniuim during 1992-93.  The balance

sheets  of  Sasi  Enterprises as on 31.3.1991 and  31.3.1992

along with the relevant orders of Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals)  have  been pressed into  service  in  support  of  this

assertion.  According to A2 to A4, under this head an amount

of  Rs.61,91,000/- has been received by Sasi  Enterprises by

way of repayment of advances made by it  to these persons.

The prosecution has repudiated this claim contending that the

balance sheets  for the years in question  have been belatedly

prepared to  conjure this plea and thus cannot be relied upon.

394

Page 394

394

387.  The Trial Court indeed  did deal with this document  and

took note of the fact as well  that the claim of repayment of

loan  had  been  accepted  by  the  income   tax  authorities.  It

however  declined  to  accept  the  transaction  of  loan  and

repayment thereof to Sasi Enterprises by holding  principally

that the statement of profit and loss account submitted before

the income tax authorities and proof thereof was not reliable

and authentic.  This is more so  according to the Trial Court

as  neither the loanee of the firm had been examined nor there

was any other material  to show that these transactions had

been disclosed before the income tax authorities at any point

of time before the registration of the case.   

388.  The High Court, however, accepted on its face value  the

relevant balance sheet, the profit and loss account  as well as

of  the  orders  of  the  income  tax  authorities  to  this  effect

without embarking upon any independent verification of the

contents thereof to ascertain the correctness or genuineness of

the  same,  in  the  teeth  of  the  finding  of  the  Trial  Court,

contrary thereto.    

389.  Against  item Nos.  28,  30,  32,  34,  38  and  41  of  the

compilation,  A2  to  A4  have  claimed  rental  income  of

395

Page 395

395

Rs.16,47,800/- during the check period.  The breakups of the

different amounts of income have been set out as well.  They

have  mainly  relied  upon  the  returns  of  the  respective

assessment years and have contended that as the income tax

authorities  had  accepted  the  said  returns  disclosing  their

rental income, the sum of Rs.16,47,800/- ought to be included

in their total tally of income.   

390.  Per contra, the prosecution has refuted this claim on the

ground that the balance sheets adduced before the income tax

authorities were all belatedly prepared as had been admitted

by DW-88 and thus cannot  be accepted to  be authentic  to

sustain this item of income of A2 to A4.   

391.  The  Trial  Court  rejected  this  claim inter  alia on  the

ground that the respondents had failed to produce any lease

deed or rent receipt as acceptable proof of such income and

has analysed the oral and documentary evidence offered by A2

to A4 in this regard.  The High Court however relied principally

on the income tax returns and the statement of income and

the balance sheet of the concerned years to accept this claim.

392.  A2 to A4 have next claimed a sum of Rs.9,72,550/- as

the  agricultural  income of  M/s Sasi  Enterprises  during  the

396

Page 396

396

assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.  Whereas according to

the  concerned  respondents,  the  income  tax  returns  as

accepted  by  the  income  tax  authorities  adequately

demonstrate  the  agricultural  income  of  the  firm,  the

prosecution  has  dismissed  this  claim  contending  that  the

income tax returns, the statement of income and the balance

sheet to this effect are all prepared subsequently and cannot

be accepted to be genuine.   

393.  The Trial Court noticed the reliance of the respondents

on  the  relevant  income  tax  returns  and  the  orders  of  the

income tax authorities accepting the same rather than on any

independent and acceptable evidence of lease involved and in

fact  rejected the copy of  the lease deed produced in one of

such instances by recording cogent reasons.  It did take note

of the fact that neither the   lessor in any case nor any person

who had purposely carried on the agricultural operations had

been examined and  discarded the materials produced by the

respondents in support of this head of income.   

394.  Apropos the next segment of  income, i.e.  from sale of

capital  assets  of  Sasi  Enterprises,  the  respondents   have

claimed  it to be Rs.10,20,000/- during the assessment year

397

Page 397

397

1994-95. Reliance has been placed on the related income tax

return which had been accepted by the concerned authorities.

The  prosecution  has  repudiated  this  claim  contending  that

the same being based on belated balance sheet  prepared and

produced through DW-88, the same is per se unacceptable in

law.   The Trial Court did take note of this income  and while

considering the same along with other  heads of  income i.e.

agricultural  income,  rental  income,   repayment  of  loan etc.

dismissed  the  same   principally  on  the  ground  of  want  of

reliable  evidence.   It  discarded   the   statement  of  income,

balance sheet and profit and loss account for the relevant year

in support of this item of income

395.  To  reiterate,  the  High  Court  however  acted  on  the

income  tax  return  and  on  a  overall  consideration  of  the

evidence, mostly the income tax returns and the orders of the

authorities  together  with  the  related balance  sheet  and the

profit  and  loss  account  accepted  the  income  of  Sasi

Enterprises  collectively  to  be  Rs.25  lakhs  during  the  check

period.   

396.  Vis-a-vis the income from business operations of  Sasi

Enterprises as  enumerated against item numbers 36 and 39

398

Page 398

398

of the compilation, which according to the respondents, was in

all Rs.2,39,701/- by way of income from business operations

for  the  year  ending  on  31.3.1994  and  profit  of  business

operations for the year ending 31.3.1995, they again wholly

relied  on  the  income  tax  returns  for  the  assessment  years

1994-95 and 1995-96, which as a matter of record, had been

submitted on 1.1.1997 and 26.9.1997 respectively.  Whereas

the respondents assert that the income tax authorities having

accepted these returns, this amount of Rs.2,39,701/- ought to

be added to the income of Sasi Enterprises during the check

period, the prosecution  has rejected the claim on the ground

that  the  belated income tax  returns  and the  corresponding

balance sheets lack in credibility and thus cannot be accepted

as evidence in support thereof.   

397.  The Trial Court duly noted this head of income along

with  the  other  sources  of  income of  the  firm.  It  dealt  with

amongst  others  the  oral  testimony  of  DW-88  and  on  a

comprehensive scrutiny of the evidence adduced,  declined to

accept  the  same  in  absence  of  any  authenticated  proof  in

support  thereof.   While  dealing  with  the  other  sources  of

income as well, the Trial Court refused to rely  on the income

399

Page 399

399

tax return, the statement of income, the balance sheet and the

profit  and loss account for  the concerned assessment years

doubting the genuineness of these documents/records.   This

was more so, according to the Trial Court, in absence of any

other independent and cogent evidence in support of the claim

of income made by the firm.

398.  The  High  Court   generally  referred  to  the  evidence

adduced by the respondents and without  any endeavour to

evaluate the same  to ascertain its  probative worth,  readily

acted thereon to return a finding that the income of the firm,

cumulatively having regard to the various sources claimed by

it,  was assessable at Rs.25 lakhs.   

399.  Qua the claim of  A2 to A4 that they earned Rs.6 lakhs

during the assessment year 1996-97 from the proceeds of sale

of  building  materials  pertaining  to  industrial  estate,  Gundy

and  Rs.23,80,000/-  as  advance  received  towards  sale  of

property by it during the assessment year 1995-96  based too

on  the  relevant  income  tax  returns,  the  prosecution  has

adhered to the same stand i.e. unreliability  of such returns as

valid  and absolute proof  of such claim.  The Trial Court took

note  of  the  fact  that  the  claim  of  total  income  of  Sasi

400

Page 400

400

Enterprises   during  the  check  period  was  Rs.95,92,776/-

which included these two items.  On an analogy of reasonings,

rejecting the income tax returns and the records associated

therewith, it  declined to take cognizance thereof.     

400.  Item number  44 of the compilation  deals with the net

profit  earned by Jaya Publications for the assessment years

1992-93  to  1996-97  amounting  to  Rs.1,15,94,849/-.  The

respondents contend  that the above income by way of profit

stands duly proved by the income tax returns for these years

and are supplemented by the profit and loss accounts. Their

grievance is  that  the Trial  Court  had rejected this head of

income by dismissing the income tax returns and the profit

and loss accounts  as unreliable, the same having been filed

after  the  registration  of  the  case.    The  prosecution  has

endorsed  this approach of the Trial Court.   

401.  The High Court, while dealing with this aspect did notice

as well that the income tax returns for the relevant years of

Jaya  Publications  had  been  filed  much  belatedly  and  had

expressed  its  reservation  qua  this  claim.   The  High  Court,

while  dwelling on this  segment  of  income,  did  elaborate  its

appraisal mainly on the scheme deposit but concluded that in

401

Page 401

401

view of the belated submission of the income tax returns, the

assessee stood disentitled to any relief based thereon.  While

recording that the Namadhu MGR newspaper was one of the

publications of Jaya Publications  and that none of the two

accused persons i.e. A1 or A2 who  then were the partners had

examined themselves in support of the claim of income from

the deposits made by the subscribers under the scheme, the

High  Court,   however  did  not  reject  the  claim  of  the

respondents as a whole and awarded a sum of Rs.4 crores as

income  earned  by  Jaya  Publications  acting  solely  on  the

evidence of the ardent party workers de hors any independent

corroboration.    

402.  The Trial Court noted the different sources of income of

Jaya  Publications  with  the  corresponding  figures  and

exhaustively assayed the evidence, oral and documentary in

connection  therewith.  It  analysed  the  oral  evidence  of  the

depositors  under  the  scheme  as  well  as  the  income  tax

returns,  the  profit  and  loss  accounts  of  the  corresponding

assessment  year,  the  orders  passed  by  the  income  tax

authorities  and eventually rejected the claim wholly, taking

the view that the evidence adduced in support thereof did not

402

Page 402

402

commend for acceptance.  It noticed as well the fact that the

income  tax  returns  of  the  firm  had  been  submitted  much

beyond the time statutorily prescribed and in particular, after

the case had been registered against the respondents.   In this

context, it noticed the inflow and outflow of funds from and to

the  current  account  of  Jaya  Publications  vis-a-vis  the

Namadhu MGR's  current account and that of the account of

A1, Sasi Enterprises, Vinod Video etc. of which either A1 and

A2  together  or  A2,  A3,  A4   were  the  partners/proprietor

thereof.  While  rejecting  the  scheme  deposit  as  sham  and

frivolous and designed after the filing of the charge sheet, the

Trial Court concluded that the evidence in support thereof had

been  devised  only  for  the  purpose  of  defence  against  the

charge levelled.

403.  Regarding  the  other  heads  of  income  of  Jaya

Publications during the relevant assessment years, the Trial

Court  also  referred  to  the  evidence  adduced  in  support  of

agricultural income  in the form of testimony of DW-88 and

the  orders  passed  by  the  concerned  income tax  authorities

and  rejected  the  same  as  lacking  in  probative  worth,  the

income  tax  returns  of  the  assessment  years   1991-92,

403

Page 403

403

1992-93, 1993-94  having been filed  on 6.11.1998 and those

of 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 on 17.3.1999 much after

the registration of the case against the respondents. That no

witness in support of the factum of cultivation and the nature

of crops grown was examined, was noted.  

404.  With regard to income from sales/works, the Trial Court

observed that the profit  and loss account statement for  the

relevant years, at the first place, had not been enclosed with

the  returns,  but  were  produced   after  the  year  1999.

Moreover,    those  lacked  in  veracity  and  therefore,  were

wanting in credence.   

405.  The earnings by way of rental  income were also rejected

being based on the profit and loss accounts of the respective

years which the Trial Court discarded as untrustworthy.  

ASSETS

406.  The items of assets of the respondents as on 1.7.1991

(i.e.  at the beginning of the check period) have been set out in

Annexure  I  to  the  charge-sheet  and  comprise  of  52  heads

valued at Rs.2,01,83,956.53. (Annexure P-2327). Annexure II,

according to the DVAC, lists 306 items of assets at the end of

404

Page 404

404

the check period i.e. 30.4.1996, valued at Rs.66,44,73,573.27

(Annexure P-2328). Thus,  according  to  the  prosecution,  the

value  of  assets  acquired  during  the  check  period  by  the

respondents is Rs.64,42,89,616/-. 407.  The  prosecution  has  distributed  these  assets  in  12

categories.  For ready reference, the figures  cited/arrived at

by the prosecution, defence, Trial Court and the High Court

have been furnished in the table below:

 SL.

Categories As per DVAC

Rs.

As per T.C.

Rs.

As per H.C.

Rs

As  per Respondents

Rs. 1 Immovable  Property

(Consideration,  cost of registration)

22,83,99,174.70 20,07,80,246 6,24,09,120/- 16,19,03,301

2 Cash  paid  over  and above  sale consideration

2,53,80,619/- 1,58,30,619 nil NIL

3 New  or  additional construction  of buildings

28,17,40,430 22,53,92,344/- 5,10,54,060/- 8,60,59,261/-

4 Gold  and  Diamond jewellery

5,53,02,334.75 2,51,59,144/- As  per prosecution

NIL

5 Silverwares 48,80,800/- 20,80,000/- As  per prosecution

NIL

6 F.Ds. and shares 3,42,62,728/- 3,42,62,728 As  per prosecution

2,30,00,000

7 Cash  balance  in bank accounts

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

97,47,751.32

8 Vehicles 1,29,94,033.05 1,29,94,033.05 As  per prosecution

81,35,106

9  Machinery 2,24,11,000 2,24,11,000 As  per 94,25,835

405

Page 405

405

prosecution

10 Footwears 2,00,902.45 Nil. Nil. NIL

11 Sarees 92,44,290.00 Nil. Nil. NIL

12 Wrist watches 15,90,350.00 15,90,350 As  per prosecution

Nil.

TOTAL 68,61,54,413.27 55,02,48,215/- 25,46,52,177/- 29,82,71,254.32

408.  The judgment of the High Court at page 966 reveals that

it has for the purposes of computation, accepted the value of

the assets of the respondents at the end of the check period to

be Rs.66,44,73,537/- as noted by the prosecution.  Further,

though it has reduced the value of the assets vis-a-vis item

Nos.1,  2,  3,  10  and  11  out  of  the  12  categories

aforementioned,  it  essentially  caused  modification,  in

quantifying the value of assets, with regard  to item number 3,

pertaining to new or additional construction of buildings.  As

would be evident from its rendering, it assessed the value of

this  item  of  assets,  to  be  Rs.5,10,54,060/-  compared  to

Rs.28,17,40,430/- as mentioned by the prosecution.  It thus

reduced the value of the assets by Rs.23,06,86,370/-.  While

making  the  calculations,  however  the  High  Court  took  the

value of the cost of construction as cited by the prosecution to

406

Page 406

406

be Rs.27,79,88.945 and on the basis of its assessment of the

value  of  the  new or  additional  construction  of  buildings  at

Rs.5,10,54,060/-, it effected a reduction of Rs.22,69,34,885/-.

According to the prosecution even if this valuation of the new

or additional construction of buildings as made by the High

Court is accepted, the other items remaining intact, the total

value  of  assets  of  the respondents  at  the  end of  the check

period, would be Rs.66,44,73,573/- minus Rs.22,69,34,885/-

= Rs.43,75,38,688.

409.  According to it, thus while computing the percentage of

disproportionate  assets qua the income of the respondents,

this figure ought to have been applied in the  relevant formula.

410.  Noticeably, the valuation of the assets except as cited by

the prosecution at serial numbers  1, 2, 3, 10 and 11 has been

accepted by the High Court. Nevertheless, while computing the

value of the assets finally, it did not take into account as well

its evaluation in respect of item numbers 1, 2, 10 and 11 and

limited its consideration only to item number 3 which it had

valued at Rs.5,10,54,060/-.

411.  Thus  in  the  above  revealing  perspective,  it  is  not

considered  essential to scrutinise the evidence on the assets

407

Page 407

407

pertaining  to  all  items  thereof  and  it  would  be  adequate

enough to limit the audit only qua item number 3 i.e. new or

additional construction of buildings, more particularly because

of its decisive bearing on the adjudication.    

412.  In  the  above  premise,  being  of  crucial  relevance,

evidence with regard to the item number three namely; new or

additional  construction  of  buildings  in  the  list  of  assets

demands  scrutiny.   As  mentioned  hereinabove,  though  the

High Court had altered the value of five out of twelve  items, in

the ultimate quantification,  it  did focus only on the item of

new or additional construction of buildings and computed the

worth  thereof  to  be  Rs.5,10,54,060/-  against

Rs.22,53,92,344/- adjudged by the Trial Court.  According to

the prosecution, however, the investment on this count had

been Rs.28,17,40,430/-.   Significantly,  the respondents had

valued this  item of their assets at Rs.8,60,59,261/-  which is

about Rs.3.5 crores  above the valuation made by the High

Court.

413.   Be that as it may, whereas the prosecution had listed

out  twenty  one  items  under  the  head  new  or  additional

construction  of  buildings,  the  Trial  Court  took  note  of

408

Page 408

408

eighteen  items  and  the  High  Court  of  seventeen  items  as

would  be  adverted  to  in  details  hereafter.  The  total

construction area of these twenty one items, according to the

prosecution is  23,076.84 sq. meters which is equivalent to

2483.97 squares.  The area of four items left out by the High

Court when deducted from the total area of 2483.97 squares

calculate  to  2174.69  squares.  However,  the  High  Court

computed  the  value  by  adopting  the  area  of  the  17  items

selected  by  it  to  be  1668.39  squares  instead  of  2174.69

squares and thus reduced the actual area under consideration

by 506.3 squares. Ergo, according to the prosecution, not only

did the High Court exclude four out of  twenty one items in

assessing the value of the assets under examination, it erred

as well on the resultant area corresponding to the seventeen

items  chosen  by  it.   This  did  also  impact  upon  the  value

eventually arrived at.

414.  In course of the arguments before this Court, emphasis

has been laid on item numbers 179, 180 and 181 of annexure

II i.e.  buildings/construction on which investments had been

made to sum up the total to the figure of Rs.29,35,68,982/-

according to the prosecution.  According to the respondent No.

409

Page 409

409

1, as against the figure of Rs.24,29,40,490/- being the value of

her  assets  during  the  check  period,  as  computed  by  the

prosecution, her assertion is of Rs.6,52,34,410/-.  It has been

urged on her behalf that she had acquired only one property

during the entire check period i.e. the item at serial number

18 in anneuxre II worth Rs.10 lakhs and in addition thereto,

she  had  made  two  constructions  i.e.  of  a  farm  house  at

Jeedimetla Village near Hyderabad and at 31-A, Poes Garden,

besides renovating her residential building at 36, Poes Garden.

Against item numbers 179 and 181 referred to hereinabove, it

has been asserted  that as against Rs.13,65,31,901/- assessed

by  the  prosecution,  the  value  of  her  assets  corresponding

thereto  and  as  accepted  by  the  income  tax  authorities  is

Rs.3,62,47,700/-  and thus an amount of Rs.10,02,84,201/-

needs to be deducted. The break up of  expenditure on the

relevant  counts  towards  these  items  has  been  provided  as

hereinbelow:

a)  Renovation of 36 Poes Garden : Rs.76,74,900

b) Construction at 31-A, Poes Garden : Rs.1,35,10,500

c) Hyderabad Grape Garden Farm House : Rs.1,39,62,300

410

Page 410

410

d) Compound wall for Hyderabad Farm House : Rs.11,00,000

Total                  Rs.3,62,47,700/-

415.  While  endeavouring  to  authenticate  the  above  figure,

the deficiencies in the evidence of the prosecution relating to

the valuation of the constructions have been highlighted  in

quite some details.  Broadly, the denunciation qua the process

related thereto, refers to the non-verifiable measurements in

absence of essential datas and want of supporting particulars

in the reports rendering them sterile  and worthless being of

no probative  worth,  absence of  any scientific   or  laboratory

tests convincingly demonstrating the age of  the buildings to

correctly appreciate the value thereof, absence of any basis for

calculating the price of non-scheduled items etc. Vis-a-vis the

price  of  non-scheduled  items  in  particular,  it  has  been

asseverated that  though the  valuers had deposed that  with

regard  thereto,  market  enquires  had  been  made  and  the

inputs  had been recorded in a paper or a note book, the same

had not been retained but destroyed and were not enclosed

with the corresponding reports. The assessment of the price of

the non-scheduled items has thus been dismissed to be not

411

Page 411

411

only  as  being  bereft  of  any  foundation  but  also  as  mere

hearsay.   

416.  The oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely;

PW-98,  PW-116  and  PW-220,  amongst  others,  has  been

referred to and analysed apart from the reports submitted by

the inspection team which as adverted to hereinabove, have

been repudiated to be lacking in indispensable datas. Other

documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution  has also

been  dealt  with.   Evidence  of  defence  witnesses,  amongst

others of DW-64, S. Shanmugham, Chartered Accountant of

R1/A1,  DW-76 who was a part  of  the inspection team and

DW-78 who was one of the signatories to the report Ex. P-671

has been highlighted.  Considerable emphasis has also been

laid  on the  orders  of  the  income tax  authorities  by  way  of

corroboration  of  the  quantum  of  expenditure  cited  by  the

defence.  This  is  more  particularly  as  the  income  tax

authorities  had accepted the figure cited by the respondent

No.1/A1 on the basis of independent enquiries conducted by

the  department  specifically  in  respect  of  the  market

rates/price of the marbles/granites during the relevant period

i.e. 1994-95 to 1996-97.  The corresponding invoices have also

412

Page 412

412

been referred to in the course of arguments.  According to the

defence,   the expenditure as shown by respondent No.1/A1

was  supported  by  bank  documents,  bills,  contemporaneous

vouchers proved through  defence witnesses, which inter alia,

establish that  the price of the marble per square meter at the

relevant time was between Rs.100 to Rs.180 per sq. meter as

against Rs.5000 per sq. meter to Rs.21000 per sq. meter cited

by the prosecution. While dismissing the valuation offered by

the prosecution to be  arbitrarily exaggerated  and inflated, it

has been asserted   that though the Trial Court was right    in

observing that the prosecution had not been able to establish

the cost of construction in respect of special items like marble,

it erred in accepting the valuation made by it  after granting

only 20% deduction in the overall quantum.  It was pointed

out as well that the Trial Court's rejection of the documents

i.e.. D-210 series  pertaining to the price of marbles prevailing

during 1995-96 by construing the same erroneously to be of

subsequent years, was patently flawed. It has been urged that

the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt,

the expenditure towards the construction of the items under

the head, new or additional construction of buildings and thus

413

Page 413

413

no burden lay on the defence to explain  the amount spent

towards the  same.   According to the defence,  the valuation

made  by  the  High  Court  of  the  expenditure  on  such

construction is correct and does not merit any interference.      

417.  Per  contra,  it  has  been  insisted  on  behalf  of  the

prosecution that  though its  computation of  the  expenditure

against twenty one items comprising the investments in new

or  additional  construction  of  buildings  did  sum  up  to

Rs.29,35,68,982/-,  the  Trial  Court  taking  note  of  eighteen

such  items,  did  quantify  the  expenditure  at

Rs.22,53,92,344/-.  As  sample  instances,  the  prosecution

highlighted  the  expenditure  towards  item numbers  179,180

and 181 of annexure II i.e. the list of items of assets acquired

during the check period and referring to the oral testimony of

PW-98,107  and  166  as  well  as  the  reports  prepared  and

submitted by the inspection team i.e. Ex. P-645, P-661 and

P-671 maintained that  the sum total  of  expenditure on the

basis  thereof  was  Rs.19,05,84,199/-.   Understandably,  this

figure  was  included  in  the  total  expenditure  of

Rs.29,35,68,982/-  and had been highlighted as these  three

items accounted for  the major portion of the investments.  

414

Page 414

414

418.  According to the prosecution, the High Court not only

limited its analysis to seventeen out of  twenty one items, it

also erred in the measurement of the built up area of these

items  so  much  so  that  instead  of  2174.69  squares,  it

proceeded to make the computation on the basis of an area of

1668.39 squares i.e. yielding a short fall of 506.30 squares.  In

addition  thereto,  it  has  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the

prosecution  that  the  High  Court  appraised  the  expenditure

towards new and additional construction by taking only the

cost  expended  for  a  sentry  shed  by  totally  overlooking  the

additional and highly expensive enhancements and fixtures  of

the main buildings.  According to the prosecution, whereas as

per the evidence adduced by it, the cost of construction of the

new/additional buildings was Rs.4037 per sq. feet, the High

Court on the basis of the cost of construction of the sentry

shed III  adopted the rate of Rs.680 per sq. feet, as a result

whereof the actual cost of construction of the new/additional

building stood reduced by 83%.  The prosecution has thus

insisted  that  in  quantifying  the  expenditure  towards  the

construction of the new/additional  building, the High Court

415

Page 415

415

thus patently erred  not only on the actual built up area but

also on the  basic rate of cost  by drawing an analogy of a

sentry shed  with the new/additional buildings, though these

two  classes  of  structures  with  the  inherent  characteristics

thereof were not comparable by any means.

419.  As referred to hereinabove, the Trial Court scrutinized

the oral and documentary evidence of both sides relating to 18

items of new/additional constructions out of 21 cited by the

prosecution.  It exhaustively evaluated the evidence item wise

and weighed the merits and demerits thereof in details.  It took

note of the reports submitted by the inspection team qua every

new/additional building involved and also took cognizance of

the  denunciation  by  the  defence  thereof  primarily  on  the

ground  that  those  lacked  in  details  and  further  were  not

accompanied  by  supporting  documents.   The  Trial  Court

appreciated  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  who

were  participants  in  the  exercise  of  the  valuation  of  the

buildings,  the ancillary  structures,  accessories,  fixtures and

furnishings.  The members of the inspection team, who were

Civil Engineers drawn from the Public Works Department, in

addition to Electrical Engineers from Electricity Department,

416

Page 416

416

as  their  evidence  noticed  by  the  Trial  Court,  would

demonstrate did take into account all the essential aspects of

the subject matter of survey  including the make and age of

the structures and also duly discounted the value thereof on

depreciation.  A common feature of the evidence is that the

price of the electrical appliances mostly was assessed on the

basis of their  age and the expertise of the officers undertaking

the inspection.   Qua the non-scheduled items, according to

the prosecution witnesses, the price was ascertained from the

market.  The demur of the defence that such evaluation was

not decisive in absence of the notes of the relevant inputs was

however noticed by the Trial  Court.   For the general items,

the contemporaneous PWD schedule of rates prevailing in the

districts  involved were applied.   The defence witnesses who

mostly were the members of the same team did not radically

differ  from the  substance  of  the  version of  the  prosecution

witnesses.  A marked attribute of the prosecution witnesses,

as noted by the Trial Court, was that when examined on their

first recall, they seemed to vacillate in their disclosures in the

examination-in-chief  but  reaffirmed  the  same  narration  on

their  second  recall.   The  defence  however  noticing  this

417

Page 417

417

demeanour  has  endeavoured  to  discredit  them  as

prevaricating and unfaithful witnesses.   

420.  As had been elaborately appraised by the Trial  Court,

the  evidence  of  the  prosecution witnesses  disclose  that  the

members of  the inspection team did minutely notice all  the

salient characteristics of the new/additional buildings under

surveillance  together  with  their  exquisite  and  expensive

structural  attachments,  trappings,  fineries  and  adornments

having formidable  potential of enhancing their overall worth.   

421.  The Trial  Court  while  taking note  of  the  income tax

returns disclosing the expenditure statements and the orders

accepting the same after the departmental inquiries however

accepted  the  expenditure  towards  the  new/additional

buildings to be Rs.22,53,92,344/- by discounting the figure

furnished by the prosecution by 20% as according to it, the

prosecution had not produced convincing evidence in support

of the value fixed by the Public Works Department engineers

in respect of price of the special items and as there was some

dispute  regarding  the  payments  of  the  architects’  fees.   In

arriving at this conclusion, the Trial  Court did take note of

every  objection  of  the  defence  to  the  evaluation  of  the

418

Page 418

418

new/additional buildings and rejected the same.  In particular,

the defence plea that the valuation on plinth rate area ought

not to have been adopted, was also dismissed.  It took note of

the evidence of DW-78 that building valuation could be done

on  the  basis  of  plinth  area  of  the  building  or  the  detailed

method.  It was of the firm view that the engineers involved in

the process of the evaluation of the new/additional buildings

were  competent  for  the  assignment  entrusted  and  that  the

defence had not disputed the measurement of the buildings

and the nature of the constructions as well as the quality of

the materials used.  It however observed that the prosecution

could not produce any direct evidence in proof of the cost of

the special items used and had relied on the oral testimony of

its  witnesses who had stated that they had ascertained the

price of marbles and other special items from the market.   

422.  The defence has tried to demonstrate that the rejection

by the Trial Court of the invoices Ex.D210 series pertaining to

marbles as proved by DW96 construing the same to be the

year  1999  was  patently  erroneous  as  the  said  document

disclosed that those related to the period between 1994 and

1996.   Be  that  as  it  may,  the  Trial  Court  however  while

419

Page 419

419

rejecting the objections of the defence on the valuation of the

new/additional buildings, effected a reduction of 20% of the

total estimate furnished by the prosecution witnesses for want

of persuasive evidence in support of the recorded value fixed

by the PWD Engineers in respect of the special items and the

dispute regarding payments of architects fees and quantified

the amount of expenditure to be Rs.22,53,92,344/-.   

423.  Noticeably,  the  exercise  undertaken by the  inspection

team was a massive one chancing minor shortcomings and

from the Trial Court’s comprehensive narrative of the evidence

on record, in our view, its estimate on the basis thereof cannot

be said to be perverse.  As it is, having regard to the nature

and size of the survey, insistence on proof beyond reasonable

doubt  with  mathematical   exactitude  would  be  both

unwarranted, inexpedient and un-pragmatic.   

424.  In  our  comprehension,  the  appreciation made  by  the

Trial  Court  of  the  evidence  on  record  and  the  final

determination of the extent of expenditure incurred cannot be

discarded  as absurd or implausible.

425.  The High Court on the other hand noted the reservations

expressed  by  the  defence  to  the  valuation  made  by  the

420

Page 420

420

prosecution.   It  noted the denouncement that  the valuation

made was highly inflated and that  the cost  of  marbles and

granites  have  been assessed on a  very  exorbitant  measure.

The  remonstrance  that  neither  any  sample  of  marble  or

granite  had been taken nor  tenders  had been called  for  to

ascertain the rates thereof was recorded.  The objection that

forests officers have not been examined to price the cost of the

wood and that  nobody had certified that  the  teakwood had

been  used,  was  accounted  for.   The  High  Court  did  take

cognizance  of  the  reference  to  the  inquiries  made  by  the

Income Tax Department  to  ascertain  the  prevailing  rates  of

marble and marble slabs during the relevant period.  Defence

evidence to that effect was also marked.

426.  The High Court in the ultimate analysis adopted the “per

square  foot  method”  in  evaluating  the  value  of  the

new/additional  buildings.  According  to  it,  the  Public  Works

Department  rates  were  supposedly  higher,  taking  into

consideration the delayed payment  and other  miscellaneous

expenses.  The High Court accepted the cost of construction of

the  new/additional  buildings  to  be  Rs.28,000/-  per  square

basing  on  the  rate  of   construction  of  the  Sentry  Shed-III.

421

Page 421

421

Referring to the estimate for construction of such sentry shed,

the High Court deduced that, it was valued for one square at

Rs.31,580/-  and  therefrom  as  a  measure  of  cost  of

construction  for  new/additional  building,   it  applied

Rs.28,000/- per square  for the said purpose.  It accounted for

the  other  investments  towards  super  structures,  windows,

doors, internal painting, electrification, flooring, water supply

etc.  The total constructed area, according to the High Court,

was 1,66,839.68 sq.ft.  i.e. 1668.39 squares.  It accepted an

area of 25662.22 sq.ft. i.e. 256.62 squares as area on which

granites had been used.  It added an amount of Rs.9,65,060/-

towards expenditure for sanction of plan and architect fees.   

427.  Qua the prosecution evidence, the High Court observed

that though reports had been prepared by the inspection team

for the new/additional buildings involved, all the members of

inspection  team did  not  subscribe  their  signatures  thereto.

Further  in  course  of  the  testimony,  they  did  not  speak

anything  about  the  measurement  of  the  floor  area  where

marbles and granites had been used.  It held the view that the

valuation reports by themselves did not prove the estimate of

granites and marble stones and that the appreciation thereof

422

Page 422

422

was more or less on guess work.  By adopting the valuation on

square feet method and by applying the rate of Rs.28,000/-

per  square,  the  High  Court  computed  the  value  of

new/additional  building  with  all  its  accessories  and

furnishings to be Rs.5,10,54,060/-.   

428.  Prima  facie thus  the  plea  of  the  prosecution  that  in

assessing the  expenditure of   new/additional  buildings,  the

High Court had not only taken a reduced constructed area of

1668.39  sqs.  instead  of  2174.69  sqs.  (for  the  17  items

considered by it), thereby introducing a shortfall of 506.3 sqs.,

it also applied the rate of Rs.28,000/- per square based on the

construction cost of a sentry shed, as the base value to work

out  the  amount  of  investments  made  towards  the

new/additional  buildings/constructions  is  borne  out  by  the

records.

429.  The approach of the High Court on both counts in the

face  of  the  evidence  on  record  does  not  commend  for

acceptance.  By no means, in our estimate, the High Court

could have applied the base value of Rs.28,000/- per square

for  quantifying  the  expenditure  incurred  towards  the

new/additional  buildings/  constructions  involved.   The

423

Page 423

423

adoption of Rs.28,000/- per square as the base value, which is

the cost of construction of a sentry shed, per se is erroneous,

having  regard  to  the  fact  that  a  sentry  shed  and  the

new/additional constructions/buildings are incomparable  on

many counts.  Even if it is assumed, as has been pleaded by

the  defence  that  the  base  value  so  applied  was  only  for

appreciating the expenditure towards the skeletal framework

of the constructions, the method adopted by the High Court in

the final computation of the investments by making lump sum

additions  towards  cost  of  marbles,  granites/interior

decorations, staircase, overhead tank and other furnishings,

having  regard  to  the  description  of  the

constructions/buildings does not appear to be either realistic

or rational and does not merit affirmation.  

430.  In any case however even assuming that the arithmetic

undertaken  by the High Court is correct, it having accepted

the  value  of  assets  to  be  Rs.66,44,73,573/-,  the  remainder

would  still  value  at  Rs.43,75,38,688/-.  In  other  words,  in

calculating  the  disproportionate  assets,  the  amount  of

Rs.43,75,38,688/-  has  to  be  applied  even  if  there  is  a

reduction  in  value  of  assets  by  Rs.22,69,34,885/  i.e.

424

Page 424

424

(Rs.29,82,71,254.32 – Rs.5,10,54,060).

431.  According to  A2 to A4, the valuation of their assets at

the beginning of the check period as per the prosecution was

Rs.59,29,168/- and according to them Rs.63,64,790.60.  At

the  end of  the  check period,  the  figure  swelled,  as  per  the

prosecution  to  Rs.37,55,10,354.38,  which in  their

computation became Rs.25,03,36,963.40/-. Thus, whereas the

prosecution case is that  the valuation of their assets acquired

by A2 to A4 during the check period was Rs.36,95,81,186.38,

it  had been only  Rs.24,39,72,172.80 as per the estimate of

these respondents.   

432.  A2 to A4 have not disputed the prosecution's figure of

Rs.59,29,168/- and in fact had added Rs.4,35,622/- being the

cash balance  available with A2 at that point of time making

the  tally  according  to  the  respondents  at  Rs.63,64,790.60.

While  commenting  on  the  prosecution's  valuation  of  their

assets at the end of the check period at Rs.37,55,10,354.38,

A2 to A4 have asserted that the properties of six companies;

Signora Business Enterprises (Private) Limited, Meadow Agro

Farms (Private) Limited, Ram Raj Agro Mills (Private) Limited,

Riverway  Agro  Products  (Private)  Limited,  Lex  Property

425

Page 425

425

Development  (P)  Limited  and  Indo  Doha  Chemicals  and

Pharmaceutical Limited being separate legal entities and not

arraigned as accused in the case  ought to have been excluded

from the corpus  of assets, more particularly in absence of any

evidence that their acquisitions had been made with the funds

provided by the respondents.

433.  In  course  of  the  arguments  on  their  behalf,  several

disputed items of assets have been highlighted, accompanied

by emphatic assertion that either the value attached thereto

ought to be excluded wholly or to the extent reduced on the

basis of the oral and documentary evidence relied  upon by

them.

434.  A plain perusal of the compilation to this effect reveals

that broadly these disputed items can be categorized as “land

and building, shares, acquisition of Indo Doha Chemicals and

Pharmaceutical  Ltd.,  new/additional  constructions,

renovation, vehicles, fixed deposits, jewellery and machinery.

435.  As has been hinted hereinabove, these assets had been

classified  under 12 components.  The High Court, though had

altered the valuations in five of these items, it did ultimately

limit  its  consideration  to  item  No.  III  (i.e.  new/additional

426

Page 426

426

construction  of  buildings)  and  reduced  the  cost  thereof  by

Rs.22,69,34,885.   As  a  corollary,  for  the  purpose  of  the

eventual  quantification  of  the  disproportionate  assets,  the

High Court did not consider it essential to invoke  its findings

vis-a-vis  the  remaining  four  items on which it  had  differed

from the Trial  Court.    As would be evident from the chart

adduced by the defence, out of Part-B containing the disputed

items in Annexure-II appended to the charge-sheet, ten items

thereof  i.e.  item  numbers  6,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,16,17   are

claimed   to  have  been  acquired  prior  to  the  check  period.

Vis-a-vis the other disputed items, to reiterate, referring to the

oral and documentary evidence, it has been urged  that  either

the  full  value  as cited by  the prosecution or  to  the  extent,

highlighted by them, ought to have been excluded.  Qua the

items  pertaining  to  “new/additional  constructions”,  the

eventual  plea is  that the Trial  Court though had concluded

that  the  prosecution  had  failed  to  prove  the  cost  of

construction,  as  cited  by  it,  it  erroneously  accepted  the

valuation  by  granting  20%  reduction  in  the  overall  cost.

According to A2 to A4, in view of the failure of the prosecution

to prove the cost of construction, the entire valuation made by

427

Page 427

427

it to this effect ought to have been discarded and the evidence

adduced by it  should have been rejected in its entirety.   

436.  In course of the elaboration of this salient feature of the

disputation,  it  has  been  underlined  that  there  has  been

non-application of mind by the Trial Court to the evidence on

record in arriving at its findings.  Apart from referring to the

oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties,

reliance has also been placed amongst others on the income

tax returns and the orders passed in connection therewith.

The  valuation  reports  of  the  buildings  submitted  by  the

inspection  team,  comprised  of  civil  engineers  of  the  Public

Works  Department  and  others,  have  been  seriously

repudiated  on  the  ground  of  being  laconical,  incredible,

inchoate   and  deficient   in  material  particulars.   The

respondents have been particularly critical about the valuation

of  electrical  installations  and  other  items  as  in  their

perception,  those  were  wholly  unfounded  in  absence  of

standard  rates  and   corroborative  proof   based  on  market

survey.  Even the expertise and competence of the members of

the inspection team offered by the prosecution as witnesses of

valuation  has been questioned.  The respondents have sought

428

Page 428

428

to  buttress  this  plea  by  examining   as  defence  witnesses,

members of the same inspection team.  It has been urged as

well  that  the  prosecution  could  not  prove   that  all

new/additional constructions had been built  during the check

period.  It has been contended that the valuation of the special

items  i.e.  marbles,  granites,  sanitary  ware,  decorative  tiles,

teakwood etc.  in absence of any schedule of rates had been

highly  inflated without  any  contemporaneous  documents  or

authenticated  proof  in  support  thereof.   According  to  the

respondents, the defence witnesses who were members of the

inspection team  did not support the conclusions recorded in

the reports rendering those wholly unacceptable.  On smaller

items, like vehicles, fixed deposits, jewellery and machinery,

the respondents have dismissed the valuations made by the

prosecution either on the ground that those had been wrongly

exaggerated or had been acquired before the check period.

437.  Apropos the above impeachment,  the prosecution has

reiterated its valuation of the assets  and  has reconciled to

the quantification made by the Trial Court.  It has reiterated

that the valuation of the constructions had been made by the

qualified PWD  engineers and that the findings are elaborately

429

Page 429

429

contained  in  the  valuation  reports,   based  on  exhaustive

inspection  of  all  necessary  components  of  the  buildings

surveyed.  It has stoutly   refuted the defence plea that the

Trial  Court  had  rejected  the  evidence  adduced   and  has

maintained that  the discount  of  20% accorded by  the  Trial

Court had been due to the several imponderables attendant

on the massive exercise undertaken.  It has insisted that in

view of the superior quality of marbles and granite used in the

buildings  as well as the prevalent price of the various special

items  availed  by  way  of  ornate  enhancements,  the  cost

appreciation made by the Trial Court was justified.  That the

High Court had  wrongly assessed the cost of new/additional

buildings  at  Rs.5,10,54,060  compared  to  the  admitted

computation by the respondents at Rs.8,60,59,261 has been

underscored as well.

438.  Qua the other segments of the assets, the prosecution

has underlined that the Trial Court had totally excluded the

valuation  of  sarees  and  footwear  and  that  had  effected

considerable  reduction  in  the  value  of  the  jewellery  and

silverwares.  In all, according to the prosecution, though it had

cited  higher  value  of  the  assets,  it  has  accepted  the

430

Page 430

430

determination thereof as made by the Trial Court.

439.  The prosecution has jettisoned the  disclosures  in  the

income tax returns and the orders/opinions expressed thereon

by the departmental authorities as wholly inconsequential.  It

has  been  insisted  that  enquiries  made  by  the  income  tax

authorities  even  if  conducted,  those  had  been  ex-parte  in

which the investigating agency had not been associated.   In

any  view  of  the  matter,  according  to  the  prosecution,  the

findings of  the income tax or  wealth tax authorities  on the

valuation of the assets, neither bind the prosecution nor is of

any conclusive relevance for the case and is far less final for

the  criminal  court  trying  the  same.   The  cavil  of  the

respondents  that  the  civil  engineers  of  the  inspection  team

were incompetent to undertake the valuation work has been

emphatically refuted by the prosecution.  That the High Court

in adopting  the  plinth area of  the  new/additional  buildings

had  erroneously  reduced  the  same  by  50,630  sq.  feet,  has

been reiterated.  It has been asserted as well that the High

Court had erred in taking into account only five special items

by excluding the other expensive furnishings/attachments in

computing the cost of  construction.    In specific  terms, the

431

Page 431

431

prosecution has been critical of the valuation of the Otis lift at

Rs.15,000/- and the cost of construction of staircase, pump

and overhead tanks at Rs.40,000/- to be much on the lower

side.  That the untenable attempt of the defence to represent

that  ordinary  marble  and  granite  had  been  issued  against

expensive versions thereof, has been highlighted as well.   

440.  As indicated hereinabove, the only item apart from the

new or additional construction of buildings forming a major

component  of  assets  is  immovable  properties  which  the

prosecution valued at  Rs.19,77,18,164.70 whereas the Trial

Court assessed the same Rs.20,07,80,246/-. According to the

High  Court,  it  computed  the  value  to  be  Rs.6,24,09,120/-.

Noticeably  the  respondents  had  indicated  the  value  of  this

item as Rs.16,19,03,301/-.  Significantly though in all,  146

sale  deeds  were  involved  qua  the  immovable  properties

figuring therein, the High Court limited its attention only to 97

such  deeds  and  thus  left  out  from  its  consideration,  the

remaining 49 sale deeds, while arriving at its quantification of

this item of the asset to be Rs.6,24,09,120/-.  

441.  To reiterate however the High Court though did accept

the valuation of the assets for the purpose of computation to

432

Page 432

432

be Rs.66,44,73,573/-  as  valued by  the  prosecution,  for  the

purpose  of  ascertaining  the  disproportionate  assets,  it  took

into account only the cost of new or additional construction of

buildings as assessed by it at Rs. 5,10,54,060/- thus reducing

the value thereof as made  by the prosecution by a sum of

Rs.22,69,34,885/-.   The  omission  on  the  part  of  the  High

Court to exclude the other four items of assets, on which as

well it had scaled down the value, in working out the extent of

disproportionate assets however had not been questioned by

the respondents before this Court.  The judgment of the Trial

Court  does  not  demonstrate  as  well,  the  alleged  total

non-consideration of  the  evidence adduced on behalf  of  the

respondents.   On  an  overall  appraisal  of  the  materials  on

record,  the  reduction  of  the  cost  of  new  or  additional

construction of  buildings to Rs.5,10,54,060/- as effected by

the  High  Court  has  to  be  held  as  patently  erroneous.

Consequently the quantification of the disproportionate assets

is also visibly wrong.

Expenditure

442.  Annexure IV to the charge-sheet enumerates 244 items

433

Page 433

433

of  expenditure  cited  by  the  prosecution.   This  sums up to

Rs.11,56,56,833.41  out  of  which  the  major  segment  being

Rs.6,45,04,222/-  is  towards  the  expenditure  incurred  in

connection with the marriage of Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran, (A3) on

07.09.1995.   Incidentally,  the  High  Court  did  accept  the

expenditure assessed by the prosecution in respect of all items

except item nos. 2 to 6 i.e. the marriage of A3 and reduced the

sum  of  Rs.6,45,04,222/-  as  fixed  by  the  DVAC  to

Rs.28,68,000/-, thus occasioning a drop of Rs.6,16,36,222/-.

The Trial Court however had also lessened the amount cited

by the prosecution by Rs.7,50,000/- against item No. 235 and

also the marriage item by Rs.3,45,04,222/-, thereby reducing

the total expenditure incurred to Rs.8,49,06,833/-.  The Trial

Court  had  assessed  Rs.3,00,00,000/-  towards  marriage

expenses.   

443.  In this factual premise, it would thus be enough, for the

present  adjudication  vis-à-vis  this  facet  of  the  debate,  to

confine the appraisal of the evidence, oral and documentary

pertaining only to the expenditure towards the marriage of A3.

As the Trial  Court’s appreciation of the materials on record

would  reveal,  it  analyzed  the  evidence  under  the  following

434

Page 434

434

heads:  

a)     Expenditure incurred towards the erection of   marriage pandals.

b)  Expenditure incurred towards the cost of food, mineral water and tamboolam. c)     Cost of 34 Titan watches  - Rs.1,34,565/-  

d)    Cost of stitching charges of wedding dress - Rs.1,26,000/-

e)    Cost of 100 silver plates - Rs.4,00,000/-

f)     Postal Expenses - Rs.2,24,000/-

444.  In re the erection of marriage pandals, the Trial Court

did assess the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the

parties.   It  took  note,  amongst  others,  of  the  testimony  of

PW-181 Shri Thangarajan, who was the Assistant Engineer,

PWD at the relevant point of time and to whom, according to

the  witness,  the  work  of  estimating  the  expenses  incurred

towards  the  pandals,  both  at  the  marriage  and  reception

venues was entrusted.  He referred to the measurements of

these pandals including amongst others those for VIPs with

iron-sheet  roof  in  his  report  Ex.  P-1019  mentioning  the

estimated cost towards the same and also with regard to the

incidental  decorative  trappings  and  furnishings.   He

mentioned as well about the air conditioners used  and the

435

Page 435

435

chairs with the dining tables arranged at the two venues and

assessed  the  expenditure  towards  all  these  at

Rs.5,91,00,000/-.   The  Trial  Court  did  take  note  of  the

cross-examination of this witness, branding him to be partisan

and without any personal knowledge or information about the

event or the expenses in connection therewith and  alleged to

have been set up by the prosecution with a view to inflate the

expenditure by creating the document Ex P-1019.  The said

document  in  any  case  was  denounced  as  not  being

contemporaneous, having been prepared after 2 ½ years of the

marriage without any acceptable foundation therefor.    

445.  The  Trial  Court  to  start  with  did  not  endorse  this

criticism of the witness and instead proceeded to evaluate the

merit  of  his  testimony   by  co-relating  the  same  with  the

version of  the other witnesses.  In doing so,  the Trial  Court

traversed  the  evidence  of  PW-200  Shri,  K.P.  Muthuswami,

Chief  Engineer,  PWD,  Tamil  Nadu,  who,  as  stated  by  this

witness, had been entrusted to complete the pandals'  work by

A2  in  a  proper  manner.   This  witness  testified  to  have

consulted  a  plan  given  to  him  by  the  architect  involved

whereafter he amongst others levelled the land and put up the

436

Page 436

436

pandals  as  specified.   This  witness  affirmed  that  several

pandals had been erected amongst others for serving food to

the VIPs, kitchen and cooking sheds together with marriage

platform, bathroom, rooms for the bride and bridegroom.  He

further  stated  that  the  expenses  towards  this  construction

work were made on behalf of A1.  This witness clarified that

the pandal work at the reception venue was undertaken by

Kumarason  Nader  which  too  he  had  to  oversee  on  the

instructions of the Assistant Secretary of the secretariat of A1.

According to this witness, an amount of Rs.14 lakhs in four

installments was also paid by the bride’s father Mr. Narayan

Swamy.  Incidentally PW-181 had also referred to the same

architect  and the  contractors  as named  by PW-200 in his

evidence.   

446.  The  Trial  Court  after  taking  note  of  the

cross-examination of this witness, accepted his version being

satisfied  that  he  had  a  first-hand  information  about  the

arrangements made at the marriage venue and concluded that

the same corroborated the testimony of PW-181 sufficiently.   

447.  The Trial  Court assessed the evidence of  PW-183 Mr.

Ramesh,  Managing  Director,  Moulis  Advertising  Services  (P)

437

Page 437

437

Ltd., who deposed to have  printed 65,000 cards for marriage

invitation  as instructed by Tr. Jawahar, Assistant Secretary to

A1.  This witness also claimed to have printed 5000 car passes

for which on the basis of his bill submitted, he had received

payment of Rs.11 lakhs through cheque issued by A1. Though

this  witness  resiled  from  these  statements  in  his

cross-examination,  when recalled  and was confronted with

this  inconsistency,  he  affirmed  his  version  in  the

examination-in-chief to be correct.  

448.  PW-184 Mr. Vincent claimed to have lent out ten cars on

hire and had received Rs.27,502/- through cheque signed by

A1.   This  witness  too  recoiled  from  this  statement  in  his

cross-examination but reverted thereto in his re-examination.

449.  PW-185  Prem  Kumar  did  state  to  have,  on  the

requisition of the Tamil Nadu Guest House lent six cars for

rent  for  four  days  against  which  he  was  paid  Rs.19,211/-

through cheque 23.09.1995 issued by A1.   

450.  The Trial Court next also took note of the evidence of

PW-186  Chalapathy  Rao  who  had  supplied  chairs,  tables,

cooking wares, vessels etc. for the event as ordered by A3 and

Sachitnanandam,  PRO  of  A1  and  received  payment  of  Rs

438

Page 438

438

1,30,000/- by cheque as advance.  He also received a further

amount of Rs.57,250/- by cheque issued by A1 and according

to him, Rs.2,65,000/- was still outstanding.  This witness too

vacillated  in  his  cross-examination  only  to  affirm  the

correctness of the  statement in his examination-in-chief after

he was recalled for  re-examination.  

451.  The  endeavour  on  the  part  of  the  defence  that  the

payment  received  by  this  witness  by  way  of  cheque  of

Rs.1,30,000/-  was  in  fact  towards  supply  made  to  the

AIADMK Party was dismissed by the Trial Court in absence of

any evidence to that effect.   

452.  The Trial Court also examined the evidence of PW-188,

Sundareshan, who was the Senior Advertisement Manager of a

local daily in which a thanks giving message of A1 had been

published in its  issue dated 10.09.1995.   According to this

witness,  such  an  advertisement  was  published  in  all  other

editions of the daily  on 11.09.1995 as well and that he had

raised a bill of Rs. 2,47,660/- therefor.

453.  The  evidence  of  PW-199 A.G.  Krishnamurti  of  A.G.K.

Travels, Chennai is that he had arranged  two Ambassador AC

cars from 06.09.1995  to  08.09.1995 on rent, raised bills in

439

Page 439

439

the name of A1 and received payment of Rs.15,814/- through

cheque issued by her.   

454.  PW228  Shri  Rajasekharan,  Chartered  Accountant

claimed to have filed Income Tax and Property Tax returns of

A1  for  year  1984-85 to  1996-97 and stated  about  seizures

amongst others of a file Ex. P-2218 containing the expenditure

bills,  receipts  etc.  in  connection  with  the  marriage.   This

witness was not cross-examined at the first instance on behalf

of the respondents and thereafter he failed to appear in spite

of issuance of summons.  Though the defence raised a plea

that  in  absence  of  cross-examination  of  this  witness,  his

untested  testimony  ought  to  be  eschewed,  the  Trial  Court

noted  that  neither  the  respondents-accused  had

cross-examined  this  witness  when  the  opportunity  was

available nor had thereafter, when as many as 145 witnesses

have been recalled for  cross-examination,  did they seek the

assistance of the court to secure his presence, if necessary by

applying coercive legal process.  Even otherwise, according to

the Trial Court the testimony of this witness pertained mainly

to the seizure of the documents from his office which included

amongst  others,  the  file  containing  vouchers,  receipts  etc.

440

Page 440

440

relating  to  the  expenditure  incurred  in  the  marriage  of  A3.

This is more so as some of these documents had also been

relied upon by the respondents-accused.

455.  Vis-a-vis the expenditure incurred towards cost of food,

mineral water and thamboolam, the Trial Court did  assess the

evidence of PW-237, Jawahar, who at the relevant time, was

working as Assistant Secretary to A1 and his office functioned

amongst others from her  house at No.36, Poes Garden.  This

witness  stated  about  musical  concerts  presented  by  Mr.

Srinivas  and Mr.  A.R.  Rahman whom he had met for  such

arrangement on the direction of A1.  He deposed about the

printing  of  invitation  cards  for  the  VIPs.   He  also  stated

generally about the other features of the marriage including

the supervision of the pandal works by Mr. K.P. Muthuswamy,

a  retired  Engineer.   This  witness  too  had  resiled  from the

above,  in  his  cross-examination  but  reiterated,  in  his

re-examination, his testimony in his examination-in-chief.   

456.  The defence plea that the afore-mentioned witnesses in

view of their contradictory orientations ought to be discarded

as a whole did not meet the approval of the Trial Court.  It

recorded that not only the evidence of such witnesses does not

441

Page 441

441

deserve to be discredited as a whole and instead can be acted

upon  on  the  same  analogy  as  of  a  hostile  witness,  the

circumstances  under  which  76  prosecution  witnesses  were

recalled by the  respondents/accused after  A1 had assumed

the office of the Chief Minister of the State and  the way, 64 of

them had casually resiled from their earlier version, could not

be  lightly  brushed  aside.  The  Trial  Court  observed  that  as

most  of  these  witnesses  who  were  in  service  in  the

Government Departments, were likely to be influenced by the

status of A1, it being one of the  considerations for which the

trial  of the case had been transferred out of Tamil Nadu to

Karnataka,  it  concluded  that  the  temporary   retraction  of

these witnesses in cross-examination from their testimony in

their examination-in-chief ipso facto did not warrant rejection

of their version in toto.

457.  The Trial Court noted the evidence of PW-192 Mr. Sanjay

Jain,  Proprietor  of  Titan Show Room, Chennai  to  the  effect

that he had delivered 34 watches amounting to Rs.1,34,565/-

for which he was paid the amount in cash.

458.  PW-196 Mr. Sayad Bawker, claimed to have done the

stitching  work  of  suits,  shirts,  sherwanis  etc.  for  the

442

Page 442

442

bridegroom-A3  for  which  he  received  Rs.1,41,025/-  as  the

charges therefor.  The witness conceded that the payment was

made by Ram Kumar, the maternal uncle of the bride.  The

Trial Court however disbelieved the statement that the uncle of

the bride had made the payment.  

459.  On the expenditure of 100 silver plates, the prosecution

had  examined  PW-191,  Mr.  Srinivas  and  PW-214  Mr.  A.R.

Rehman who had conducted music concerts.  Both of them

stated to have made the performances on the request made on

behalf  of  A1 and that they had not charged therefor.   They

however admitted to have been offered silver plate, silk saree

and a small kumkum box at the time of their invitation for the

event.   They  deposed  that  on  being  requisitioned  by  the

investigating agency, those items had been handed over to the

concerned officers.

460.  Acting  on  the  evidence  of  these  witnesses,  the  Trial

Court concluded that on the occasion of the marriage, silver

plates, silk saree/dhoti and kumkum box were presented to

the VIPs.

461.  Regarding postal expenses, the prosecution relied on the

evidence  of  PW-189  Office  Administrator,  Head  Office  of

443

Page 443

443

AIADMK  who  confirmed  to  have  sent  56,000  invitations,

expending therefor, Rs.2,24,000/-.  He stated to have received

the said amount from Mr. Jawahar, Assistant/Joint Secretary

of A1.

462.  In  response,  the  respondents  had  examined  several

witnesses with documents to butress and consolidate the oral

testimony.  DW1 Ram Kumar, the maternal uncle of the bride

in his deposition claimed to have met the entire expenses of

the marriage and for that purpose, had opened an account in

State Bank of India being Account No. 95071 in Gopal Puram

Branch, State Bank of India and had remitted  a sum of Rs.92

lakhs which was spent on the occasion.  He also proved  Ex.

D15, the photocopy of the pass book of the said account and

stated   that  the  deposit  had  been   arranged  through  the

brides'  family.   In  cross-examination,  he  disclosed  that  the

account  was opened on 14.8.1995 but  did  not  disclose  the

details of the expenditure therefrom.  He also  did not produce

the counter-foils of the cheques issued in that account.  His

statement in cross-examination also revealed that he had not

produced  a  copy  of  the  passbook  earlier  in  course  of  the

investigation.  He however affirmed that the total expenditure

444

Page 444

444

in  the marriage did sum up to Rs.92 lakhs only.    

463.  Apart  from this  witness,  the  respondents  examined a

host of party workers who, at the relevant time, held various

positions at the district level and elsewhere.  These witnesses,

as  the  tenor  of  their  testimony  demonstrates,  in  essence

asserted that they had collected various sums of money from

the party workers and others and had utilized the same for

various purposes relating to the marriage like decorating the

pandals erected by the bride party,  crackers, music, food for

the party workers,  chairs  in the pandals,  reception on the

visit of A1 to areas in connection with the event etc.  All these

witnesses, however, did admit  that there was  no instruction

from the party to raise such fund and incur the expenditure

but insisted that they  had given their statements before the

income tax department in course of the enquiry made in this

regard.  The witnesses also did concede that accounts/receipts

in connection with the  collection and expenditures  had not

been retained/maintained.   

464.  In  addition  to  the  above,  the  respondents  examined

DW64   S. Shanmugam, Chartered Accountant who claimed to

be the auditor of A1 from 1996 to 2000 and had dealt with

445

Page 445

445

her accounts/assessment for the assessment years 1991-92 to

1997-98.  He referred to the query made by the income tax

department in the year 1995 about the amounts spent by her

in the marriage and also the reply given by  A1 in response

thereto.   He also deposed that on necessary enquries being

made, the income tax authorities eventually  did write off the

expenditure  of  Rs.94  lakhs,  which  earlier,  it  had  observed,

had been spent by A1 on the event.  Reference was also made

to the assessment made by the income tax authorities with

regard to  food expenses to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs  which also

stood deleted in appeal.

465.  DW24  T.  Tharani,  who  was  a  painter  and  also  Art

Director  of  the  films,  was  examined  to  affirm  that  in

connection with the marriage, people from AIADMK party had

approached him for designing the facade of the entrance of the

marriage hall  and that he had  entrusted the work to one of

his  assistants  Mr.  Ramesh.  He  also  added  that  he  did  not

charge any remuneration for the work.

466.  DW54 Gopi Kant, at the relevant time, was working as

Cine Art Director and stated that on being requested by the

bride's family, he met DW1 Ram Kumar, maternal uncle of the

446

Page 446

446

bride who introduced him to PW 200, Muthu Swamy.  This

witness stated that PW 200 asked him to prepare a pandal at

the place of reception/public procession of the bride and the

bridegroom and to erect  two arches and sets at the designated

locations.   According  to  him,  the  cost  of  the  work  was

Rs.12,98,000/- which was paid by cheque  in  the  name of

G.K. Arts by DW1 Ram Kumar.  That a further cheque of Rs.4

lakhs  was  also  issued  by  DW1  towards  some  items  of

additional work, was also stated by this witness.  The witness

confirmed that he was the proprietor of G.K. Arts.   

467.  The respondents  also  examined DW80,  B.  Vasudevan

who, at the relevant time,  was working as Junior Engineer,

PWD, Madras.    The witness deposed that  the investigating

officer of the case on 17.4.1997 had orally instructed him to

value  the  marriage  pandal  and  other  works.   This  witness

identified  his  signature  in  the  report  Ex.  P1019  but

maintained that the drawings pertaining to the pandals  and

the stage had not been given by Vijay Shankar, Architect and

that he did not know where the said panals had been put up.

He stated that  the  measurements mentioned in the report

were  based on the instructions of the I.O. and that the said

447

Page 447

447

report had been prepared in the office without carrying out

any  inspection.  He  also  disputed  the  measurements

mentioned  in the report.

468.  In  cross-examination,  however,  this  witness  admitted

that he along with PW 181 Thangrajan were the members of

the  valuation  team  and  also  conceded  that  the  report

contained the signatures of the Architect,  Vijay Shankar.

469.  DW-85, as offered by the respondents, was the Manager

(Administration  &  Accounts)  in  Super  Duper  TV  Private

Limited,  who conducted the TV coverage of  the wedding for

which, according to this witness, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid

by DW1.  In cross-examination, this witness admitted that at

that time, the bridegroom- A3- Sudhakaran and A2- Sasikala

were the directors of Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Limited and that

A3 was its Managing Director.  

DW-97  A.  Vijay  Kumar,  Assistant  Commissioner  of

Income Tax,  Central  Circle-II,  Chennai  produced documents

containing  10  volumes  and  exhibited  Ex.  D325  to  D364,

referred to by the other witnesses for the defence. This witness

however admitted  that the assessment for the year 1993-94

pertaining to the concerned respondents was sub judice before

448

Page 448

448

the  High  Court  in  appeal  and  that  the  assessment  orders

relating  to  them  had  not  been  finalised  and  were  pending

before various authorities.

470.  It  has  been  emphatically  urged  that  the  evidence  of

PW181 ought to have been summarily rejected being hearsay

and besides speculative, arbitrary and based on no verifiable

data  and  that  this  witness  is  wholly  untrustworthy  even

otherwise.  It was insisted on behalf of the respondents that

the  learned  Trial  Court  had  also  rejected  the  evidence  of

PW181 to be hearsay in character and thus in absence of any

other admissible evidence, its computation of the expenditure

at Rs.3 crores is also without any tangible basis and is wholly

inferential. The testimony of PW181 being clearly hearsay in

nature, in terms of Section 60 of the Evidence Act, the same

could  not  have  been  accepted  as  substantive  evidence  and

thus  the  Trial  Court's  approach  of  seeking  corroboration

thereto had also been flawed.  According to the respondents,

the version of PW200 supports the case of the accused in view

of  his  admission  that  Rs.16  lakhs  was  paid  by  the  bride’s

father  towards  the  expenses  for  the  construction  of  the

pandals.  It  has  been  urged  that  his  evidence  as  well  is

449

Page 449

449

rejectable  as  hearsay  in  nature,  as  this  witness  did  not

personally know about the expenses, if any made by A1 and

that he had only been informed of the contribution of A1 by

some  unnamed  pandal  contractors.   In  absence  of  any

evidence to show that  A1 had incurred the  expenditure,  as

claimed by the prosecution, towards the construction of the

marriage pandal or towards the actual cost thereof, the entire

amount of Rs.5.21 crores, as cited by the prosecution, ought

to  be  deducted.  Qua  the  expenses  on  the  other  heads

including  food,  mineral  water,  presentations,  stitching

charges, etc., it has been argued that not only the Trial Court

had  wrongly  accepted  the  evidence  forthcoming  from  the

prosecution  that  the  expenditure  on  Titan  watches  and

stitching  charges  had been incurred by  the  respondents,  it

grossly erred in holding that on   a rough estimate, an amount

of  Rs.3  crores  had  been  spent  by  the  respondents  on  the

event. It has been canvassed that in doing so, the  Trial Court

left out of consideration amongst others, the evidence adduced

by the defence through DW1 Ram Kumar, the maternal uncle

of  the  bride,  the  party  workers  and  most  importantly  the

income tax proceedings, which after thorough enquiries and

450

Page 450

450

scrutiny  at  different  levels  did  finally  record  that  only  an

amount of Rs.29,66,552/-, as mentioned by A1 in her reply

dated 19.09.2005, had been spent and that too by cheques

except for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs.  In all, having regard to the

entire  gamut  of  the  evidence,  it  has  been  argued  that

considering the different segments of expenditures incurred by

the  bride’s  family  and  the  party  workers,  the  same  is

Rs.1,85,17,000/-,  to  which  Rs.29,66,552/-  only  could  be

added on account of  A1.   In this  premise,  the  respondents

have  maintained  that  the  High  Court’s  computation  of  the

expenses of Rs.28,68,000/- only by A1 by way of expenditure

incurred  by  the  respondents  is  unassailably  correct  being

based on a logical analysis of the materials on record.  

471.  The High Court however readily discarded the testimony

of PW181 and the report Ex.P1019 primarily on the ground

that this witness had no personal knowledge or idea of  the

structures  raised  at  the  venue  of  the  marriage  and  of  the

reception and that his version with regard thereto was on the

basis of derived inputs though it mentioned that the witness,

as attested by him, did consult the architect, the Art Director,

the electrician etc. who accompanied him  to the site and that

451

Page 451

451

he had been given as well a drawing of the wedding choultry

and the measurements of the pandal along with the sketch of

the decorative arches etc. It held the view that the witness had

prepared  the  report  on  the  basis  of  what  the  witness  had

heard and seen from the drawings and the sketches and was

not personally aware of the authenticity thereof and that he

did not ask for quotations or confirm the sketches.  That his

report  Ex.P1019  was  deficient  and  scanty  in  essential

particulars  to  inspire  confidence  for  its  acceptance  was

recorded.  On this aspect, the High Court also referred to the

evidence of  PW200 K.P. Muthuswamy, who claimed to have

been entrusted to oversee the works related to the pandals by

A2.  This  witness,  to  reiterate  had confirmed that  he visited

both the venues and that a plan for the pandals as well as

stage arrangements, as prepared by architect Vijay Shankar

had been handed over to him.  He narrated in details about

the specifications of the structures and the payments therefor.

He also admitted to have received a sum of Rs.16 lakhs from

the father of the bride in this regard.  The High Court, however

observed that this witness, amongst others, did neither tell the

police  about  the  expenses  of  leveling  nor  disclose  the

452

Page 452

452

particulars  about  the  number  of  air  conditioner  machines

used.   The  High Court  further  commented  that  he  did  not

supervise  the work of  Art  Director Gopi Nath and that  this

witness could not remember as to how much money was spent

for the marriage.  The High Court touched upon the evidence

of  other  witnesses  and  in  particular  elaborated  on  the

testimony  of  PW228   R.  Rajshekheran  from  whom  the  file

containing the original vouchers, bills, invoices in connection

with  the  marriage  i.e.  Ex.  P2218 had  been seized.   It  also

analyzed the queries made by the Income Tax Department and

the reply given thereto by A1 by her letter dated 19.09.1995

wherein, she provided the breakup of the expenditure incurred

by  her.   The  testimony  of  DW1 Ram Kumar,  the  maternal

uncle of the bride, more specifically to the effect that the entire

expenses had been borne by the bride’s family to the tune of

Rs.92 lakhs by remittances through the bank account opened

on 14.08.1995 was taken note of.  The evidence of the party

workers  claiming  their  contribution  in  the  expenditure

through collection was also recorded and eventually the High

Court accepted the statement of A1 furnished to the Income

Tax  Department  disclosing  the  expenditure  by  her  of

453

Page 453

453

Rs.28,67,520/-  towards  marriage  and  rounded  up  the  said

figure to Rs.28,68,000/- to be her share of expenses.   

472.   In reaching this  conclusion,  apart  from rejecting the

testimony of PW181 being second hand in nature,  the High

Court  seemingly  accepted  in  substance  the  version  of  the

defence witnesses observing that at the relevant time A1 was

the Chief Minister of the State and was incidentally then the

General Secretary of AIADMK party as well. It recorded further

that  the  bride  was  none  else  than  the  grand-daughter  of

famous  cine  actor  Shivaji  Ganeshan.   It  observed  that  the

prosecution  for  no  reason  forthcoming,  had  omitted  to

examine  the  bride’s  father  who  would  have  been  the  best

person to state about the actual  expenses on the marriage.

The High Court as well seem to have accepted that it was the

customary practice for the bride’s family to bear the expenses

of the marriage normally and though it was of the view that

such  expenditure  was  comprised  of  verifiable  and

non-verifiable  components,  it  was  difficult  to  ascertain  the

non-verifiable  segment  while  verifiable  expenditure  could  be

assessed  through  investigation.   Et  al,    the  High  Court

eventually accepted the figure of Rs.28,67,520/-, as cited by

454

Page 454

454

the A1 to be the amount expended by her in the marriage and

limited  the  liability  of  the  respondent-  accused,  as  stated

above,  to Rs.28,68,000/-.   Thereby the High Court reduced

the  expenditure   of  Rs.6,45,04,222/-  towards  marriage

expenditure by the R1/A1, as mentioned by the prosecution,

to Rs.28,68,000/-.

473.  A2 to A4 also have positioned themselves to question the

expenditure  of  Rs.2,38,89,609/-  attributed  to  them  by  the

prosecution.  This amount, as is apparent from annexure IV to

the charge sheet, includes sums expended not only by A2, A3

and A4 but also by nine companies/firms as named therein.

In the compilation referred to in course of the arguments, the

break up of the expenditures incurred by A2, A3, A4 and the

firms aforementioned have been provided.  It is however the

contention of A2 to A4 that an amount of Rs.1,63,06,897.16 is

liable to be deducted on the grounds as enumerated in the

compilation so much so that the total admitted expenditure by

them  and  their  firms  as  named  by  the  prosecution  was

Rs.75,82,712.17.  Qua the disputed items, it has been urged

on  behalf  of  these  respondents  that  the  Trial  Court  had

overlooked the defence evidence and instead had received the

455

Page 455

455

version of the prosecution witnesses though on the face of the

records, the corresponding expenditures had not been proved.

According to the respondents, apart from these infirmities, the

Trial Court also ignored, amongst others, the aspect that on

several  items of  expenditure by way of  payment of  interest,

these  respondents  had  been  subjected  to  double  jeopardy

inasmuch as though these sums had been accounted  for in

computing  their  net  profits,  these  amounts  were  shown

separately  again  as  expenditures.   Not  only  sums  not

expended in fact had been deliberately shown to be so, the

attempt on the part of  the prosecution to make double and

inflated  additions  in  respect  of  purchase  of  machineries  in

some items has been overlooked.  It has been argued as well

that the  Trial Court erroneously also relied on the evidence of

prevaricating prosecution witnesses against the respondents.

474.  Per  contra,  the  prosecution  has  insisted  that  the

challenge  to  the  so  called  flaws  in  the  assessment  of  the

evidence by Trial Court on items other than the one pertaining

to marriage expenditure is wholly misplaced and unmerited as

the High Court had also endorsed the amounts corresponding

thereto.  This is more so in absence of any challenge to the

456

Page 456

456

conclusions  of  the  High  court  in  this  regard  by  the

respondents.    According to the prosecution, the High Court

scaled down the marriage expenditure from Rs.6,45,04,222/-,

as  quantified  by  the  prosecution to  Rs.28,68,000/-,  though

the  Trial  Court  had  computed the  same to  be  Rs.3  crores.

Arithmetically  thus,  the  High  Court  endorsed  the  total

expenditure  to  be  Rs.5,40,20,611/-  instead  of

Rs.11,56,56,833.41 quoted by the prosecution.  It  has been

argued that the analysis of the evidence on record as a whole

by  the  Trial  Court  and  its  computation  of  the  marriage

expenditure of Rs.3 crores is correct and did not call for any

interference.  According to the prosecution, the Trial Court did

not  reject  the  evidence  adduced  by  it,  but  on  a  rational

appraisal thereof, had moderated the marriage expenditure to

be Rs.3 crores. It has been urged as well that the Trial Court

had rightly disbelieved the evidence of the defence witnesses

and more particularly the party workers who claimed to have

collected funds to spend the same on the event.  That A2 had

failed to account for the expenditures, referred to by A1 in her

reply to the notice to the Income Tax Department had been

underlined too.

457

Page 457

457

475.  The break-up of expenditure of Rs.6,45,04,222/- on the

marriage has been furnished by the prosecution as hereunder.

a) Expenses  towards  the erection  of  marriage pendal  over  and  above the  admitted/recorded payments

 Rs.5,21,23,532/-

b) Expenditure  incurred towards  cost  of  food, mineral  water  and tamboolam

Rs.1,14,96,125/-

c) Cost of 34 Titan Watches Rs.1,34,565/- d) Amount paid to Tr. Syed

Bawkar towards stitching of wedding dress for A-3

Rs.1,26,000/-

e) Amount  paid  for purchase  of  100  silver plates  (paid  by  N. Sasikala)

Rs.4,00,000/-

f) Postal  expenses  for dispatch  of  56000 wedding invitations

Rs.2,24,000/-

    TOTAL Rs.6,45,04,222/-

476.  In  our  comprehension,  though  PW181  had  neither

visited  the  venues  on the  dates  of  the  event  nor  was  then

in-charge  of  the  construction  of  pandals  and  other

arrangements auxiliary thereto,  his evidence is not liable to be

excluded  as  a  whole.   On  being  entrusted  with  the

458

Page 458

458

responsibility of making an estimate of the expenses incurred

in the construction of the pandals and other arrangements, it

is  discernible  from  his  testimony  that  he  did  consult  the

Architect Vijay Shankar, the Art Director Thotha Theerani and

others, who were in fact actually involved in the said works at

the relevant point of time.  This witness visited the venues and

stated on oath that the Architect Vijay Shankar had given him

the  drawing  of  the  choultry  and  the  measurements  of  the

pandals on the basis of which those had been constructed.  He

also referred to the plans and  sketches provided to him by the

Art  Director,  based  whereupon,  the   fixtures  and  ancillary

structures were raised.  In the report Ex.P1019 prepared by

PW181, he did mention,  inter  alia,  the areas of  the various

pandals  together  with  the  decorative  attachments  and after

accounting for the cost thereof and the price of the furniture

used and the amenities provided, estimated the expenditure to

be  Rs.5,91,00,000/-  towards  the  pandals  and  other

arrangements to secure the intended facilities for  the couple,

guests and other participants. True it is, that PW181 was not

an  eye-witness  to  the  marriage  arrangements  and  had  not

personally  undertaken  the  works  pertaining  to  the  pandals

459

Page 459

459

and other associated arrangements, yet as has been observed

by the Trial Court, his findings as recorded in the report Ex.

P1019  could  be  construed  to  be  of  an  expert  witness  and

further could be used as corroboration for  the testimony of

PW200 who indeed had supervised the same works himself

and as claimed by the prosecution on the instructions/advise

of A2.  The evidence of PW181, that the Architect Vijayshankar

and the Art Director Thotha Tharani had provided him with

the plan and the sketch map on which the pandals and other

structures  at  the  venues  had  been  constructed,  cannot  be

discarded as hearsay.  In this view of the matter, the approach

of  the  Trial  Court  to  weigh  the  probative  worth  of  the

testimony of PW181 in conjunction with PW200  cannot be

repudiated  to  be  impermissible  in  law  or  outrageously

fallacious.

477.  PW200 K.P. Muttuswamy, Chief Engineer, Public Works

Department,  Tamil  Nadu  did  assert  on  oath  that  he  was

instructed by A2 to  complete  the pandal  works as early  as

possible.  He also referred to a plan to that effect furnished by

the  Architect  Vijay  Shankar  in  presence  of  the  contractors

entrusted for the execution thereof.  The witness claimed to

460

Page 460

460

have arranged land at the identified sites to be levelled and

also provided in details of the number, size and specification of

the pandals together with the purposes thereof.  The witness

was candid to state that the father of the bride had paid Rs.14

lakhs  towards  the  expenditure  and  that  therefrom,  he

disbursed payments.  He deposed as well that A1 and A2 had

inspected the work by visiting the site about a week prior to

the marriage.  He claimed to have signed the applications for

securing  temporary  electric  connections  for  the  pandals  for

which payments were made by cheques on behalf of A1.  In

this patent premise, the conclusion of the Trial Court that the

evidence of PW200 was direct and of first hand in nature with

regard to the arrangements at the pandals cannot be faulted

with.   Its  finding  that  his  testimony  thus  lent  sufficient

corroboration to that of PW181 also cannot be dismissed as

preposterous.   

478.  The testimony of DW-80, who was also a signatory to the

report  Ex.  P-1019,  to  the  effect  that  the  same  had  been

prepared without any inspection and that the measurements

mentioned therein were not real had not been rightly preferred

to  the  otherwise  consistent  versions  of  PW181 and PW200.

461

Page 461

461

The evaluation of the evidence of the other witnesses touching

upon the remaining aspects of the expenditure incurred on the

marriage, as conducted by the Trial Court, also does not merit

rejection in toto. Noticeably, the Trial Court did not accept the

expenditure quoted by the prosecution on  the cost of Titan

watches as the  evidence to that  effect  was construed to  be

inadequate to lay the same in the account of the respondents.

The rejection of  the  evidence  of  the  party  workers  claiming

collection of various amounts from its cadres and utilization

thereof towards the purposes and arrangements mentioned by

them also in absence of any persuasive corroborative evidence

does not merit any repudiation. In the face of the evidence in

particular of the elaborate arrangements at the venues and the

expenses incurred on other items associated with the event,

we are of the opinion that the Trial Court did not err in not

accepting  the  figure  of  Rs.28,68,000/-,  as  the  expenditure

incurred by A1 on the basis of her reply to the queries made

by the Income Tax Department.  Though it has been urged on

behalf of the defence that this figure had been finally accepted

after the necessary enquiries undertaken by the income tax

authorities, the result of   such enquiries  even if made, being

462

Page 462

462

not binding on the Trial Court, it was not obliged to accept the

same  by  ignoring  the  evidence  adduced  before  it.   The

treatment  of  the  evidence  by  the  High  Court,  on  the  other

hand,  in  our  assessment,  had  been  summary  and  sketchy

and it in a way promptly accepted the expenditure mentioned

by A1 in her reply to the notice of the income tax department

without  independently  appraising the   evidence  adduced by

the parties at the trial.   

479.  Though it is not unknown,  that  very often the bride's

family  shares  or   bears  the  expenditure   of  marriage,

dependent on the practice prevalent,  it  is  not  an invariable

phenomenon  and  permits  of  exception   in  varying  fact

situations  and therefore  no rigid assumption either way is

tenable. In any case, necessary deductions would have to be

drawn  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  adduced.   As  the

investigation into the expenditure on the marriage had to be

conducted more than two years after the event,  it  is logical

that the exercise involved was expected to be informed with

some assumptions, which if realistic and logical, would not as

such vitiate the assessment as incurably infirm  or non-est.   

480.  On an overall consideration of the evidence adduced by

463

Page 463

463

the parties, we are inclined to hold that the computation of the

expenditure incurred by A1 in the marriage as made by the

High Court is unacceptable in the teeth of the materials on

record to the contrary.  There being concurrent findings of the

two  forums  on  the  rest  of  the  items  of  expenditure,  we

construe it to be inessential to undertake a fresh exercise with

regard thereto in the present proceedings.  

CONSPIRACY AND ABETEMENT

481.  The prosecution asserts that the respondents i.e. A1 to

A4 had entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance thereof,

A1 who was a public servant, had come to possess assets to

the  tune of  Rs.66.65 crores,  disproportionate  to  her  known

sources of income, during the period 1991 to 1996 when she

held the office of the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.

The prosecution has alleged as well that A2 to A4 had abetted

her  i.e.  A1 in the  commission of  offence.   To reiterate,  the

check period is from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. To buttress this

imputation,  the  prosecution has relied on the  fact  that  A1,

who was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24.6.1991 to

464

Page 464

464

13.5.1996 and A2 who was  her  close  friend and associate,

were amongst others partners together  in Jaya Publications

and Sasi Enterprises from before the check period.  A2, who

was the wife of Tr. M. Natarajan, a government servant with

the Information and Public Relations Department, initially was

a occasional visitor to the residence of A1 till 1988 whereafter

she  was   permanently  assimilated  in  the  household.  The

prosecution case as well  is that A3  who is proclaimed to be

the foster son of A1 is the biological son of A2's elder sister

Tmt. Vanamani and T. Vivekanandan.  He too had come to

reside  in  the  residence  of  A1  during  the  year  1992  while

pursuing studies at Chennai and remained there till 1997.  It

is  in  evidence  that  A1  had  solemnized  his  marriage  on

7.9.1995, claiming him to be her foster  son with noticeable

pamp and grandeur. A4, according to the prosecution, is the

wife of the elder brother of A2    and had been residing in the

house of A1 from the beginning of 1992.   

482.  The above noticeable integration of A1 to A4 and their

joint residence has been highlighted by the prosecution as a

formindable indicator to attest  the imputation of  conspiracy

and abetment. Apart from maintaining that A2, A3 and A4 at

465

Page 465

465

the time of joining the household of A1 were not possessed of

properties significant enough in their names nor did have any

independent source of income as such, it has insisted that the

properties acquired during the check period in the names of

the 34 firms and companies  were with the unaccounted funds

and resources of A1. It has been underlined that only few of

the companies/firms which were formed with A2, A3 and A4

and  Lex  Property  Development  (Pvt).  Ltd.  in  different

combinations  were  registered  under  the  Companies  Act.

Noticeably, the properties of these companies/firms had been

acquired during the check period and significantly about 50

bank  accounts  were  opened  with  the  Indian  Bank,

Abhirampuram and Canara Bank, Mylapore in the names of

the respondents and their firms/companies during that time.

The prosecution  has also brought on record the fact that out

of these firms/companies, six firms namely; Jay  Farm House,

J.  Real  Estate,  Jaya Contractors and Builders,  Green Farm

House,  J.J.  Leasing  and  Maintenance  and  J.S.  Housing

Development  had  been  registered  on  the  same  day  ie.

25.1.1994 and ten other firms  namely; Vigneshwara Builders,

Lakshmi  Constructions,  Gopal  Promoters,  Namasivaya

466

Page 466

466

Housing Developments, Ayyappa Property Developments, Sea

Enclave,  Navasakthi  Contractors  and  Builders,  Oceanic

Constructions, Green Garden Apartments and A.P. Advertising

Services on 15.2.1995. According to the prosecution, all  the

respondents  availed  of  the  services  of  common  auditors,

architects  and  accountants.   It  has  referred  to  numerous

inter-account  transfers  involving  the  respondents  and  the

above firms/companies so much so to unequivocally project

that those represented cash flow from their accounts inter se

for common purposes. Referring to the evidence of PW198 in

particular, it has been contended on behalf of the prosecution

that huge unaccounted cash deposits had been made in the

two  accounts,  maintained  in  Canara  Bank,  Mylapore  and

Indian  Bank,  Abhirampuram    originating  from  36,  Poes

Garden,  Chennai,  the  residence/secretariat  of  A1  with  A2

monitoring the account(s) in which such deposits were to be

made.  Vis-a-vis the purchase of immovable properties, it has

been alleged that about 3000 acres of fertile lands, of which

900 acres  comprised a tea estate,  had been acquired in the

names of individuals/companies through various transactions

evidenced by 146 sale deeds. It has been underlined that qua

467

Page 467

467

most  of  the  sales,  A2  had  suggested  the  names  of  the

firms/individuals to figure in the deals. It has been imputed as

well  that  in  connection  with  such  transactions,  the

vendors/owners were kept away from the purchasers and  and

the conveyances  were made through attorneys  foisted upon

them.  The vendors were also subjected to duress to part with

the  property  and  the  officials  entrusted  with  the  duty  of

registration  of  such  transactions,  were  subjected  to

instructions from higher authorities to oblige the purchasers

and that the registrations did take place at the residence of A1

on  many  occasions.   The  consideration  price  of  such  sale

transactions  very  often  had  been  below  the  guidelines

prescribed and the amounts were paid from various accounts

of the respondents as well as their firms/companies and also

by  cash.   According  to  the  prosecution,  all  these

circumstances are borne out unmistakably by the evidence on

record,  oral  and  documentary  do  prove  the  charge  of

conspiracy  and  abetment  and  that  in  furtherance  of  these

criminal activities, each one of them had acted on behalf of

each  other   in  capacities  either  as  individuals,  partners,

directors,  of their firms/companies and also collaborators.  

468

Page 468

468

483.  In refutation on behalf of A1, it has been broadly urged

that though conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances,

the same has to be essentially proved and that the mere fact

that A2 to A4 had been residing in the house of A1, per se

cannot be a decisive circumstance to prove conspiracy.   It has

been argued that from much prior to the check period, A1 and

A2  had  been  partners  in  the   firms  namely;  M/s  Jaya

Publication  and  Sasi  Enterprises  and   their  business

connection  ipso  fact  also  cannot  be  construed  to  be  an

incriminating circumstance.  It has been maintained that A2

to A4 have purchased properties with their own resources and

efforts and that the prosecution  has failed to establish even a

single  instance  to  demonstrate  that  the  funds  for  such

acquisitions  had  been   doled  out  by  A1.   Contending  that

starting of a  firm by a non-public servant by itself  cannot be

an  irrefutable  determinant  to  assume  conspiracy   with  a

public servant more particularly when A1  had never been a

partner in any of the firms started during the check period, it

has been pleaded that the finding of the Trial Court that the

evidence available  did prove issuance of  cheques by A1 in

469

Page 469

469

favour  of  the  co-accused  and  the  applications  by  her   for

availing loan for the firms involved is factually incorrect.  It

has been argued that the prosecution has failed to cite even

one instance where A1 had transferred any fund to A3 and A4

and for that matter to any of the six companies in particular

which  allegedly  have  acquired  properties  therewith.   It  has

been  underlined  as  well  that  A1  had  neither  received  any

dividend from these companies nor been either a shareholder

or a director thereof.  In this context, the finding of the Trial

Court that A2 to A4 had acquired defunct companies with a

sinister motive has been dismissed as unfounded and patently

erroneous.  It  has  been  maintained  that  a  circumstance  to

admit any inference of an illegal act must be one incapable of

any other reasonable explanation and the prosecution having

failed  to  offer  any,  by  furnishing  either  direct  or  indirect

evidence,  the charge of conspiracy has remained unproved.

484.  Elaborating further the refutation of the imputation that

the six companies namely; Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Limited,

Riverway  Agro Products Limited, Lex Property Development

(Pvt.)  Limited,  Signora  Business  Enterprises,  Ramraj  Agro

Products  Limited  and  Indo  Doha  Chemical  and

470

Page 470

470

Pharmaceutical  Pvt.  Limited had no resources of  their own

and that with the induction of A2, A3 and A4 in particular, a

tide of  funds had flowed into their accounts generated from

the  coffers  of  A1,  it  has  been  urged  with  reference  to  the

testimony of DW86 Vaidyanathan and DW87 Srikant  as well

as the income tax returns for the period ending 31.3.1996 and

1996-97 as well as the balance sheets of the companies that

so far as Meadow Agro Farm Pvt. Limited, and Riverway Agro

Products  Limited  are  concerned,  at  the  relevant  time,  the

respondents were not the shareholders thereof and their share

capital was formed of the contribution of the shareholders of

these  entities.   According  to  the  respondents,  all  these

companies  had  sufficient  funds  of  their  own  where  from

acquisition of  properties  and expenditures  were  made.  That

huge amount of loans were also advanced by these companies,

to  name  in  particular,  Meadow  Agro  Farms  Pvt.  Limited,

Riverway  Agro  Products  Limited  and  Lex  Property

Development (Pvt.) Limited have been highlighted.  The loans,

noticeable  were  more  prominently  to  A2,  A3  and  the

firms/companies  formed  by  them  in  different  combinations

including Sasi Enterprises and Jaya Publications. The amount

471

Page 471

471

of  loans range from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.62,52,000/-.  Vis-a-vis

Lex  Property  Development  (Pvt.)  Limited,  it  has  been

contended  that from its balance sheet for the assessment year

1996-97, it was patent that it had received share application

money to the tune of Rs.46,00,000 and that it had borrowed a

sum of Rs.84,07,172 from the Indian Bank.  Further, it had a

receipt of Rs.2,04,98,350 from sundry creditors. In addition to

the above, it has been pleaded that the company also received

an inter-corporate deposit (ICD)  from Kalyani Constructions

Pvt.  Ltd. of  an amount of  Rs. 1,56,67,000  during the year

ending  31.3.1996 and Rs. 45,00,000 from Altaf Constructions

Private  Ltd.  That  this  company  did  make  an  investment  of

Rs.2,63,49,857/- in immovable property apart from  granting

loans to A3 and three other firms including Sasi Enterprises,

has been mentioned. According to the respondents, thus the

total expenditure of this company including advances did sum

up to Rs.3,03,48,357/- which was met  from its own corpus,

as had been accepted by the income tax authorities.   485.  It  has  been insisted  in  particular  that  the  properties

acquired by Signora Business Enterprises Private Limited were

prior to A3 and A4 becoming the additional directors of  the

472

Page 472

472

company and therefore the finding to the contrary as recorded

by the Trial Court was apparently erroneous.

486.  With regard to Ram Raj Agro Products Limited, it has

been argued that the balance sheet of  the company for the

year  1994-95  disclosed  that  it  had  made  investment  of

Rs.14,39,446/-  in  the  purchase  of   land.  Referring  to  the

balance-sheet  of  this  company  for  the  assessment  year

1995-96,  it  has  been maintained that  it  had secured loans

from  banks  to  the  tune  of  Rs.1,43,87,336  and  unsecured

loans of Rs.75,30,561.   It has been urged as well that during

the  said  period,  this  company had  received a sum of Rs.1

crore also from Mangutta Investment Pvt. Limited.  That the

company had received back from the government a refund of

Rs.40,00,000 has also been urged to contend that it  thus had

funds  to  the  tune  of  Rs.2,59,17,897   wherefrom  it  spent

Rs.62,57,000  towards  constructions  at  Thanjavour  during

1994-95 and 1995-96.    

487.  Vis-a-vis,  Indo  Doha  Chemicals  and   Pharmaceutical

Pvt. Limited, it has been asserted  that on 31.3.1995, it had

paid up share capital  of  Rs.97,00,000/- as disclosed by its

balance-sheet.   Referring  to  the  order  passed  by  the

473

Page 473

473

Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  (Appeals)  in  ITA  No.

144/1999-2000,  it is  submitted that 9,69,400 shares of face

value of Rs.10  each had been purchased by A2 at Rs.6 per

share and the remaining 600 shares had been purchased by

six  other  persons.  That  the  price  of  the  9,69,400 shares  @

Rs.6 per share amounting to Rs.58,16,400/- and registered in

the name of  A2 had been paid by A3 is however  admitted.

Contending thus that the prosecution version that Indo Doha

Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Pvt. Limited during the check

period had a total income of Rs.30,40,000   to be wrong, it has

been urged that after the purchase of the shares, the whole

factory was leased out  to Southern Petrochemical  Company

Limited  (SPIC),  in  return  whereof  the  company  received  an

amount of  Rs.1,39,08,584/-. It has however  been admitted

that  out  of  such  receipt,  Rs.25,00,000/-  had  been  lent  to

Meadow Agro Farm (Private) Limited.  Further, an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/-  had  been  paid  to  James  Frederic   and

Rs.72,00,000/- to SIPCOT by way of repayment of loan availed

earlier leaving a balance of Rs.57,08,584/-  in deposit. This is

to contradict  the prosecution's claim that the income of Indo

Doha Chemicals  and Pharmaceutical  Private  Limited during

474

Page 474

474

the check period was Rs.30,40,000/-. It has thus been urged

that all the properties acquired and  constructions  raised by

the  six  companies  have  been  from   their  own  funds  and

therefore, the amount of Rs.4,70,24,439/- towards the same is

not liable to be integrated while adjudging the assets of A1 to

A4.

488.  In  consolidation  of  the  above,  it  has  been  urged  on

behalf  of  A2 to  A4 that  they  along with  the  six  companies

whose assets, income and expenditure have been combined by

the prosecution to lay the charge, being not public servants,

cannot,  in  law,  be  called  upon  to  explain  their  source  of

income or  the  manner  of  acquisition  of  their  assets  or  the

mode and extent of their expenditures.   

489.  Referring to Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, it has been

asserted  that  the  same  does  not  cast  any  obligation  on  a

non-public servant even if arraigned as a co-accused with the

public  servant,  to  furnish  explanation  as  otherwise

contemplated therein.  It has been maintained that though the

clear mandate of this legal provision is that for the charge to

succeed,  the  prosecution  must  establish  that  the  public

servant,  had been during the term of  his/her office holding

475

Page 475

475

his/her  assets  through  some  other  person  or  to  put  it

differently, some other person had been holding the assets on

behalf of the public servant, the Trial Court had grossly erred

in absence of any evidence to that effect, to proceed on the

basis of surmises and conjectures to return a finding  against

A2  to  A4  and   the  above  referred  six  companies.    The

prosecution having  utterly  failed to  adduce any evidence to

demonstrate that  A2 to A4 or these companies had received

any money from A1, her financial involvement in their affairs

remained unproved,  more particularly  as she was neither  a

director nor a shareholder of these companies.   Underlining

the fact that no charge of benami transaction had been framed

against  the  respondents,  it  has  been  insisted  that  even

otherwise the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to

prove  this  fact.  It  has  been  argued  that  it  having  been

established that A2 to A4 and the six companies at all relevant

times, had their independent sources of income and individual

business, the 1988 Act did not cast any burden on them to

prove  that  they  did  not  hold   any  assets  on  behalf  of  A1.

Elaborating on this aspect, it has been contended that from

much before the commencement of the check period, A2 had

476

Page 476

476

been carrying on business in her own right as the proprietor of

Vinod Vision and she had been filing her income tax returns in

connection therewith.   Reference  of  the  income tax  returns

and  wealth  tax  returns  of  A2  for  the  assessment  years

1985-86 to 1992-93 have been referred to.  All these returns

as the dates thereof would indicate had been submitted much

belatedly  and  noticeably  on  same  dates  i.e.  23.2.1993  and

25.2.1993 for income tax and wealth tax returns respectively.

No explanation for  such delayed submission of  returns had

been furnished.

490.  Though A2 had been a partner in Jaya Publications and

Sasi Enterprises which did exist as well from before the check

period,  it  has  been pleaded that  the  Trial  Court  completely

disregarded the evidence with regard to her income and assets

of these firms as disclosed more particularly in the income tax

returns and accepted by the income tax authorities, in holding

that the transactions involved  were really  of A1 catalysed by

her finances. Similarly the income tax returns  of A3, A4 and

the six companies had also been left out of consideration by

the Trial Court.    

491.  Reiterating that there is no evidence on record even to

477

Page 477

477

indicate that A1 had been the director or a shareholder of any

of  the  six  companies,  it  has  been  emphasized  that  these

companies had been floated prior to the check period. Apart

form contending that there is no evidence to suggest that A1

had either given loan to the six companies or had made any

investment  therein,  it  has  been  urged  as  well  that  these

companies not having been arraigned as accused, their income

and  assets  could  not  have  been  attributed  to  any  of  the

respondents, being impermissible in law. In a way, thus it has

been  argued  that  the  assimilation  of  the  assets  of  these

companies  with  those  of  the  respondents  and  the  eventual

confiscation  thereof  amounts  to  condemning  these  entities

unheard.  The prosecution as well has been  severely criticized

to be unfair in withholding the audit report prepared by Mr.

Chokkalingam  in respect of Jaya Publications and Namadhu

MGR.  That several other documents seized in course of the

investigation were also endeavoured to be withheld and that it

was on the  intervention of  this  Court  that  the respondents

could secure an opportunity to traverse the same, has also

been mentioned.   In reiteration of their plea made with regard

to the deficiencies in the assessment of the valuation of the

478

Page 478

478

construction  made  by  the  engineers  deputed  by  the

prosecution, it has been insisted that they could by no means

be accepted as experts, the appraisals and the reports based

thereon  being  wholly  incomplete,  faulty  and  conjectural  in

absence  of  any   contemporaneous  document  in  support

thereof.  The  approach  of  the  Trial  Court  in  accepting  the

valuation  furnished  by  the  prosecution  through  such

witnesses  by  allowing  a  discount  of  20%  has  also  been

castigated  as  absurd  and  perverse.  According  to  the

respondents, the Trial Court readily accepted the evidence of

the prosecution  on many issues  without analysing the same

in  the  correct   perspective  which  patently  exhibits  its  non

application of mind.

492.  Aside  impeaching  the  failure  of  the  Trial  Court  in

omitting  to  lay  before  the  A2,  all  the  incriminating

circumstances  under  Section 313 Cr.P.C.,  its  acceptance  of

the charge of conspiracy and abetment  on the  consideration

of  the joint residence of A1 to A4, execution of general power

of attorney by A1 in favour of A2, constitution of various firms

and companies during the check period and inference of cash

flow  from one account to another  has been branded as visibly

479

Page 479

479

flawed.  It has been argued on behalf of the respondents  that

the deed of power of attorney was executed by A 1 in favour of

A2  only for the purpose of bank transactions of Indian Bank

and  not  for  all  purposes  as  assumed  by  the  Trial  Court.

Further,  as  A1  was  neither  a  partner   in  any  of  the

firms/companies constituted during the check period and as

the  six  companies,  the  properties  whereof   had  been

confiscated, had been incorporated  prior to the check period

with third party promoters/directors, this factor also  did not

merit acceptance to reinforce the charge of conspiracy.   

493.  It has been assiduously pleaded that having regard to

the  fact  that  A1  is  a  spinster  and  that  she  and  A2  were

partners in M/s Jaya Publications and M/s Sasi Enterprises

from  before  the  check  period  and  thus  did  share  a  close

relationship,  A2's  accommodation  with  A1  per  se  cannot

suggest conspiracy as alleged.  Similarly, A3 being the nephew

of A2 and A4, the widowed sister-in-law of A2, their residence

with A1 also ipso facto was not an unmistakable circumstance

to  deduce  conspiracy,  in  absence  of  any  evidence  direct  or

indirect or a single instance evidencing flow of cash or finance

either  from any source of  A1 or  her account to that  of  the

480

Page 480

480

other accused persons or the six companies. Such a factor was

really non est but presumed and acted upon by the Trial Court

to infer conspiracy and abetment.   It has been emphatically

contended that the Trial Court ignored as well the fact  that

M/s Jaya Publications and M/s Sasi Enterprises along with

A2 to A4 and six companies had secured substantial amounts

of loan from banks and other private sources which they rolled

in their respective business to assume their inter dependence

and  sustenance through circulation of  unaccounted reserves

of A1 in their accounts.   

494.  On the aspects of  abetment and conspiracy, the High

Court dwelt upon the evidence in general  without undertaking

any  minute  analysis  of  the  testimony  of  the  individual

witnesses  or the documents/ transactions related thereto. It

in particular, while dealing with the charge  of  accumulation

of unaccounted wealth by A1 and diversion thereof to A2 to A4

to  acquire  immovable  properties   and  administer   the

firms/companies involved, noted that the respondents along

with  the  firms  and  companies  had  borrowed   loans  of

Rs.24,17,31,274/-  from  banks.  The  High  Court  therefore

concluded  that  this  amount  having  been  utilised  for  the

481

Page 481

481

purchase of  immovable properties and administration of the

firms and companies involved, there was no foundation for the

charge of abetment.  Qua the imputation of conspiracy, the

High Court ruled that the joint residence of A2 to A4 did not

warrant  an  inference  thereof  and  though  as  this  offence

contemplates an agreement between two or more persons to

commit an unlawful act,  a court to be satisfied with regard

thereto ought to  have at its disposal prima facie evidence. It

observed that where evidence is only circumstantial, it must

be complete, continuous  and unimpeachable  to be consistent

with  the  guilt  of  the  accused  so  much  so  to  exclude  any

possible  hypothesis  of  his  innocence.  The  High  Court

concluded  that  the  evidence  disclosed  that  A2  to  A4  had

borrowed huge amounts from the  banks and other sources

and had therefrom acquired the  immovable properties and the

six  companies.   It  thus  ruled,  that  not  only  the  source  of

income was lawful, the object was also legal. The charges of

abetment and conspiracy against the respondents have thus

been dismissed by the High Court on these considerations.  

495.  The  Trial  Court,  while  examining  these  charges,  did

address at the outset the imputation of the prosecution that

482

Page 482

482

the pecuniary resources and the properties of A2 to A4 as well

as the six afore-named companies  were really held for and on

behalf of A1, thus attracting the offence under Section  13(1)(e)

of the Act.  The Trial Court  recounted in this context, the plea

of A2 to A4 that the cash deposits in their accounts and their

assets  had been acquired out of their own funds and that A1

had no association therewith or contribution therefor in any

manner whatsoever. This, is in the face of the accusation of

the  prosecution  that  the  financial  resources  as  well  as  the

assets of A2 to A4 and the six companies were in fact those of

A1, as A2 to A4 and the said companies did not have, at all

relevant  times,  any  income,  or  wherewithal  to  acquire  the

same. The Trial Court was thus alive to the assertion of the

prosecution that the pecuniary resources and the properties of

A2 to A4 and of the six companies as endeavoured to have

been acquired from their funds were held in benami for and on

behalf of A1. It proceeded to analyse the evidence adduced by

the  prosecution  on  the  touchstone  of  the  accepted  legal

formulation  that  benami  transactions  admitted  of  direct  or

circumstantial  evidence  leading  to  such  inference  and

embarked  on  the  process  of  scrutinizing  the  facts  and

483

Page 483

483

circumstances  attendant  on  the  various  transactions

pertaining to  acquisition of properties of the six companies  of

which A2 to A4, in different combinations, were the directors,

as well as  the cash flow inter se in their bank accounts.  

496.  As  the  narration  outlined  by  the  Trial  Court  would

reveal,  it  dealt  with  in  minutest  details  the  oral  and

documentary evidence available on record.  Without  resorting

to  a  dialectical  appraisal   of  the  evidence  of  the  individual

witnesses and the documents brought on record, it would be

suffice in our comprehension to notice the  salient features

discernible  therefrom  and  strikingly  common  to  the

transactions.   

497.  The  evidence  on  record  demonstrates  that  these

companies  though  were  in  existence  from  before  the

commencement of the check period and of which A3 and A4

were not the directors then, did neither have any significant

business  activity  nor  transaction  nor  any  profit  earning

pursuit to their credit.  This the Trial Court rightly noticed was

apparent from the relevant returns and balance sheets. The

contemporaneous evidence also evinced that these companies

were  not  possessed  of  sufficient  resources  to  acquire

484

Page 484

484

properties  to  the  extent  amassed  during  the  check  period.

Neither did these companies have fixed assets nor  did they

avail  or give loans to evince financial soundness or stability

permitting acquisition of  the assets and properties as made

during the check period.  In all, in these six companies, A3

and A4 were nominated as additional directors/directors  in

the year 1994  and soon thereafter  their registered office stood

shifted to Shop No. 21, First Floor, Wellington Plaza No. 19,

Annasalai, Madras.  The original directors resigned leaving the

reins of the companies wholly with A3 and A4 in particular.

Noticeably, soon after A3 and A4  were inducted as additional

directors/directors,  bank  accounts  were  opened.

Simultaneously  A2  to  A4  formed  several  partnership  firms

with the principal place of business thereof also at the above

address.  Co-incidentally  the dates of  registration of  most  of

these firms  were common in batches and the duration of their

existence were mentioned to be at will.  Significantly, A3 and

A4 resigned from the above six companies  markedly on the

eve of the expiry of the check period.    

498.  The Trial Court, in details, took notice of the testimony

of the witnesses examined as well as the documents on the

485

Page 485

485

aspect of acquisition of properties by these six companies. The

witnesses  included  erstwhile  directors  of  these  companies,

bank officials who stated about the  opening of their accounts

as well as advancement of loans, the concerned sub-registrars,

who registered the  sale  deeds of  lands purchased by  these

companies, officials from the office of the Company Registrar

and   Mr.  Shiva,  Real  Estate  Agent,  who  acted  as  the

agent/attorney of the vendors,  whose lands were purchased

by these companies.   The materials  examined by the Trial

Court  evidenced  heavy  deposits/withdrawals  of  cash  and

transfers thereof  hitherto absent before A3, A4 had taken over

the companies.  The amounts varied very often in the range of

Rs.10  lakhs  and  above.   The  pay-in-slips  for  the  deposits

amongst others showed address of 36 Poes Garden, Chennai.

Transfers of heavy amounts to and from other accounts of A2

to  A4  and  their  firms  also  surfaced.   The  income-tax

returns/balance  sheets  belatedly  filed  also  demonstrated

exchanges of deposits inter se the accounts of A2 to A4 and

their firms as well as these companies. 499.  In respect of the acquisition of the immovable properties,

the evidence attested that soon after A3 and A4 had become

486

Page 486

486

directors  of  these  companies,  they  got  involved  in  the

negotiations and survey of  lands intended to be purchased.

The  sales  were  got  executed  through  the  attorneys  of  the

owners of the lands for which deeds of power of attorney were

obtained from such owners.   Not  only uneven bargains but

also  inadequate  consideration/price  by  undervaluing  the

properties  was noticeable  in the transactions.   Evidence on

record disclosed that instructions were issued from the higher

authorities to the Registrars/Sub-Registrars to respond to the

directions issued from the office of A1 for documentation and

registration of the deeds involving such purchases and as a

matter of fact, on various occasions, such precepts did come

and  were  readily  complied  with.  Several  registrations  were

executed in the house of the vendors and at times, also in the

concerned  office  of  the  Registrar/Sub-Registrar.   The  sale

deeds executed, which are not disputed so far as those relate

to these companies, did not indicate that the purchases had

been  made  from  their  assets  existing  prior  thereto.   The

evidence  of  the  witnesses  did  suggest  as  well  that  the

registration norms were flexed and that resultant irregularities

in  the  process  were  ignored  and  cast  aside  to  oblige  the

487

Page 487

487

respondents. Evidence of direct involvement of A3 and A4 in

the  purchase  of  shares  and properties  on behalf  of  Ramraj

Agro Mills (Private) Limited and that of A3 in the purchase of

property  for  Meadow  Agro  Farms  (Private)  Limited  is

discernible from the evidence adduced.   In some cases, A2

was  also  present  at  the  time  of  negotiations  for  such

purchases.   The active role of Mr. Shiva, the attorney of the

owners, is apparent on the face of the records.  

500.  The  Trial  Court  also  noticed  the  evidence  that  the

companies had been transferred to A3 and A4 at paltry sums.

On a totality of the scrutiny of the evidence on record which

significantly  is  adequately  exhaustive,  the  Trial  Court  held

that at the relevant time of acquisition of the properties, as

above,  all  the six companies were exclusively in the control

and management of A2 to A4. The statement of the erstwhile

directors/promoters  of  the  companies  that  they  did  not

purchase any property  in their names either before or after

the formation of such companies was also taken note of. The

Trial Court noted as well that A2 to A4 had taken over the

management  of  the  companies  even  without  buying  the

requisite shares and concluded  that these entities in fact did

488

Page 488

488

not have the trappings of a company.  It was  determined as

well that none of these companies had any account in their

names before A3 and A4 had taken over the charge thereof

and that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the funds

of these companies had been utilised to purchase properties in

their  names.    It  recorded  as  well,  that  the  funds  were

transferred to the accounts of these companies either from the

accounts  held  in  the  names  of  Namadhu  MGR,  M/s  Jaya

Publications  or  other  firms  of  the  respondents  which

unassailably proved that the resources for the acquisition of

the  properties  of  these  companies  had in  fact  been availed

from A1 or the accounts maintained in the joint accounts of

A1 and A2.  That admittedly none of the companies had filed

returns either before the Registrar of the Companies or before

the  income  tax  authorities  declaring  the  funds  for  the

purchase of properties or acquisitions made in the names of

the companies was noted. The Trial Court also recorded the

non-compliance of the various provisions namely, i.e. Sections

209,  210,  211,  215  and  220   of  the  Companies  Act  in

particular to conclude that as required by these provisions, no

proper  books of  accounts  had been maintained,  no returns

489

Page 489

489

had  been  filed  by  these  companies  from  the  date  of

incorporation till  the date of  attachment of   their properties

pursuant  to  the  notifications  issued  by  the  Government  of

Tamil Nadu under the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal

Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 as per GOMS No. 120 dated

29.1.1997 and GOMS No. 1183   dated 25.9.1997. That the

balance sheet and profit and loss account of the companies

were not maintained and processed as mandated by Sections

213 and 220 of the Companies Act was also underlined. It was

of the view as well that there was nothing on record to show

that  A2  to  A4  had  convened  any  general  meeting  of  the

companies  during  the  relevant  time or  that  regular  returns

were filed before the Registrar as required under the law.  It

also noted that the companies did not have their own auditors

appointed under Section 234 of the Companies Act and that

the  auditors  of  A1 to  A4 themselves  submitted the  returns

after the properties of the companies were attached.  The Trial

Court  thus  deduced  that  all  the  circumstances  conjointly

substantiated  that  the  acquisition  of  these  companies  were

never  intended  to  be  the  assets  thereof  and  were  also  not

treated to be their properties at any point of time.  According

490

Page 490

490

to  the  Trial  Court,  it  was  only  after  the  attachment  of  the

properties that the respondents raised the contention that the

ownership thereof did vest in the companies and thus could

not be said to have been held benami for A1.    The Trial Court

also,   with reference to the certified copies of  the orders in

Misc.  Petition  No.  768/2014  dated  18.6.2014  and  Misc.

Petition  289/2014 dated 26.6.2004 passed under Section 5(3)

of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance recorded that after

the resignation of A3 and A4, there was no appointment of

directors  and  that  seemingly  for  that  reason,  the  order  of

attachment passed in 1997 was not  assailed for  nearly two

years.   It  thus rejected on a comprehensive analysis of  the

evidence on record, the contention of the respondents that the

properties acquired in the name of the companies did belong

to these entities and could not have been assimilated in the

assets of A1.   

501.  Qua  'the  respondents’  plea  that  the  companies

incorporated under the Companies Act cannot hold property

benami for another person, it entered a finding that none of

the  documents  of  title  registered  in  the  names  of  the

companies  did  bear  the  seal  thereof.   That  in  90% of  the

491

Page 491

491

registered deeds, the companies were not represented by their

secretary or director and that the address of the companies

were not recorded in such deeds, was noted.  The Trial Court

concluded that the registrar who registered these properties

and PW 181 who negotiated with the purchasers, distorted the

rules to help A1 and they went out of his way to oblige her.

That in some of the deeds, the names of the purchasers were

not included and that  the properties were undervalued was

reiterated.   The  admission  of  the  District  Registrar  that  he

proceeded with the registration solely because the properties

were purchased by A1 was taken cognizance of.   It was thus

of the view that the intention of the respondents in  taking

over  the  companies   was  for  acquiring  large  number  of

properties in their  names for  diverting the funds unlawfully

amassed by A1 during her tenure as Chief  Minister of   the

State. It  thus concluded that the properties registered in the

names  of  these  companies  and  which  formed  the  subject

matter of GOMs No. 1183 dated 25.9.1997 and GOMs No. 120

dated 12.1.1997 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu  were really

the  properties  acquired and held  by  A2  to  A4  for  and  on

behalf of A1.

492

Page 492

492

502.  The evidence on record thus propel several conspicuous

and singular features as noted comprehensively  by the Trial

Court. Apart from the fact that the  properties aforementioned

had  been  acquired  during  the  check  period,  the  general

phenomenon decipherable is  that the acquisitions had been

made  in  the  names  of  the  newly  formed  or  acquired

firms/companies with their directorial composition, as noticed

hereinabove  and  the  two  existing  firms  i.e.  M.s.  Jaya

Publications and Sasi Enterprises of which A1 and A2 were

partners.

503.  Evidently about 50 banks accounts were opened with

the Indian Bank, Abhaypuram and Carana Bank, Mylapore in

the  names of  accused persons and the  firms/companies  as

has been stated by PW182  and PW201, details of which are as

under:  

Sl.No. A/C No. Name  of the Bank

Account Holder Date of  Opening  of A/c

1 C.A.No.792 Indian Bank Jaya Publications 18.09.1991

493

Page 493

493

2 C.A.No.1152 Indian Bank Super  Duper  T.V. Pvt. Ltd.

21.01.1995

3 C.A.No.1104 Indian Bank Super  Duper  T.V. Pvt. Ltd.

27.08.1994

4 C.A.No.1179 Indian Bank Jaya  Finance Pvt.Ltd.

05.05.1995

5 C.A.No.1171 Indian Bank Accused No.4 28.03.1995 6 C.A.No.1068 Indian Bank Accused No.3 30.03.1994 7 C.A.No.1071 Indian Bank Fresh Mushrooms 11.03.1994 8 C.A.No.1059 Indian Bank J.J.  Leasing  and

Maintenance 27.01.1994

9 C.A.No.4110 Indian Bank Minor  Vivek through  guardian mother A.4

12.09.1994

10 C.A.No.1050 Indian Bank J. Real Estate 27.01.1994 11 C.A.No.1062 Indian Bank J.S.  Housing

Development  27.01.1994

12 C.A.No.1058 Indian Bank Green Farm House 27.01.1994 13 C.A.No.1054 Indian Bank J. Farm House 27.01.1994 14 C.A.No.1053 Indian Bank Anjaneya Printers 23.01.1994 15 C.A.No.1049 Indian Bank Jaya  Contractors

and Builders 27.01.1994

16 C.A.No.1044 Indian Bank Sasi Enterprises 14.12.1993 17 C.A.No.1113 Indian Bank Meadow  Agro

Farms Pvt. Ltd. 13.03.1994

18 C.A.No.1095 Indian Bank River  Way  Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.

06.08.1994

19 C.A.No.1134 Indian Bank Signora  Business Enterprises  Pvt. Ltd.

23.11.1994

20 C.A.No.1107 Indian Bank Lex  Property Developments  Pvt. Ltd.

31.08.1994

21 C.A.No.1143 Indian Bank Ramraj Agro Mills 23.12.1994

494

Page 494

494

22 S.B.No.3832 Canara Bank Mylapore Branch

Ms.  Jayalalitha Accused No.1

16.04.1991

23 C.A.No.2018 Canara Bank Mylapore Branch

Ms.  Jayalalitha Accused No.1

12.10.1990

24 S.B.No.2321 8

Canara Bank Mylapore Branch

Accused No.2 23.09.1990

25 S.B.No.5158 Bank  of Madhura, Anna  Nagar Branch, Chennai

Accused No.1 (Ms. Jayalalitha)

28.02.1990

26 C.A.A/c 1689

Canara Bank,  Annanagar Branch  

Mahasubbu Lakshmi  Kalyan Mantap  (Accused No.3,  A4  and Shrilatha Devi)

27.08.1993

27 C.A.No.1173 Indian Bank, Abhirampur am  Branch, Chennai

Smt.  V. Gunabooshani

05.05.1995

28 C.A.No.1179          -do- Jaya  Finance  Pvt. Ltd.

29 C.A.No.1171          -do- Accused  No.4 (Elavarasi)

28.03.1995

30 C.A.No.1068          -do- Accused No.3 30.03.1994 31 C.A.No.1071          -do- Fresh  Mushrooms

(A.2) 11.03.1994

32 C.A.No.1059          -do- J.J.  Leasing  and Maintenance

27.01.1994

33 S.B.No.4110          -do- J. Vivek 12.09.1994

495

Page 495

495

34 C.A.No.1050          -do- J. Real Estate 27.01.1994 35 C.A.No.1062          -do- J.S.  Housing

Developments 27.01.1994

36 C.A.No.1058          -do- Green Farm House 37 C.A.No.1054          -do- J. Farm House 38 C.A.No.1053          -do- Anjaneya  Printers

Pvt. Ltd. 23.01.1994

39 C.A.No.1049          -do- Jaya  Contractors and Builders

27.01.1994

40 C.A.No.1044          -do- Sasi Enterprises 15.12.1993 41 O.C.C.

No.1143          -do- Ramraj  Agro  Mills

Ltd. 23.12.1994

42 C.A.No.1146          -do- Gopla  Promoters (A.2,3 and 4)

23.03.1995

43 C.A.No.1140          -do- Lakshmi  Construc- tions (A.2,3 and 4)

23.03.1995

44 C.A.No.1137          -do- Vigneswara Printers  (A.2,3  and 4)

23.03.1995

45 C.A.No.1164          -do- Navshakti Contractors  and Builders

23.03.1995

46 C.A.No.1161          -do- M/s.  Sea  Enclave Enterprises (A.2,3 and 4)

23.03.1995

47 C.A.No.1158          -do- Ayyappa  Property Development (A.2,3 and 4)

02.03.1995

48 C.A.No.1155          -do- Namo  Sivaya Housing Development (A.2,3 and 4)

23.03.1995

49 C.A.No.1149          -do- Sakthi Constructions (A.2,3 and 4)

23.03.1995

50 C.A.No.1167          -do- Oceanic 23.03.1995

496

Page 496

496

Constructions (A.2,3 and 4)

51 CA No. 1170           -do- Golden  Green Apartments  (A2,3 and 4)

23.3.1995

52 C.A.No.9006          -do- Bharani  Beach Resorts

06.02.1995

The accused persons also availed the services of common

auditors/accountants.  

504.  As conspiracy cannot be proved by direct evidence and

has to be essentially inferred from proven circumstances, the

ultimate  conclusion  with  regard  thereto  has  to  be  deduced

from the attendant state of affairs cumulatively taken.  It is a

trite proposition that in the case of conspiracy, each member

thereof becomes the agent of the other and in law is bound by

their actions inter se. So far as A1 and A2 are concerned, one

is  the  agent  for  other  as  partners  of  the  two  firms  and

additionally A2 is the attorney of A1 and is a  co-conspirator,

as imputed. As testified by PW198, a blanket  instruction had

been issued by A1 that the directions as made by A2 from time

to  time ought to be followed and consequently the latter was

to decide in which account the huge cash deposits were to be

made.  The  numerous  inter  accounts  transfers  would  only

497

Page 497

497

corroborate massive unaccounted cash deposits being made,

the  origin  whereof  had  been  number  36,  Poes  Garden,

Chennai.  For all intents and purposes, these accounts were

construed to be one.

505.  The  evidence  of  PW47,  PW  71  and  PW  159  taken

together attest that officials were used to   locate and purchase

lands at various places. In terms of the testimony of PW159 ,

in most of the sales, it was A2 who had directed as to  the

names of  the firms/individuals  to be mentioned in the sale

deeds and in whose names the sales were to be registered. The

amounts had been paid from amongst various accounts of the

accused/firms/companies.  In  many  cases,  the  sale

transactions had taken place below the guideline value as has

been deposed by PW159  and PW 221.   

506.  The testimony of PW 15, PW 40, PW43, PW 56, PW 76,

PW 89, PW 160, PW 77 and PW237  is amongst others to the

effect that the vendors  were kept unaware  of the purchasers’

identity  and  in  some  cases  were  also  put  under  duress  to

agree to the transactions. Their statements also divulge that

not only was A1 aware of  these transactions but on several

occasions,  the  registrations  thereof  were  performed  at  her

498

Page 498

498

residence.   

507.  Dealing with the plea that the companies incorporated

under the Companies Act cannot hold properties in benami for

another, the Trial  Court recorded that a company is a legal

entity with perpetual succession and a common seal and  has

to essentially act through  its agents  and all contracts entered

into by them must be under the seal thereof.  It observed that

in the case in hand there was hardly any document of title

registered in the name of above companies bearing their seal.

It concluded on this premise that the properties purchased in

the names of the companies thus never acquired the status of

the  assets thereof.  It noticed, as well, to reiterate, that in 90%

of the registered deeds, the companies were not represented

either by the Secretary or the Director and the documents also

did not  contain the address of  the companies which was a

clear indication of the shady and murky deals undertaken in

their  names  with  a  view  to  screen  the  properties  acquired

through illegal means.  The fact that evidence had disclosed

that  on  many  occasions,  the  concerned  Registrar/District

Registrar had compromised the rules only to accommodate A1

was adverted to in this context.  Referring to the decision of

499

Page 499

499

Aron  Salomon  (Pauper)  Vs.  A.  Salomon  and  Company

Limited (supra), in which a company, as a legal entity, is held

to be distinct from its members,  the court propounded that

though  as  a  corollary,  its  corporate  veil  normally  is

impervious,   but  when its  corporate  identity   is  applied  to

circumvent law, to defeat  public policy,  perpetuate fraud or

illegality  or  is  sought to  be used as  a  cover  or  a  facade to

justify  a  wrong,   defend  crime,  to  lend  a  name  to  private

dealing, law would cease to acknowledge it to be a corporate

entity and afford such protection otherwise entitled to under

the  Companies  Law.  It  concluded  that  when  camouflaged

transactions are carried on behind the legal front, the court

may lift the veil and look behind the artificial personality of the

company and identify the real personalities or natural persons

operating behind the screen. According to the Trial Court, the

proved facts and circumstance of the case, did establish that

respondents  had  adopted  an  ingenious  ploy  or  device  in

furtherance  of  their  criminal  conspiracy  to  shield  the

properties acquired through perpetration of a series of offences

and had illegally amassed wealth totaling 300 acres of land, in

the  name  of  the  above  shell  companies  which  they  had

500

Page 500

500

strategically taken over to present as a smoke screen to mask

such large scale transactions.  The Trial Court thus concluded

that the acquisition of properties in such a colossal measure

along  with  the  attendant  manoeuvres,  did  manifest  the

criminal  motive  and  intention  of  the  accused  persons

attracting the ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(e)

of the Act  read with Section 120B IPC.   It thus held  that the

properties registered in the names of these six companies and

which  were  the  subject  matter  of  GOMS  No.  1183  dated

25.9.1997 and GOMS No. 120 dated 12.1.1997 were in reality

acquired and held by A2 to A4 for and on behalf of A1.  In

reaching this conclusion, the Trial Court also did allude to the

above-referred decision of this Court that property held in the

name of an income tax assessee per se did not signify that it

actually  belonged  to  the  assessee  and  that  there  was  no

embargo in getting the same registered in the name of  one

person though the real beneficiary was another.   

508.  In re the charge of abetment and conspiracy in general,

the Trial Court, while dealing with the defence plea  that a non

public servant could not be prosecuted for the offence under

Section 109 IPC in a  trial constituted under the Act, relied on

501

Page 501

501

the  decision  of  this  Court  in  P.  Nallammal (supra) to  the

effect that the acquisition and possession of any property by a

public servant is capable of being abetted  and that  there is

neither an express nor implied exclusion of the 1988 Act  to

deal with such a situation.  The Trial Court  noted that under

Section 3 of the 1988 Act,  the Special Judge had the power to

try not only an offence punishable under the said statute but

also one for  conspiracy to commit  or  attempt to commit  or

abetment of any offence thereunder.  The Trial Court thus held

that  private  individuals  could  be  prosecuted  by  the  Special

Court under the Act on the ground that they had conspired

with and abetted the act of criminal misconduct committed by

a public servant within the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the

1988 Act.     

509.  Turning to the charge of criminal conspiracy, the Trial

Court, noticing the ingredients of the offence as enumerated in

Section 120A IPC, recorded that agreement  is the gist of the

offence  and that mere passive cognizance of a conspiracy is

not  sufficient.  While  acknowledging  that  to  constitute  an

offence  of  criminal  conspiracy,  there  ought  to  be  active

cooperation  in furtherance of a joint evil intent, it underlined

502

Page 502

502

the  rule of  evidence relating to such offence that  anything

said  or  done  by  anyone  of  the  conspirators,   with  regard

thereto, is under certain circumstances evidence against the

other,  the logic being  that within the realm of conspiracy, the

position of the conspirators is analogous to that of partners,

one being considered as the agent of the other.  Negating the

assertion  made  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  that  the

prosecution had failed to produce any material to demonstrate

that A2, A3 and A4 had engaged in any criminal conspiracy

with  A1  in  order  to  acquire  properties  on  her  behalf  by

utilising  her  un-accounted  finances,  as  they  had  business

activities  and  income  independent  therefrom  totally

unconnected with her, the Trial Court recounted  the entire

gamut of  the  prosecution evidence to  the  effect  that  at  the

relevant time, A2, A3 and  A4 did not possess any source of

income   proportionate to the value of the assets purchased

and held in their names  and in the name of the six companies

in  particular.   It  traced  the  testimony,  amongst  others  of

PW128 Balakrishnan, PW169 R. Krishnamoorthy, PW170 R.

Jayaraman and the corresponding documentary evidence to

hold  that  A2,  A3 and A4 indeed had neither  the  source  of

503

Page 503

503

income, means or the wherewithal to be capable of making the

huge acquisitions in their names or for their firms/companies

during  the  check  period.  Referring,  in  particular,  to  the

properties acquired by A3 either in his name or in the name of

firms/companies  involved,  compared to  his  income and the

expenditure made, the Trial Court reverted to the evidence of

PW 201, the officer of the Canara Bank, Mylapore  who, inter

alia,  had  disclosed  that  in  the  application  filed  by  this

respondent for opening of his saving bank account No. 24621,

he had given his address as No. 36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86.

This  witness  testified  by  adverting  to  the  ledger  for  this

account  which  on  30.4.1996,  showed  a  balance  of

Rs.61,430/-.  Prior  thereto,  on  17.7.1992,  A3  had  remitted

cash through signed pay-in-slip for an amount of  Rs.5 lakh

to this account.  He clarified further that in this saving bank

account,  many  receipts  were  made  through  clearance.   He

referred to a withdrawal of Rs.5 lakh by this respondent on

7.12.1992 from this account, who deposited the sum in a fixed

deposit  account  No.  1401/1992  which  on  maturity  was

credited  to  his  current  account  No.  2220.  This  witness

disclosed further that the application submitted by A3 to open

504

Page 504

504

this current account carried an introduction  by A2 and the

address  here  as  well  was  mentioned  as  36,  Poes  Garden,

Chennai.   Though this account was opened on 7.4.1993 by

remitting an amount of Rs.501 by A3,  on 24.9.1994, a sum of

Rs.4,10,000 was received in  deposit in the account by way of

cash.  The Trial Court made an   itemised reference to various

deposits  made in this  account  of  heavy  sums varying  from

Rs.26000 to Rs.11 lakhs  from other accounts standing inter

alia in the name of A2 and several other firms of  which A1, A2

and A3 in particular were partners. That huge amounts were

credited through clearance and were similarly withdrawn were

referred to by this witness.

510.  The Trial Court, thus deduced that the acquisitions of

the properties made by A3 were out of the funds diverted from

the accounts either of A1 or A2 and A3 and A4 did not invest

any fund with regard  thereto.

511.  While  dwelling  on  the  charge  of  conspiracy  and

abetment, the Trial Court took cognizance of the formation of

large number of firms in the names of A2 to A4 during the

relevant  period  to  be  a  circumstance  establishing  the  said

imputation.    That  A1 and A2 had commenced partnership

505

Page 505

505

business by constituting two partnership firms by the name

Jaya  Publications  and  Sasi  Enterprises  and  though  Jaya

Publications  was  registered under  the Sales Tax Act, 1988

on 29.9.1988, it  did not file returns up to 1998 as per the

Sales Tax Act, was noted.   The disclosure of PW3 Thangavelu,

District  Registrar,  who  at  the  relevant  time  was  serving  as

Assistant Chief in the Registration Department, South District,

Chennai and that he had registered eight firms out of which

six  namely;    J.J.  Leasing  and  Maintenance,  J.S.  Housing

Development, Green Farm House, Jaya Farm Houses, J. Real

Estate and Jay Contractors  and Builders were registered on

the same date i.e. 25.1.1994, taken note of.  The Trial Court

also took cognizance of the testimony of PW132, Prakashoon

Epen  Leelavati,  District  Registrar,  Central  Chennai  District

Registration Office, who claimed to have proved   the certified

copies of Form No. 1 relating to the registration of ten firms

with A2, A3, A4 and Lex Property Development Private Limited

as partners, all  registered incidentally on the same date i.e.

15.2.1995.  Reference to the statement of PW 230 Balaji on

oath that he had been appointed as the Auditor by A2 to A4

and that the firms referred to by him did not buy any property

506

Page 506

506

or invest in any other business but received money  as loans

and  further  that  ten  of  such  firms  had  closed  their  bank

accounts in 1995 was taken note of.  According to the Trial

Court, the overall evidence as considered by it disclosed that

the business activities in the names of A2, A3 and A4 started

only during the check period and that they did not invest any

funds on their own for that purpose and in fact utilised these

as a front to enable A1 and A2 to transfer huge unaccounted

money through the bank accounts thereof.

512.  The Trial Court noted that at the commencement of the

check  period,  there  were  hardly  10  to  12  bank  accounts

standing  in  the  names  of  A1  and  A2  but  thereafter  50

accounts mushroomed during the check period as deposed by

PWs 182, 201, 207,209 and 239.  The particulars of the bank

accounts,  the  names  of  the  banks,  the  dates  of  opening

thereof, and the corresponding exhibits along with the names

of the account holders were marked in details.   

513.  Referring to the evidence of PW-201 in particular,  the

remittances inter se the accounts of A1 to A4 and  their firms

also  were  set  out   which  would  demonstrate   that  the

exchanges during the check period  were not only  noticeably

507

Page 507

507

frequent  and  numerous   but  also  did  sum  up  to  figures

fluctuating  from Rs.12000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- as would be

evident  from the  particulars  of  such transfers  involving  the

accounts of A1, A2, A3, A4, Namadhu MGR, Fax Universal,

Anjaneya  Printers,  Green  Farm  House  and  Meadow  Agro

Farm.

514.  Oral evidence in the form of testimony of M. Jayaraman

(PW-198),   Mani,   Ram  Vijayan  &  Balakrishnan and  the

documents adduced by the prosecution through the witnesses

prove that an amount of Rs.13,55,28,685.50 in all,  had been

deposited  by  cash  through  pay-in-slips   in  the  current

accounts of A2 to A4 and the firms  by these witnesses and

others.  These deposits significantly  had been made during

the  check  period  and  apart  from  heavy  amounts  on  every

occasion, varying from  above  Rs.50,000/- to Rs.33,70,000/-,

there is a noticeable frequency thereof in close proximity with

each other.  The pay-in-slips proved in support of such cash

deposits  and  exhibited  by  the  witnesses  concerned  even

disclose deposits of various amounts in different accounts on

the  very  same  date.   As  many  as  184  deposits  between

17.9.1992 and 8.3.1996 have been made in current account

508

Page 508

508

No. 1952 of Namadhu MGR.  As many as 267 deposits have

been  made  by  Ram  Vijayan  himself  only,  totalling

Rs.8,96,52,623.30  out  of  the  total  amount  of

Rs.13,55,28,685/-  indicated  hereinabove,  apart  from  M.

Jayaraman (PW-198),   Mani,   Ram Vijayan & Balakrishnan

through whom deposits had been made.  A2 and A3 as well

have  through pay-in-slips  made  such  deposits  of  a  sum of

Rs.28,74,000/-.  The noteworthy feature of these deposits is

that the same had not been in the account of A1.  Not only the

cash deposits of such a huge amount is out of the ordinary,

the mode thereof i.e.  by pay-in-slips through a selected few

and  the  frequency  thereof  render  an  overwhelming

phenomenon, highly redolent and admitting of  a logical and

persuasive  inference  of  laundering  of  gigantic  unaccounted

cash.  The absence of  deposits in the account of  A1 in the

multitude  of  such  operations  admits  of  reasonable  and

unimpeachable conclusion that the wealth in circulation had

its  origin  in  her  coffers.  On  a  rational  analysis  of  such

mammoth inflow of cash in the accounts of A2 to A4 and the

firms/companies  involved  during  the  check  period,  the

conclusion of the Trial Court that these resources were at all

509

Page 509

509

relevant times held by A2 to A4 and their firms/companies on

behalf  of  A1  in  order  to  veil  her  otherwise  unexplained

disproportionate assets is unassailable.

515.  The Trial Court next probed into the credit entries of the

relevant bank accounts of the respondents  to seek the trail of

the fund flow  and thus examined the deposits of cash into

their bank accounts and also in those of the firms/companies

floated by them spanning  from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.33,70,000/.

On an audit of the  current and saving bank accounts  of the

respondents and the firms involved, the Trial Court  identified

unexplained cash credits of huge sums  therein varying  from

Rs.2684.90  to  Rs.1,26,00,000/-  involving  the  respondents,

Namadhu MGR,  Sasi  Enterprises,  Vinod Video  Vision,  Jaya

Publications,  J.  Farm  House,  Maha  Subalaxmi  Kalayana

Mandapam,  Anjaneya  Printers  Private  Limited,  Fresh

Mushroom, Metal King, Super Duper T.V. Private Limited, Lex

Property  Development  Pvt.Ltd.,  Riverway  Agro  Production

Private  Limited,  Fax  Universal,  Meadow  Agro  Farm  Pvt.

Limited, Namay Shivaya Housing Development, Vigneshwara

Builders, Laxmi Constructions, Sea Enclave, Ayyappa Property

Development  Private  Limited,  Ocean  Construction,  Gopal

510

Page 510

510

Promoters, Green Garden Apartments, Shakti Constructions,

J. S. Housing Development, Ramraj Agro Mills Private Limited.

Noticeably except Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises, A2

to A4 and Lex Property Development Private Limited were the

partners of the other firms named above.    

516.  In this context, the Trial Court inter alia referred to the

decision of this Court in  Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs.

C.I.T., (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was expounded  that

the onus was on the assessee to explain the nature and source

of  cash credits  as to  whether  those stood in the assessee's

account  or  in  the  account  of  a  third  party  and  that  the

assessee  had  a  legal  obligation  to  explain  the  nature  and

source of such credit by proving prima facie the transaction(s)

that had yielded such accruals  in his books of account.   

517.  The Trial Court held the view that the respondents in the

case in hand had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation

with  regard  to  the  enormous  unexplained

credit/accumulations in their bank accounts.  It rejected the

confirmatory  letter  offered  by  the  respondents  as  false  and

bogus and further held that the identity of  the person who

disclosed the source, had also not been proved.  Further the

511

Page 511

511

transactions which generated such cash credits were also not

established.   It  rejected  as  well  the  balance  sheet  and  the

profit and loss statement claimed to have been filed before the

income  tax  authorities  and  on  which  the  respondents

primarily relied as their defence, as not proved in accordance

with law besides  being not in conformity with the statutory

prescriptions.  It discarded as well the evidence of the auditors

examined by the respondents who, as the evidence on record

testified, were not conversant with the true facts and had not

handled their accounts during the check period.   The Trial

Court  returned  the  finding  that  the  evidence  on  record

cumulatively  substantiated  that  the  returns,  the    balance

sheet  and  the  profit  and  loss  accounts  were  framed  and

fashioned  to  offer  an  explanation  to  the  otherwise  titanic

unexplained credits in their  respective bank accounts.   The

Trial Court thus held that the respondents had failed to prove

their defence, when tested  on the evidence adduced even by

the standard of preponderance of probability.       

518.  While observing that mere declaration of property in the

income tax returns  does not ipso facto  connote that the same

had been acquired from the known lawful sources of income,

512

Page 512

512

the  Trial  Court  held  the  view  that  the  prosecution  could

successfully  establish  that  the  respondents  and  their

firms/companies,  who posed to be income tax assessees, had

no independent or real source of income  and that  it was the

finance of A1 that was really in circulation and thus it could

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the only source of money

the acquisition of  large assets was that  of hers.

519.  The evidence of PW198 M. Jayaraman, a member of staff

with A1 in her house at Poes Garden, at the relevant point of

time,  admitting  remittances  into  various  bank  accounts

through Mr. Vijayan on the instructions of A2  was referred to

in particular.  That this witness had stated that A2 used to

instruct him about the details of the bank to which the deposit

ought   to  be  credited   and  that  the  amounts  used  to  be

dispatched in suit cases and  bags through domestic servants

was taken note of.    The Trial Court took  into consideration

his testimony that he used to fill the challans as directed by

A2 which he identified in the course of his examination.  He

identified too, the signatures of Mr. Vijayan on the challans.

The Trial Court also took note of the evidence of PW 182 and

513

Page 513

513

PW  201,  the  bank  officers  who  identified/proved  large

numbers of pay-in-slips  and also affirmed that those bore the

name  of  Mr.  Vijayan  as  the  person  remitting  the  amounts

mentioned.  These witnesses had stated further,  as noted by

the Trial  Court, that the pay orders and the demand drafts

issued by them for the purpose of acquisition of the assets as

involved  were at the instance of the respondents.  That these

demand drafts or the pay orders could be directly related to

the  cheques or  pay  orders mentioned  in  the  various sales

deeds  was recorded as well.  This too, as held by the Trial

Court,  did establish the  nexus of  the funds of  A1 with the

investments made for the acquisition of such assets.    The

Trial  Court  thus  sustained  the  charge  levelled  by  the

prosecution that all the  assets and pecuniary resources found

to  be  possessed  by  A2  to  A4  and in  the  names of  various

firms/companies actually  belonged to A1 and thus she  in

fact  possessed  the assets   and pecuniary resources of  the

total value of Rs.55,02,48,215 in her name and in the names

of A2 to A4 and  of the firms/companies,  thus establishing

the ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.

C.  Act.   It  held  the  view  that  A2  to  A4   as  the  evidence

514

Page 514

514

substantiated   had  conspired   with  A1  and  had  actively

abetted  in collaboration with each other with the sole object of

acquiring and holding properties  and assets  disproportionate

to the known sources of income of A1.    

520.   This according to the Trial Court stood corroborated  by

the  large number of  accounts opened in the names of the

respondents or of firms/companies and the disbursements to

these accounts only by the staff of A1 on the instructions of A2

who was in-charge of  her financial  affairs.   The Trial  Court

also took cognizance of the fact that the evidence on record

established   that  except  Super  Duper  T.V.  Private  Limited,

neither  the  respondents  nor  their  firms   did  credit   any

amount to the various   accounts standing in their names.

Rather,  all   these firms  had gained deposits transferred to

their  accounts  either  from that  of  Namadhu  MGR or  Jaya

Publications.  Reiterating  the  rejection  of  the  plea  of  the

respondents,  that  large  deposits   collected  from  various

subscribers of Namadhu MGR totalling Rs.15  crores had been

credited  in  the  accounts  of  Namadhu  MGR  and  Jaya

Publications, the Trial Court  reaffirmed that these deposits  in

515

Page 515

515

fact represented the un-explained wealth accumulated by A1.   

521.  The Trial Court in the ultimate analysis summed up the

circumstances  gleaned  from  the  evidence  on  record  to

conclusively  hold  that  the  prosecution  could  prove  beyond

reasonable doubt, the charges levelled against the respondents

as  framed.   While  enumerating  finally  the  facets

substantiating this determination, the Trial Court took note of

the fact that A1 had executed a general power of attorney (Ex.

P-995) in favour of A2 in respect of Jaya Publications as A1, at

all relevant time, was the partner of the said firm.  That such a

power of attorney was otherwise not necessary and that this

authority was thus endowed on A2 so as to lend her a free

hand  in  the  management  of  Jaya  Publications  so  as  to

facilitate the  defence of  A1 that she used to be a dormant

partner and was unaware of the transactions carried on by A2

was recorded.  The Trial Court however held the view that by

the execution of such power of attorney, in law, A1 rendered

herself  liable  for  all  acts  and deeds  of  A2  pursuant  to  the

powers  so  conferred.   It  correlated  the  flow  of  funds

accumulated by A1 to the account of Jaya Publications and

thereafter  to  branch out  the  same to  other  accounts  to  be

516

Page 516

516

eventually  appropriated  for  the  acquisition  of  huge  assets.

The Trial  Court thus rejected the stand of A1 that she was

unaware of the activities of A2, her agent with regard to the

transfer of the funds and the mode of utilization thereof.  522.  The constitution of various firms during the check period

was  cited  as  well  to  be  another  circumstance  to  prove  the

conspiracy  amongst  the  respondents.   The  Trial  Court

re-counted that at the commencement of the check period, A1

and A2 were involved in the two concerns namely M/s Jaya

Publication and M/s Sasi  Enterprises but during the check

period as many as 18/21 firms did come into existence.  The

Trial  Court  reiterated  that  the  evidence  on  record  however

proved  that  none  of  these  firms either  carried  on business

during the check period or contributed any share capital to or

receive any profit from these firms.  The fact that in a single

day,  ten of  such firms have been constituted with identical

features was reiterated.  The Trial Court did recall as well that

not only A2 and A3 did start independent concerns in their

names,  even defunct  companies were purchased/taken over

by  the  respondents.   However,  none  of  these  firms  or

companies did actually carry on any business except acquiring

517

Page 517

517

huge  properties.   Referring  to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  of

opening of the bank accounts of these firms/companies, none

of  these  entities  had  any  independent  resources,  the  Trial

Court deduced that these firms/companies were nothing but

extensions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya Publications and owed

their existence to the benevolence of A1 and A2 for continued

sustenance.   It  reiterated  that  the  proved  fact  that  large

amount of funds were diverted to these accounts was a clear

attestation of the fact that these firms were constituted to only

siphon off the unlawful resources amassed by A1.  The fact

that these firms/companies did operate from the residence of

A1 belied the feigned ignorance of  A1 about their activities,

was noted.  The joint residence of all the accused persons also

could not be ignored as a factor contributing to the charge of

conspiracy and abetment   when assessed together  with the

attendant  facts  and  circumstances  reinforcing  the  said

imputations.  This also belied, according to the Trial  Court,

the  specious  plea  of  A2  to  A4  that  each  one  of  them had

independent business and own source of  income.   The fact

that A2 to A4 did combine to constitute the firms to acquire

huge tracts of land out of the funds provided by A1 also was a

518

Page 518

518

clear index that their assemblage in the house of A1 was not

engendered by  any philanthropic  urge  for  friends and their

relations  in  need,  rather  to  frame and further  the  criminal

conspiracy  to  hold  the  assets  of  A1.   The  fact  that  the

materials on record did evince that A1 had not only advanced

Rs.1 crore to Shasi Enterprises as a contribution to its share

capital for which she availed loan, but also that she did issue

several cheques in favour of other accused persons and filed

application  for  availing  loan  for  the  benefit  of  the  firms

involved, did buttress the charge that she was wholly aware of

the dealings of the co-accused and the firms in their minutest

details.  The free flow of money from one account to the other

of the respondents, the firms/companies also proved beyond

reasonable  doubt  that  all  the  accused persons  had actively

participated in the conspiracy to launder the ill-gotten wealth

of A1 for purchasing properties in their names.  The fact that

the assets and properties of the six companies were attached

pursuant to the provisions of  the Criminal Law Amendment

Ordinance  and  that  the  applications  for  vacating  the

attachments were not filed for more than two years therefrom

did make it apparent that no other person except the accused

519

Page 519

519

were interested therein.  The Trial Court rightly did mark as

well,  referring  in  particular  to  the  evidence  of  PW159

Sub-Registrar, North Beach, Sub Registrar’s Office and PW71

Radha Krishnan, Horticulture Officer that they were called to

Poes Garden and on the instructions of higher officers,  they

did oblige A1 even by relaxing  the rules in the registration of

large number of  documents by taking personal interest and

even overlooking that the properties were undervalued to hold

a deep seated involvement  of  A1 in these transactions.  That

the registering authorities had gone to the extent of permitting

registration of six documents even without incorporating the

names of the purchasers, was referred to.  The Trial Court in

its conclusion, on an exhaustive analysis of the evidence as a

whole,  held  the  following facts  to  have  been proved  by  the

prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.  

I) Total assets found in possession of A-1 as on 30.4.1996

Rs.55,02,48,215

II) Total  expenditure  incurred  by  the accused during the check period

Rs. 8,49,06,833/-

III) Total of (I) and (II) Rs. 63,51,55,048/-

IV) Total  income  of  accused  from  all sources as determined above

Rs. 9,91,05,094/-

520

Page 520

520

V) Value  of  disproportionate  assets  and pecuniary  resources  found  in possession of accused as on 30.04.1996 which  has  not  been  satisfactorily accounted.

Rs. 53,60,49,55,954/-

523.  In  view  of  this,  the  Trial  Court  convicted  A1  for  the

offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

Further A1 to A4 were convicted under Section 120-B IPC r/w

Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act as well.  A2 to

A4 were additionally  convicted under  Sections 109 IPC r/w

13(1)(e)  r/w  13(2)  of  the  PC  Act  and  sentenced  them

accordingly as heretobefore mentioned.

524.  The Trial Court further ordered that necessary directions

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 persons in their bank accounts  to be

appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts.  It was

directed as well that if even after such adjustment, the amount

fell  short  of  the  quantum  of  fine,  the  gold  and  diamond

ornaments, seized and produced before the court (after setting

apart 7040 gms. of gold with proportionate diamond jewellery)

be sold to RBI or SBI or by public auction so as to meet the

521

Page 521

521

deficit. The rest of the gold and diamond jewellery was directed

to be confiscated to the Government.

525.  It  further  ordered  that  all  immovable  properties

registered  in  the  names  of  Lex  Property  Developments  Pvt.

Ltd., Meadow Agro Firms Pvt.  Ltd.,  Rama Raj Agro Mills (P)

Ltd.,  Signora  Business  Enterprises  Pvt.  Ltd.,  Riverway Agro

Production  (P)  Ltd.  and  Indo  Doha  Chemicals  and

Pharmaceutical Ltd. which were under attachment  pursuant

to GO Nos. MS 120 and 1183, above referred to  be confiscated

to the State Government.  It ordered as well that out of the fine

amount recovered, a sum of Rs.5 crores  be made over to the

State of Karnataka towards reimbursement of expenses for the

trial conducted thereat.

526.  As many as 34 companies/firms fell for scrutiny in the

course of adjudication.  Out of these Jaya Publications, Sasi

Enterprises, Signora Business Enterprises Private Limited, Lex

Property Development Pvt. Limited, Riverway Agro Production

Private Limited,  Meadow Agro Firm Pvt.  Limited,  Indo Doha

Chemical  and Pharmaceutical   Limited,  Ram Raj Agro Mills

Limited  did exist from before the check period.  The others

were registered during the check period and notably, the date

522

Page 522

522

of registration of six of these had been 25.1.1994 and three

bank accounts  of five of them had been opened on the same

date  i.e.  27.1.1994.   Further  ten  of  such  firms   had  been

registered on 15.2.1995 and their  bank accounts  had been

opened  on 23.3.1995.  To say the least, in the context of the

charge  levelled,  this  co-incidence  also  is  conspicuously

abnormal and irreconcilable.  Another note worthy feature  is

that in most of these firms, A2, A3 and A4 are the partners

with Lex Property Development Pvt. Limited, joining them in

some.  There are firms as well where either A2 or A3 is the

proprietor and others are with the combination of A2, A3 and

A4.   As the evidence with regard to the affairs of the six firms

in whose names large tracts  of properties had been purchased

and deposits made, has been dilated upon  hereto before, the

same does not warrant further elaboration.   

527.   The unimpeded,  frequent  and spontaneous  inflow of

funds from the account of A1 to those of the other co-accused

and  the  firms/companies  involved,  overwhelmingly

demonstrate  the  collective  culpable  involvement  of  the

respondents  in  the  transactions  in  the  face  of  their  overall

orientations so as to render the same to be masked banking

523

Page 523

523

exchanges though involving several accounts but mostly of the

same bank.  No other view is possible.  

528.  Apart from the above,  the demurral   of  unfairness in

investigation and trial also cannot be sustained in the overall

factual conspectus.  True that in course of the investigation,

some documents had been seized which were not adduced in

evidence being construed to  be irrelevant  for  substantiating

the charge, but it did not certainly tantamount to suppression

thereof so as to afflict the trial with the vice of unfairness and

non-transparency  as  alleged.   Additionally,  the  courts  did

intervene as  permissible  in  law wherever  merited  to  ensure

against  any  prejudice  qua  the  parties.   The  fact  that  the

documents  seized   but  not  brought  on  evidence  by  the

prosecution  had not been destroyed and were available to the

respondents for their inspection, at all relevant times, is, per

se, an index of fair and impartial  trial.    The defence as a

matter of  record did at some point of  time close its  side of

evidence  by  examining  only  two  witnesses,  whereafter

following the inspection of the documents, as desired by the

respondents,  after  A1 had returned  to power,  examined as

many as 99 witnesses.  Prior thereto, 76 prosecution witnesses

524

Page 524

524

were permitted to be recalled for  further cross-examination.

The  remonstrance  that  the  Trial  Court  did  not  take  into

consideration the defence evidence is also not borne out by the

records.  As would be evident from its judgment, the testimony

of  several  witnesses  examined  by  the  respondents  received

in-depth  appreciation  by  the  Trial  Court  wherever  relevant.

The contention that the Trial Court had conducted the trial in

a manner prejudicial to the respondents in the overall context,

both factual and legal, thus cannot be sustained.  

529.  That the Trial Court was meticulous, sensitive, vigilant

and judicious  in appraisal, stands authenticated by the fact

that in valuing the assets, as warranted, it excluded a sum of

Rs.32 lakhs  towards the price of sarees and further reduced

the value of gold and diamond  to the extent of Rs.2 crores. It

also allowed reduction in the marriage expenses by more than

50% and  further  discounted  the  value  of  constructions  by

permitting a depreciation of 20%.

530.  Apropos the off repeated grievance, of the defence  that

the Trial Court had left out of consideration  material pieces of

evidence adduced by it, suffice it to state that  the decision

rendered by it proclaim to the contrary.   In all the aspects

525

Page 525

525

amongst  others    income,  expenditure  and  assets,  the

judgment of the Trial Court  reveals on a plain reading  that

the  evidence  adduced  by  the  defence   as  construed  to  be

relevant  had not only been taken note of  but also analysed

and applied  for arriving  at the conclusions   on the issues

pertaining  to  the  adjudication.   Whereas   qua  income,

reference  of  the  testimony  of  the  defence  witnesses  is

decipherable  amongst others    pertaining to  the scrutiny

involving Namadhu MGR, Super Duper T.V.,  gifts offered to

A1, rental income  and income tax returns, the Trial Court did

also  assess  the defence evidence   while judging the case  on

the issues of  marriage of  A3,   expenditure and  as well  as

valuation of buildings.   The cavil to the contrary thus cannot

be entertained.  Further this plea though elaborated in details

in course of the arguments in the present proceedings   was

not  taken  very  specifically  before  the  High  Court  by  the

respondents while challenging their conviction.  Significantly,

such a grievance has also not been made by them by laying a

formal challenge to such purported omissions on the part of

the Trial Court, before this Court, as contemplated in law.   In

this persuasive backdrop, we are thus disinclined to sustain

526

Page 526

526

this contention. This is more so as in view of the appraisal of

the  relevant  evidence  as a  whole,  we are  of  the  unhesitant

opinion  that the impugned judgment and order  of the High

Court suffers from manifest errors on the face of the record,

both on facts and in law and is liable to be set-aside.     

531.  The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (referred

to  as  the  “Ordinance”  as  well),   which  was  enforced  w.e.f.

23.8.1944 is an yield  of the exercise of powers under Section

72 of the Government of  India Act,  1935 and is directed to

prevent the disposal or concealment of property procured by

means of  the offences enlisted in the Schedule thereto.  To

iterate, for the instant adjudication, paragraphs 4A and 5 of

the  Schedule  are  extracted  hereinbelow  for  immediate

reference:

4-A:  an  offence  punishable  under  the  Prevention  of Corruption Act, 1988;

5 : Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment  of any of the offences  specified in item 2,3 and 4 and 4-A.

As the present appraisal does not involve the other offences

enumerated in the Schedule, those are not being dwelt upon.

527

Page 527

527

532.  Clause 3 of  the  Ordinance  provides that   where the

State  Government  or  as  the  case  may  be,  the  Central

Government  has  reason  to  believe  that  any  person  has

committed, whether after the commencement of the Ordinance

or not, any scheduled offence and whether or not any court

has taken cognizance thereof, it may authorise the making of

an application to the District Judge within the local limits of

whose  jurisdiction,  the  said  person  ordinarily  resides  or

carries on business,  for attachment of  any money or other

property,  believed to have been procured by means of  such

offence.  It also permits that if such money or  property cannot

for any reason be  attached, the prayer  in the application may

be extended to other property of the said person of the value

as nearly as may be equivalent  thereto.  The provisions did

make applicable  Order  XXVII   of  the  First  Schedule  to  the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to  the proceedings for an order

of attachment under the Ordinance as they did apply to the

suits by the Government. 533.   Section 4 contemplates ad interim attachment by the

jurisdictional District Judge, in the eventualities as mentioned

therein  and  while  doing  so,  he  is  required  to  issue  to  the

528

Page 528

528

person whose money or other property was being attached, a

notice accompanied by copies of the order, the application and

affidavits and of the evidence, if recorded, asking him to show

cause on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the

order of attachment should not be made absolute.  Clause 5

empowers the District Judge to make the ad interim order of

attachment  absolute,  if  either  no  objection  is  filed  by  the

person affected or not varied  after necessary enquiry  on a

consideration  of  the  objection  if  filed,  and  the  evidence  is

adduced.   In terms of clause 10 of the Ordinance, an order of

attachment  of  property  made  shall  unless  it  is  withdrawn,

continue to be in force,  in a contingency where a court has

taken  cognizance  of  the  alleged  schedule  offence  whether,

before or after the time  when  the order was applied for, until

orders are passed by the District Judge in accordance with the

provisions  of  the  Ordinance  after  the  termination  of  the

criminal proceedings.  Clause 11 provides for appeals against

the order(s) of the District Judge, in the matter of attachment

before  the  jurisdictional  High  Court.   Whereas  clause  12

makes it incumbent  on the court trying  a scheduled offence,

when  apprised  of  an  order  of  attachment  of  the  property

529

Page 529

529

involved under the Ordinance, to record a finding, in case of

conviction,  as  to  the  amount  of  money  or  value  of  other

property procured  by the accused by means of the offence,

Clause 13 mandates the manner of disposal of such attached

property  upon  termination  of  the  criminal  proceedings.

Thereunder, when the final judgment or order of the criminal

court is one of conviction, the District Judge shall order that

from the property of the convicted person attached under the

Ordinance  or  out  of  the  security  given  in  lieu  of  such

attachment,  there  shall  be  forfeited  to  Government  such

amount or value as is  found  in the final  judgment or order

of the criminal court, to have been procured by  the convicted

person,  by  means  of  the  offence  together  with  the  costs  of

attachment as determined by the  District Judge.  Sub-clause

4 deals with a situation where the amounts  ordered to be

forfeited  or recovered  exceed the value of the property of the

convicted person attached, thus permitting in that eventuality,

the steps to follow.  Sub-clause (6) ordains that  every sum

ordered  to  be  forfeited   in  connection  with  any  scheduled

offence  other  than one  specified  in  item 1 of  the  schedule,

would after deduction of the cost of attachment as determined

530

Page 530

530

by the District Judge, be credited to the Government or the

local authority to which the offence has caused loss or where

there is more than one such government or local authority,  to

be  distributed  amongst  them in  the  proportion  to  the  loss

sustained by each.

534.  Noticeably “termination of criminal proceedings”, as per

clause  2(2),  as  relevant  for  our  present  purpose,  would  be

where  this  Court  would  pass  its  final  order  in  the  present

appeals.

535.  In the appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka pertaining

to the release of the properties recorded in the name of the six

companies  involved,  consequent  upon  the  acquittal  of  the

respondents,  the  parties  are  essentially  at  issue  on  the

applicability  or  otherwise  of  Section  452  of  the  Code  of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoked by the Trial Court to order

confiscation/forfeiture  of  the  properties  otherwise  attached

under  the  Ordinance.  The  other  facets  of  the  competing

assertions being largely common and already addressed, are

inessential for a fresh scrutiny.   Whereas it  is urged on behalf  of  the State that having

regard to the scheme of the Act and the  mode of attachment

531

Page 531

531

of the property involved in a scheduled offence, the operation

of Section 452 of the Code is not excluded, the plea on behalf

of  the respondents is that the Ordinance being  a complete

code  by  itself,  the  Trial  Court  was   patently   wrong  in

assuming to itself the power of disposal of the property under

attachment by invoking the said provision of the Code.   It has

been urged in essence on behalf of the respondents that  at

the  most,  the  Trial  Court  could  have  valued  the  property

under  attachment  following  its  conclusion  of  guilt  against

them, leaving it thereafter to the forum under the Ordinance to

comply with the procedure prescribed therein and further the

process to its logical end. This is more so, as has been urged

for  the  respondents,  that  the  appeals  against  the  orders

making  the  ad  interim  attachment  absolute  are  pending

before  the  High Court  as  permissible  under  the  Ordinance.

Principally, reliance, amongst others  has been placed by the

respondents on the decision of a Constitution Bench of this

Court  in State of West Bengal Vs. S.K. Ghosh, AIR 1963 SC

255.

536.  In our comprehension, the course adopted by the Trial

Court cannot be faulted with.  To reiterate, in terms of Section

532

Page 532

532

5(6) of the Act, it was authorised to exercise all powers and

functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Ordinance.

The offences at the trial were under Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2) of

the  Act,  Sections  109  and  120B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code

encompassed within paragraphs 4A and 5 of the Schedule to

the Ordinance.  These offences were  unimpeachably within

the  contours  of  the  Act  and  triable  by  a  special  Judge

thereunder.  Having regard to the frame and content of the Act

and the limited modifications to the provisions of the Code of

Criminal  Procedure,  in  their  applicability  as  occasioned

thereby and the authorisation of the special Judge trying  the

offences thereunder  to exercise all  the powers and functions

invocable  by a District Judge under the Ordinance, we are of

the  opinion that  the  order  of  confiscation/forfeiture   of  the

properties  standing in the name of six companies, as involved,

made by the Trial Court is unexceptionable. In any view of the

matter,  with  the  peremptory  termination  of  the  criminal

proceedings resultant on this  pronouncement, the direction of

the Trial Court towards confiscation/forfeiture of the attached

property, as mentioned therein, is hereby restored and would

be  construed  to  be  an  order  by  this  court  as  well.   The

533

Page 533

533

decisions  cited on behalf of the respondents on this issue, are

distinguishable on facts and are of no avail to them.  

537.  In  Mirza Iqbal Hussain through Askari Begum Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 516, two fixed deposit

receipts and the cash amount  of Rs.5200/- seized from the

house of the appellant and  proved to be  the subject-matter of

charge under Section 5(1)(e) of the 1947 ACt, were ordered to

be  confiscated to the State.  Responding  to the plea  of want

of jurisdiction of the Special Court to order confiscation, this

Court referring to Section 4(2) of Cr.P.C.,  held that in terms

thereof, all offences under any law other than the Indian Penal

Code  have  to  be  investigated,  inquired  into,  tried  and

otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in

the Code but subject to any enactment for the time being in

force regulating the manner or place of investigation, enquiry,

trial or otherwise dealing with such offences.   It was observed

that none of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act

provided for confiscation or  prescribed the mode by which an

order of confiscation could be passed and thus, it was ruled

that the order of confiscation  in the facts of the case could not

be held to be de hors jurisdiction.   The invocation of Section

534

Page 534

534

452 of the Code, in absence of any provision in the Prevention

of  Corruption  Act,  excluding  its  operations  to  effect

confiscation  of  the  property  involved  in  any  offence

thereunder, was thus affirmed.  

538.  After analyzing the facts and circumstances of this case

and  after  taking  into  consideration  all  the  evidence  placed

before us and the arguments put forward by all the parties, we

are of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned judgment and

order rendered by the High Court is untenable and is thus set

aside.  We have considered the facts of this case and in our

opinion,  the percentage of  disproportionate assets as 8.12%

as computed by the High Court is based on completely wrong

reading of  the evidence on record compounded by incorrect

arithmetical calculations,  as referred to herinabove. In view of

the  regnant  evidence  on  record,  unassailably  proving  the

disproportionateness of the assets, as contemplated in Section

13(1)(e) of 1988 Act, it is inessential as well to resort to any

arithmetic to compute the percentage thereof. In any view of

this  matter,  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Krishnanand

Agnihotri (supra) has no application in the facts of this case

and  therefore,  the  respondents  cannot  avail  any  benefit

535

Page 535

535

therefrom.   

539.  Both the Courts have construed all the assets, income

and expenditure  of  all  the  accused collectively.   We see  no

convincing  reason  to  adopt  a  different  course  which  even

otherwise, having regard to the charge, is not warranted.  

540.  Noticeably,  the  respondents  accused  accepted  all  the

findings  of  the  High Court.  We have  analyzed  the  evidence

adduced by the parties and we come to the conclusion that A1

to A4 have entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the

same, A1 who was a public servant at the relevant time had

come into possession of assets disproportionate to the known

sources of her income during the check period and had got the

same dispersed in the names of  A2 to A4 and the firms &

companies involved to hold these on her behalf with a masked

front. Furthermore, the the charge of abetment laid against A2

to  A4  in  the  commission  of  the  offence  by  A1  also  stands

proved.  

541.  We have noticed that:

In  State  Through Central  Bureau  of  Investigation,

New Delhi Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh, reported in (2014) 11

SCC 724,  this  Court  held  that  once  the   power  has  been

536

Page 536

536

exercised  by  the  Special  Judge  under  sub-section  (3)  of

Section 4 of the P.C. Act to proceed against non-PC offences

alongwith  PC  offences,  the   mere  fact  that  the  sole  public

servant dies after the exercise of powers under sub-section (3)

of  Section  4,  will  not  divest  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Special

Judge  or  vitiate  the  proceedings  pending  before  him.

Therefore,  we hold that as the sole public servant has died

being A1 in this matter,  in our opinion, though the appeals

against her have abated, even then A2 to A4 are liable to be

convicted and sentenced in the manner as has been held by

the Trial Judge.

The Trial Court held that even private individuals could

be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and

we  find  that  the  Trial  Court  was  right  in  coming  to  the

conclusion  relying  on  the  decision  of  Nallammal (supra),

wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a

public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that

Under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the

power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy

of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and in our opinion,

the  Trial  Court  correctly  held  in  this  matter  that  private

537

Page 537

537

individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that

they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under

Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  1988  Act  committed  by  the  public

servant.  

Furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial Court in

respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment, after scrutinizing

the  evidence  of  this  case,  is  correct  in  the  face  of  the

overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active

abetment and conspiracy by A2 to A4 in the commission of the

above offences under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.  This

would be evident from the following circumstances:-

(i) A1 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of

A2 in respect of Jaya Publications marked as Ex.P-995.

The circumstance of executing the power of attorney in

favour of  A2 indicates that with a view to keep herself

secured from legal complications, A1 executed the said

power of attorney knowing fully well that under the said

powers, A2 would be dealing with her funds credited to

her account in Jaya Publications.  

(ii) Constitution of various firms during the check period is

another  circumstance  establishing  the  conspiracy

538

Page 538

538

between  the  parties.  It  has  come  in  evidence  that  10

firms were constituted on a single day. In addition, A2

and  A3  started  independent  concerns  and  apart  from

buying  properties,  no  other  business  activity  was

undertaken  by  them.  The  circumstances  proved  in

evidence  undoubtedly  establish  that  these  firms  are

nothing  but  extentions  of  Namadhu  MGR  and  Jaya

Publications  and  they  owed  their  existence  to  the

benevolence of A1 and A2

(iii) The aforesaid firms and companies were operating from

the residence of A1 and it cannot be accepted that she

was  unaware  of  the  same  even  though  she  feigned

ignorance  about  the  activities  carried on by A2 to  A4.

They were residing with A1 without any blood relation

between them.   

(iv) Although A2 to A4 claims to have independent sources of

income  but  the  fact  of  constitution  of  firms  and

acquisition  of  large  tracts  of  land  out  of  the  funds

provided by A1 indicate that, all the accused congregated

in the house of A1 neither for social living nor A1 allowed

them free accommodation out of humanitarian concern,

539

Page 539

539

rather  the  facts  and circumstances  proved in evidence

undoubtedly point out that A2 to A4 were accommodated

in the house of A1 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy

hatched by them to hold the assets of A1.

(v) Ex.D.61 reveals that before the Income Tax Authorities,

the  representative  of  A1  himself  had  put  forth  an

argument that Rs.1 crore was advanced by A1 to Sasi

Enterprises  towards  share  capital  and  further  it  was

submitted that on the security of the said amount, loan

was  borrowed  by  A1,  and  thus  she  cannot  claim

non-involvement with the firms.

(vi) The flow of money from one account to the other proves

that  there  existed  active  conspiracy  to  launder  the

ill-gotten wealth of  A1 for purchasing properties in the

names of the firms.

(vii) The  conspiracy  among  the  accused  persons  is  also

proved by the evidence of  Sub-Registrar,  North Beach,

Sub-Registrar office-PW.159 and the evidence of PW.71

Radha Krishnan, Horticultural officer.

540

Page 540

540

In  our  opinion,  the  Trial  Court  correctly  came  to  the

conclusion  on  such  reasoning  and  we  hereby  uphold  the

same.

542.  Accordingly,  in  view  of  the  reasoning  recorded

hereinabove  in  the  preceding  paragraphs,  we  set  aside  the

judgment and order of the High Court and affirm and restore

the  judgment  of  the  Trial  Court  in  toto  against  A2  to  A4.

However, though in the process of scrutiny of the facts and the

law involved and the inextricable nexus of  A1 with A2 to A4,

reference to her role as well as the evidence pertaining to her

had been made, she having expired meanwhile, the appeals,

so far  as those relate  to her  stand abated.  Nevertheless,  to

reiterate,  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  charge  framed

against  A2  to  A4  is  proved,  the  conviction  and  sentence

recorded against them by the Trial Court is  restored in full

including the consequential directions.  

543.  Respondents A2 to A4, in view of this determination and

the  restoration  of  their  conviction  and  sentence,  would

surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The Trial Court is

hereby also ordered to take immediate steps to ensure that the

respondents  A2  to  A4  serve  out  the  remainder  of  sentence

541

Page 541

541

awarded them and take further  steps in compliance of  this

judgment, in accordance with law.

544.  The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

….....….……………………J (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)

….....…..…………………..J (Amitava Roy)

New Delhi; February 14, 2017.

542

Page 542

542

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEALATE 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

543

Page 543

543

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.314-319  OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7107-7112 of 2015)

STATE OF KARNATAKA ...       ... APPELLANT(S)

:Versus:

INDO DOHA CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS  AND ORS. ETC. ... ...      RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T  

Amitava Roy, J.

A  few  disquieting  thoughts  that  have  lingered  and

languished  in  distressed  silence  in  mentation  demand

expression  at  the  parting  with  a  pulpit  touch.  Hence,  this

supplement.   

2. The attendant facts and circumstances encountered as

above, demonstrate a deep rooted conspiratorial design to amass

vast  assets  without  any  compunction  and  hold  the  same

through shell entities to cover up the sinister trail of such illicit

acquisitions and deceive and delude the process of law. Novelty

in the outrages and the magnitude of  the  nefarious gains  as

demonstrated by the revelations in the case are, to say the least,

startling.  

544

Page 544

544

3. A growing impression in contemporary existence seems

to  acknowledge,  the  all  pervading  pestilent  presence  of

corruption almost in every walk of life, as if to rest reconciled to

the octopoid stranglehold of this malaise with helpless awe. The

common day experiences indeed do introduce one with unfailing

regularity,  the  variegated cancerous concoctions of  corruption

with fearless impunity gnawing into the frame and fabric of the

nation’s essentia.  Emboldened by the lucrative yields of such

malignant  materialism,  the  perpetrators  of  this  malady  have

tightened their  noose on the  societal  psyche.   Individual  and

collective pursuits  with curative  interventions at all  levels are

thus  indispensable  to  deliver  the  civil  order  from  the

asphyxiating snare of this escalating venality.  

4. In  the  above  alarming  backdrop  of  coeval  actuality,

judicial adjudication of a charge based on an anti-corruption law

motivated  by  the  impelling  necessities  of  time,  has  to  be

informed with the desired responsibility and the legislative vision

therefor. Any interpretation of the provisions of such law has to

be essentially purposive, in furtherance of its mission and not in

retrogression  thereof.  Innovative  nuances  of  evidential

545

Page 545

545

inadequacies,  processual  infirmities  and  interpretational

subtleties,  artfully  advanced  in  defence,  otherwise  intangible

and inconsequential, ought to be conscientiously cast aside with

moral maturity and singular sensitivity to uphold the statutory

sanctity, lest the coveted cause of justice is a causality.

5. Corruption  is  a  vice  of  insatiable  avarice  for

self-aggrandizement  by  the  unscrupulous,  taking  unfair

advantage of their power and authority and those in public office

also,  in  breach  of  the  institutional  norms,  mostly  backed  by

minatory  loyalists.  Both  the  corrupt  and  the  corrupter  are

indictable and answerable to the society and the country as a

whole. This is more particularly in re the peoples’ representatives

in public  life  committed by the  oath of  the  office  to  dedicate

oneself to the unqualified welfare of the laity, by faithfully and

conscientiously  discharging  their  duties  attached  thereto  in

accordance with the  Constitution,  free  from fear  or  favour or

affection or ill-will.  A self-serving conduct in defiance of such

solemn  undertaking  in  infringement  of  the  community’s

confidence reposed in them is therefore a betrayal of the promise

of allegiance to the Constitution and a condemnable sacrilege.

546

Page 546

546

Not only such a character is an anathema to the preambulor

promise of justice, liberty, equality, fraternal dignity, unity and

integrity of the country, which expectantly ought to animate the

life  and spirit  of  every citizen of  this  country,  but  also  is  an

unpardonable  onslaught  on  the  constitutional  religion  that

forms the bedrock of our democratic polity.

6. This  pernicious  menace  stemming  from  moral

debasement of the culpables, apart from destroying the sinews

of  the  nation’s  structural  and  moral  set-up,  forges  an  unfair

advantage of the dishonest over the principled, widening as well

the divide between the haves and have nots. Not only this has a

demoralising bearing on those who are ethical, honest, upright

and enterprising, it is visibly antithetical to the quintessential

spirit of the fundamental duty of every citizen to strive towards

excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity to

raise the nation to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

This  virulent  affliction  triggers  an  imbalance  in  the  society’s

existential stratas and stalls constructive progress in the overall

well-being of the nation, besides disrupting its dynamics of fiscal

governance. It  encourages defiance of  the rule of  law and the

547

Page 547

547

propensities  for  easy  materialistic  harvests,  whereby  the

society’s soul stands defiled, devalued and denigrated.   

7. Such is  the  militant  dominance  of  this  sprawling  evil,

that majority of the sensible, rational and discreet constituents

of  the  society  imbued  with  moral  values  and  groomed  with

disciplinal ethos find themselves in minority, besides estranged

and resigned by practical compulsions and are left dejected and

disillusioned.   A  collective,  committed  and  courageous

turnaround is thus the present day imperative to free the civil

order from the suffocative throttle of this deadly affliction.  

8. Every  citizen  has  to  be  a  partner  in  this  sacrosanct

mission, if we aspire for a stable, just and ideal social order as

envisioned  by  our  forefathers  and  fondly  cherished  by  the

numerous  self-effacing  crusaders  of  a  free  and  independent

Bharat,  pledging  their  countless  sacrifices  and  selfless

commitments for such cause.

............................................J. (AMITAVA ROY)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 14, 2017